Nowadays, if you have a microscope, you probably have a camera of some sort attached. [Applied Science] shows how you can add an array of tiny LEDs and some compute power to produce high-resolution images — higher than you can get with the microscope on its own. The idea is to illuminate each LED in the array individually and take a picture. Then, an algorithm constructs a higher-resolution image from the collected images. You can see the results and an explanation in the video below.
You’d think you could use this to enhance a cheap microscope, but the truth is you need a high-quality microscope to start with. In addition, color cameras may not be usable, so you may have to find or create a monochrome camera.
The code for the project is on GitHub. The LEDs need to be close to a point source, so smaller is better, and that determines what kind of LEDs are usable. Of course, the LEDs go through the sample, so this is suitable for transmissive microscopes, not metallurgical ones, at least in the current incarnation.
Seminar entitled “A minimal SM/LCDM cosmology”, given by Neil Turok (University of Edinburgh and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics), November 21st, 2024, during the VI Amazonian Symposium on Physics (https://www.ppgf.eventos.ufpa.br/VIASP).
What is faster than the fastest hypersonic missile?, well a beam of light, microwaves or subatomic particles but they are impossibly small and have almost no mass compared to a projectile. However, if you have enough energy you can make a weapon that works at the speed of light and in theory can shoot down anything projectile weapon we have now. So why don’t we have phasers like in Star Trek?, in this video we look at Directed Energy Weapons and what they can do now and in the future.
Science fiction writer and historian HG Wells spoke of heat ray in war of the world’s.
The US-China rivalry has brought the future into today and weapons that were impossible to build before have become a reality — all in a bid to destroy each other. Laser weapons and hypersonic missiles — weapons only seen in sci-fi movies, are now fitting up to be the weapons of choice in a future conflict that could destroy the world as we know it. Which weapon will come out on top? In this video, we’ll find out — as it could be the single greatest indicator of which country would win in the race for world dominance between the US and China.
Transiently reprogramming human fibroblasts up to the maturation phase rejuvenates cells according to several aging markers whilst enabling them to return to their original identity.
“I give you God’s view,” said Toby Cubitt, a physicist turned computer scientist at University College London and part of the vanguard of the current charge into the unknowable, and “you still can’t predict what it’s going to do.”
Eva Miranda, a mathematician at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC) in Spain, calls undecidability a “next-level chaotic thing.”
Undecidability means that certain questions simply cannot be answered. It’s an unfamiliar message for physicists, but it’s one that mathematicians and computer scientists know well. More than a century ago, they rigorously established that there are mathematical questions that can never be answered, true statements that can never be proved. Now physicists are connecting those unknowable mathematical systems with an increasing number of physical ones and thereby beginning to map out the hard boundary of knowability in their field as well.
Get MagellanTV here: https://try.magellantv.com/arvinash and get an exclusive offer for our viewers: an extended, month-long trial, FREE. MagellanTV has the largest and best collection of Science content anywhere, including Space, Physics, Technology, Nature, Mind and Body, and a growing collection of 4K. This new streaming service has 3,000 great documentaries. Check out our personal recommendation and MagellanTV’s exclusive playlists: https://www.magellantv.com/genres/sci…
QHT Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.09356.pdf. Non-technical Explanation: https://jespergrimstrup.org/research/.… 0:00 — Does reductionism end? 2:24 — Why there probably is a final theory 7:00 — Quantum Holonomy theory 12:53 — Surprising implications of QHT Does a final theory exist that can end our reductionist probing into ever shorter distances? Or is there no end to reductionism? There should be an end point because as the object of our measurement gets small enough, the high energies needed to measure it will create a black hole. And no information can get out of a black hole. So there is a limit to measurable reality. We have united seemingly dissimilar forces in the past. For example, the unification of electricity and magnetism, and weak and electromagnetic forces. To continue this reductionism, we want a theory that unifies all known forces. Today we have two overarching theories for forces: Einstein’s Theory of General relativity for gravity, and The standard model for the electromagnetic, weak and strong force. The problem is that the standard model is a quantum field theory, but general relativity is a classical field theory. The two are not compatible. Past attempts for a theory of everything include string theory and loop quantum gravity. But string theory does not produce any falsifiable results. Its mathematics is too flexible. Loop quantum gravity only addresses gravity and not the other forces. Quantum Holonomy Theory or QHT was pioneered by two Danish scientists, physicist Jesper Grimstrup and mathematician Johannes Aastrup. It begins by asking question, how can a theory be immune to further scientific reductions, so that reductionism ends? The presumptive idea is that the simplest way to describe the universe is objects moving around in three dimensional space. The theory is based on the mathematics of empty 3-dimensional space, just space, not even time. So the starting point of QHT is the mathematics of moving stuff around. There are an infinite many ways you can move an arbitrary object between points in space. Any one of these combination of movements from point A to point B, is called a recipe. A recipe for a combination of movements in physics is called a gauge field. A gauge field is the recipe of how to move one particle from point A to point B. Gauge fields are what makes up the forces in the standard model. Since they are recipes of moving things around in space, they represent how things interact with each other, or how forces work. The sum of all mathematical recipes is called the “Configuration space” of these recipes. The key insight in QHT is that the this space has a geometry and stores a lot of information. Geometry means that two different recipes for moving stuff around can be said have a relationship between each other. This is complicated but can be proven mathematically. Grimstrup and Aastrup found is that this geometry results in mathematics that looks almost identical to the mathematics that we already know from quantum field theory – this includes the mathematics of the Standard model. From the geometry you can obtain a a Bott-Dirac operator. The square of this operator gives us the Hamiltonian for both matter particles and force carrying particles. The Hamiltonian represents the formula for all the energy in a system. #QHT #Theoryofeverything Once you have a description of the energies of all the matter and forces in the universe, that’s all you need to need to understand how matter interacts in the universe, and is essentially everything we would need to describe the universe, once all the math is worked out. By simply considering the movements of objects in empty space, all this rich mathematics that appears to resemble the known mathematics of the universe comes out. If QHT is correct, then here are the implications: 1) The universe is quantum because the only way you can describe things moving in empty space is via quantization. 2) Gravity is not quantized, so there is no theory of quantum gravity. 3) No singularities can exist 4) There is no infinite curvature of space-time inside black holes 5) The universe could not have come from nothing, but from a prior universe — a Big Bounce! Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=17… 0:00 — Does reductionism end? 2:24 — Why there probably is a final theory. 7:00 — Quantum Holonomy theory. 12:53 — Surprising implications of QHT Does a final theory exist that can end our reductionist probing into ever shorter distances? Or is there no end to reductionism? There should be an end point because as the object of our measurement gets small enough, the high energies needed to measure it will create a black hole. And no information can get out of a black hole. So there is a limit to measurable reality.
We have united seemingly dissimilar forces in the past. For example, the unification of electricity and magnetism, and weak and electromagnetic forces. To continue this reductionism, we want a theory that unifies all known forces. Today we have two overarching theories for forces: Einstein’s Theory of General relativity for gravity, and The standard model for the electromagnetic, weak and strong force.
Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) do not attain a stable secondary or tertiary structure and rapidly change their conformation, making structure prediction particularly challenging. Although these proteins exhibit chaotic and “disordered” structures, they still perform essential functions.
IDPs comprise approximately 30% of the human proteome and play important functional roles in transcription, translation, and signaling. Many mutations linked to neurological diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), are located in intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDRs).
Powerful machine-learning algorithms, including AlphaFold and RoseTTAFold, cannot provide realistic representations of these ‘disordered’ and ‘chaotic’ protein regions as a whole. This is because they have not been trained on such data and because these proteins exhibit inherent dynamic behavior, adopting a range of conformations rather than a single stable one.
