Happy New Year!
I was greeted by great deal of green in Griffith Park today, and it was particularly lovely to look out over the whole park when I’d reached higher elevation, as the greens of various kinds stretched off in all directions, and even into the city. You’ve likely seen recent photos from me from a similar vantage point, where the dominant colours are brown and grey, so you can probably appreciate the contrast. The speed with which the green can come back in full strength never ceases to amaze me.
I’ve not done a run in this part of the park for a few weeks, for one reason or another, and so that made it all the more stark a contrast, I imagine, since there’s been a lot of rain here and there (and a lot over the last few days) and that has no doubt helped the transformation.
I’m going to take the green as an encouraging sign to press ahead (“green for go”) with this new year. There’s a great deal on my
calendar already, I’m afraid to say, (rather too much) and a lot more to fill into the gaps, and even on top of other entries, so it is going to be a year to keep a close eye on lest it entirely overwhelm me and eat me up.
I’ll try to be a bit better this year at regular posts here on the blog. As you might have guessed, the second half of last year was dominated by the new arrival in the family, and all that entails, and I simply gave up on any ambitions to post more than what you might have seen on my social media accounts (see sidebar for more). Some of those posts should have had blog counterparts, but it just was not going to happen. I’m glad of that decision, and it was an easy one to make. Now that things are a bit more manageable in the baby department, I can try to rebalance things again.
I *have* been working on a lot of things, and so could have told you a lot about some of it, and so I’ll try to do some summaries in the coming weeks. A lot of it will be physics and physics-related thoughts of course. (I’ve been working also as a consultant on some exciting TV shows and movies that will be coming to screens near you in the next few years, but I don’t think I can talk about those yet.)
Well, I’d better stop here and get on with this year. The busy starts off pretty swiftly with a trip (the first time in over three years!) to the UK for both business and personal (seeing family). I hope to update you on the trip as it unfolds, next week.
But first, time to cook a nice family dinner!
-cvj
Signatures of extras dimensions depend upon the details of your system. They can include Kaluza-Klein particles, missing energy, and other things, in the case of particle theories, and additional features if you have strings or other extended objects that can wrap around those extra dimensions. There is a large literature on this, or you might begin by reading any of the many popular books on such things. As for your report on what Maldacena may have said, I’ve nothing to say – maybe ask him.
Oops! I forgot. I have another question that you can answer. In 2018 Dr. Maldacena said that there’s experimental evidence of strings. He didn’t elaborate. Nor did he have a cite on his slide. Any idea what he’s talking about?
LOL! I figured. I rewatched your discussion with Dr. Levin and Dr. Gross so I have a question that’s in your wheelhouse. What are the signatures of extra dimensions? Thank you so much for your time, Dr. Johnson.
Hi. I‘m sorry I did not see this response earlier, and so did not respond. This is an interesting question, but sadly I cannot give a useful answer since I have not followed developments in time crystals, and so must decline to answer this on the grounds that I might incriminate myself. ?
Hi. I‘m sorry I did not see this response earlier, and so did not respond. This is an interesting question, but sadly I cannot give a useful answer since I have not followed developments in time crystals, and so must decline to answer this on the grounds that I might incriminate myself. ?
Is timelike entanglement related in any way to Wilczek’s original time crystal [not the ones they’ve found experimentally. The one from his original paper.] Timelike entanglement sounds like it’s periodic [or could be periodic if you just keep teleporting the info repeatedly] and from what I understand that’s similar to time crystals [atoms that are periodic in space and time]. I know timelike entanglement uses a massless scalar field. Is it kind of the same process?
Hi! I did not get your tweet. Feel free to ask your question here or there. Or through DM. And ignore what others think about it!
Dr. Johnson. Apologies for hijacking your comments to ask a physics question. I tweeted at you but I doubt you saw my tweet. It’s a question about time and it’s embarrassing. One physicist already made fun of me. Is there any way to message you the question? Teresa