Duda Jarek

The current explanation of this quadrupole moment using angular momentum is that single proton is simultaneously on both sides of neutron: This probability cloud means that if being able to measure position of proton, we should get 1/2 - 1/2 statistics. Doesn't it mean that there is some 'pn' - 'np' oscillation?

From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html , third vaccine has entered phase III:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html Phase III: 2 Phase II: 8 e.g. Moderna to start Phase III in July, Phase I: 10 Preclinical: 125+

Naively we have proton-neutron with only proton charged - shouldn't it have electric multipoles as proton: zero electric dipole and quadruple moment? Quadrupole moment grows with square of distance, to get 0.2859 e fm^2 for deuteron, e.g. spitting its charge into 1/2 - 1/2 e they would need to be in ~0.76 fm distance. How could we get such charge distance for 'pn'? Thinking about it as 6 quarks it seems more doable (?) ps. However, I have seen some papers claiming nontrivial structure of charge in neutron (?): positive core, negative shell, e.g. https://inspirehep.net/literature/1377841 http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/fulltext?series=Reg&vol=30&page=119 http://www.phys.utk.edu/neutron-summer-school/lectures/greene.pdf

So what happens with quarks when proton and neutron bind into deuteron? How exactly deuteron gets the quadrupole moment? Saying that it's due to angular momentum means some dynamics - what kind of dynamics?

Deuteron is p-n, so naively should have zero electric quadrupole moment. However, experimentally it turns out quite large: 0.2859 e⋅fm2 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium#Magnetic_and_electric_multipoles This Wikipedia article explains it by adding l=2 angular momentum states - should we imagine it as a hidden dynamics? Maybe as oscillations between 'pn' and 'np' by some pi+ exchange? (but shouldn't it make it a linear antenna producing EM waves?) To describe e.g. deuteron-proton scatterings they neglect quark structure, but require three-body force ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_force) - would including quarks into considerations allow to focus only on two-body forces? But what happens with quarks when biding proton and neutron into deuteron? I am working on soliton particle model suggesting that there is a shift of charge from proton to neutron for binding of deuteron, like uud-udd slightly shifting quark u toward right, d toward left - is such explanation of quadrupole moment allowed (e.g. by QCD)?

This is analogy to Madelung substitution: psi = sqrt(rho) exp(iS/hbar) to Schrodinger, getting continuity equation for density rho and Hamilton-Jacobi for actions S with additional "quantum potential" corresponding to interaction with pilot wave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory#Mathematical_formulation_for_a_single_particle

The complementary principle says we can observe only one of these natures at a time - is restriction for measurement like Heisenberg. So particles have at least one of these two natures at a time, the question is if objectively they cannot have both, like observed in experiments I have linked. Or like for the walking droplets with both natures at a time: http://dualwalkers.com/statistical.html

Most are pre-2015, more recent is e.g. anti-ferromagnet: https://math.mit.edu/~dunkel/Papers/2018SaEtAl_PRF.pdf But generally there more than 100 papers since 2016: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5&cites=13323743438210565407&scipsc= A week ago there was John Bush lecture and talked about some experiments, it should be available soon. Please elaborate - particle can have objectively both wave and corpuscular natures, or only one at a time ... what is the third option? For using both natures at a time, there is e.g. this Afshar experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment dBB uses both natures at a time, here is its probably most known experimental confirmation: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170.full More recent paper observing both natures at a time: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7407 What arguments against are there?

Lecture about these experiments by Yves Couder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvHREXA3cl0 By John Bush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MsMuQa80fI Materials and great videos: http://dualwalkers.com/ More materials about hydrodynamical QM analogues: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxvvhj0cnl1iqxr/Couder.pdf

Is there a problem with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clamp - that proteins in virus have higher energy required for fusion? Just putting mRNA into a cell, shouldn't it produce the lowest energy protein? If so, are these two configurations essentially different from anti-body perspective? Would such immune system attack infected cells and/or virus itself?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-for-30-million-by-september-if-trial-succeeds-says-sharma-11990039

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/the-ars-covid-19-vaccine-primer-100-plus-in-the-works-8-in-clinical-trials/

I see, there are many reasons China will probably be first - from 23th March: https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/china-covid-19-vaccine-trial-begins/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine

Good discussion about covid19 vaccine development: https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_berkley_the_quest_for_the_coronavirus_vaccine A radical approach to speedup: "Should scientists infect healthy people with the coronavirus to test vaccines?": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00927-3

It is hard to tell how to interpret it, but the life cost (also economical) is just too high to allow for 18 month trials to satisfy regulations - "casualties of waiting" should be included in calculations. If being at least a bit promising and excluding toxicity, I believe massive usage will start - to test it in the field in endangered regions.

https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-scientists-In-three-weeks-we-will-have-coronavirus-vaccine-619101

Time crystals first described by Frank Wilczek in 2012 have got a lot of attention, recent popular review: https://physicsworld.com/a/time-crystals-enter-the-real-world-of-condensed-matter/ If I properly understand, they would like a lowest energy state spontaneously self-organizing into a periodic process - and propose sophisticated e.g. solid state experiments, or ping-pong of Bose-Einstein condensate, which don't really seem to satisfy this defining requirement (?) But Louis De Broglie has already postulated in 1924 that with electron's mass there comes some ≈10^21 Hz intrinsic oscillation: E = mc^2 = hf = hbar ω, obtained if using E=mc^2 rest mass energy in stationary solution of Schrödinger's equation: ψ=ψ0 exp(iEt / hbar). Similar oscillations come out of solution of Dirac equation - called Zitterbewegung ("trembling motion"). Here is one of its experimental confirmation papers - by observing increased absorption when ticks of such clock agree with spatial lattice of silicon crystal target: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9225-1 Electron can be created together with positron from just 2 x 511keV energy of EM field - after which it (the field?) should self-organize into these ≈10^21 Hz intrinsic oscillations. So can we call electron an example of time crystal? What other examples of lowest energy state self-organizing into periodic process are there? ps. Beside self-organization of the lowest energy state into periodic motion (I don't see they got? in contrast to electron), they alternatively want "period doubling": that system oscillating with T period, self-organizes into 2T period process - breaking discrete time symmetry (invariance to shift by T). So these popular Couders' walkers recreating many quantum phenomena in classical systems (slides with links) also have period-doubling (can they be classified as time crystals?) - here is such plot from this paper, horizontal axis is time, lower periodic process is for liquid surface - externally enforced by some shaker, upper periodic process shows droplet trajectory - self organizing into twice larger period than enforced: But generally it seems very valuable to find analogies between spatial and temporal phenomena like crystals here. Great tool for that is Ising model: Boltzmann ensemble among spatial sequences, what mathematically is very similar to Feynman path (temporal) ensemble of QM - using this mathematical similarity, for Ising model we get Born rule, Bell violation, or analogues of quantum computers. What other phenomena can be translated between spatial and temporal dimensions?

Imperial Collage predictions for UK - to save lives with vaccine, it would be needed by November: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/

Interesting, if I properly understand, there are two forms of the virus membrane proteins: the pre-fusion ones in virus have stored energy to enable fusion with cell membrane, the post-fusion in infected cell have lower energy ... and the problem is that they are a bit different from perspective of antibodies. While it is much easier to produce the lower energy form, vaccine based on it would not protect against free virus, only would allow to mark the infected cells - these molecular clamp polypeptides are claimed to allow to produce pre-fusion ones. It is aminoacid sequence self-assembling into double helix rod-like structure ... I don't understand how it can help forming meta-stable higher energy protein forms? I see that this higher energy meta-stable form is originally prepared in ER membrane, somehow encapsulated from inside - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus : ps. It is usually assumed that there are nearly no ribosomes in cytosol (?) - that some viruses have these complex capsides e.g. using pH difference to get into the nucleus ... so is the above diagram correct, or does coronavirus RNA have to get to ER or nucleus first? Update: ok, it seems there are free ribosomes in cytosol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome#Free_ribosomes So the most questionable part in this Moderna vaccine - just mRNA if I properly understand (?), is getting it into a cell: So can free mRNA get into a cell? But generally it could only give this weaker (?) post-fusion protection (assuming they go also to external membrane - not only ER suggested by diagram above) ... and could be also made by just putting these proteins on a liposome - I have started this thread with. A related idea is just putting ACE2 on liposome - getting a trap for this virus, it couldn't resist with mutations ... ps2: Also, the diagram above suggests that fusion requires binding with multiple ACE2 receptors, hence their concentration is a critical parameter ... which is said to be modulated by some common medicines used e.g. by high blood pressure and diabetic patients - suggesting a hypothesis that this might be a reason for increased mortality for them. Good lecture with commentary:

Unfortunately we are no longer talking about a hypothetical situation from some utilitarianism economy textbook, but about a real one with daily deaths in thousands. Balancing medical trials, these deaths can be seen as casualties of waiting. mRNA is rather less toxic than the actual virus. If such vaccine would be e.g. toxic for elderly, applied to the young ones it could build a herd immunity (better than Johnson's way) - there are many ways to optimize the "economy of waiting" for the main priority here: minimization of the number of deaths. Anyway, there are probably ongoing dozens of trials to get a vaccine, in various regulatory environment (like China) - I believe that before November there will be widely used some vaccine, at least as phase III trial on millions in potentially endangered regions.

They skipped animal trials so maybe it could be quickened, especially that this is just injecting mRNA ... and that Trump wants vaccine before November elections. Personally I would gladly volunteer to such trials if having an opportunity - in current situation of likely soon being infected with the real virus.

Schrödinger equation assumes existence of wavefunction (realism), is defined by using values and derivatives - how does it differ from locality? So does it satisfy assumptions of Bell theorem - leading to inequalities which are violated by physics? If you solve it with Feynman path integrals instead, this issues vanishes as we have kind of two hidden variables (amplitudes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_vector_formalism It is visualized in the last slide here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m1m8uq0gygo2lzt/Ising.pdf : The bottom right is looking simple but thought provoking question: what stationary probability distribution on [0,1] should we expect? Any diffusion, chaos says uniform rho=1 ... QM says localized rho ~ sin^2. Uni-directional uniform path ensemble gives rho ~ sin ... finally symmetric ensemble of complete paths gives required sin^2.

From today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/first-participant-us-coronavirus-vaccine-trial-moderna-dose

"Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals" https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/11/researchers-rush-to-start-moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-trial-without-usual-animal-testing/ Good video about mechanisms of COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeh054-Hx1U