Litecoin, Stellar’s Lumen, and Tron’s TRX Daily Analysis 13/05/20 – Yahoo Finance

Litecoin

Litecoin rose by 1.83% on Tuesday. Reversing a 1.38% fall from Monday, Litecoin ended the day at $42.26.

A bullish morning saw Litecoin rally to an early afternoon intraday high $42.87 before hitting reverse.

Falling short of the first major resistance level at $43.33, Litecoin slid to a late intraday low $41.31.

Steering clear of the first major support level at $39.53, Litecoin recovered to $42 levels to wrap up the day in the green.

At the time of writing, Litecoin was up by 0.09% to $42.30. A bullish start to the day saw Litecoin rise from an early morning low $41.99 to a high $42.44.

Litecoin left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Litecoin would need to move through to $42.50 levels to support a run at the first major resistance level at $42.98.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to break out from Tuesdays high $42.87.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level, and Tuesdays high would likely limit any upside.

Failure to move through to $42.50 levels could see Litecoin struggle later in the day.

A fall through to sub-$42.15 levels would bring the first major support level at $41.42 into play.

Barring another extended crypto sell-off, however, Litecoin should steer clear the second major support level at $40.59.

Major Support Level: $41.42

Major Resistance Level: $42.98

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $62

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $78

62% FIB Retracement Level: $104

Stellars Lumen rallied by 12.16% on Tuesday. Reversing a 3.56% slide from Monday, Stellars Lumen ended the day at $0.069986.

A bullish day saw Stellars Lumen rally from an early intraday low $0.062399 to a late afternoon intraday high $0.070164.

Stellars Lumen broke through the first major resistance level at $0.06502 and the second major resistance level at $0.06741.

A late pullback saw Stellars Lumen fall to $0.06750 levels before wrapping up the day at $0.069 levels.

The second major resistance level at $0.06741 limited the downside late in the day.

At the time of writing, Stellars Lumen was 0.28% to $0.070181. A mixed start to the day saw Stellars Lumen rise to an early morning high $0.070500 before falling to a low $0.069633.

Stellars Lumen left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Story continues

Stellars Lumen would need to move through to $0.07100 levels to bring the first major resistance level at $0.07274 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Stellars Lumen to break out from the morning high $0.070500.

Barring an extended crypto rally, resistance at $0.071 would likely leave Stellars Lumen short of the first major resistance level.

Failure to move through to $0.07100 levels could see Stellars Lumen hit reverse.

A fall through to sub-$0.06760 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.06482 into play.

Barring an extended crypto sell-off, however, Stellars Lumen should steer clear of sub-$0.060 levels on the day.

Major Support Level: $0.064820

Major Resistance Level: $0.072740

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1051

38% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1433

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.2050

Trons TRX rose by 3.23% on Tuesday. Reversing a 2.02% decline from Monday, Trons TRX ended the day at $0.014547.

A mixed start to the day saw Trons TRX fall to an early morning intraday low $0.013995 before making a move.

Steering clear of the first major support level at $0.01330, Trons TRX rallied to a late morning intraday high $0.014963.

Trons TRX broke through the first major resistance level at $0.01457 before sliding back to $0.01420 levels.

Finding late support from the broader market, however, Trons TRX moved back through to $0.0144 levels.

At the time of writing, Trons TRX was up by 1.63% to $0.014784. A bullish start to the day saw Trons TRX rise from an early morning low $0.014593 to a high $0.014784.

Trons TRX left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Trons TRX would need to avoid sub-$0.01450 levels to support a run at the first major resistance level at $0.01501.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Trons TRX to break out from the Tuesdays high $0.014963.

Barring an extended crypto rebound, the first major resistance level and Tuesdays high $0.014963 would likely limit any upside.

Failure to move through to avoid sub-$0.01450 levels could see Trons TRX fall back into the red.

A fall through the morning low to sub-$0.01450 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.01404 into play.

Barring another crypto meltdown, however, Trons TRX should steer clear of the second major support level at $0.01353.

Major Support Level: $0.01404

Major Resistance Level: $0.01501

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0322

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0452

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0663

Please let us know what you think in the comments below

Thanks, Bob

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

Read more from the original source:

Litecoin, Stellar's Lumen, and Tron's TRX Daily Analysis 13/05/20 - Yahoo Finance

Litecoin, Stellars Lumen, and Trons TRX Daily Analysis 12/05/20 – Yahoo Finance

Litecoin

Litecoin fell by 1.38% on Monday. Following on from Sundays 10.22% tumble, Litecoin ended the day at $41.52.

A bullish start to the day saw Litecoin strike an early morning intraday high $43.14 before hitting reverse.

Falling short of the first major resistance level at $46.11, Litecoin slid to a late afternoon intraday low $39.34.

Litecoin came within range of the first major support level at $39.09 before visiting $42 levels late in the day. A late pullback left Litecoin in the red.

At the time of writing, Litecoin was down by 0.05% to $41.50. A mixed start to the day saw Litecoin rise to an early morning high $42.03 before falling to a low $41.35.

Litecoin left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Litecoin would need to move through to $42 levels to support a run the first major resistance level at $43.33.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to break out from Mondays high $43.14.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level, and Monday high would likely limit any upside.

Failure to move through to $42 levels could see Litecoin struggle later in the day.

A fall through the morning low $41.35 would bring the first major support level at $39.53 into play.

Barring another extended crypto sell-off, however, Litecoin should steer clear the second major support level at $37.53.

Major Support Level: $39.53

Major Resistance Level: $43.33

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $62

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $78

62% FIB Retracement Level: $104

Stellars Lumen slid by 3.56% on Monday. Following on from a 10.00% tumble on Sunday, Stellars Lumen ended the day at $0.062631.

Bearish throughout the day, Stellars Lumen fell from an early morning intraday high $0.065014 to a late afternoon intraday low $0.0602238.

Stellars Lumen left the major support and resistance levels untested before briefly revisiting $0.062 levels.

A bearish end to the day, however, left Stellars Lumen deep in the red.

At the time of writing, Stellars Lumen was down by 0.36% to $0.062405. A mixed start to the day saw Stellars Lumen fall to an early morning low $0.062399 before striking a high $0.062405.

Stellars Lumen left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Story continues

Stellars Lumen would need to move through to $0.06260 levels to bring the first major resistance level at $0.06502 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Stellars Lumen to break out from Mondays high $0.065014.

Barring an extended crypto rebound, the first major resistance level would likely limit any upside.

Failure to move back through to $0.06260 levels could see Stellars Lumen fall deeper into the red.

A fall through the morning low $0.062399 would bring the first major support level at $0.06023 into play.

Barring an extended crypto sell-off, however, Stellars Lumen should steer clear of sub-$0.060 levels on the day.

Major Support Level: $0.06023

Major Resistance Level: $0.06502

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1051

38% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1433

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.2050

Trons TRX fell by 2.02% on Monday. Following on from a 10.77% tumble on Sunday, Trons TRX ended the day at $0.01400.

A mixed start to the day saw Trons TRX rise to an early morning intraday high $0.014441 before hitting reverse.

Falling short of the first major resistance level at $0.01592, Trons TRX slid to a late afternoon intraday low $0.013172.

Steering clear of the first major support level at $0.01286, Trons TRX recovered to $0.014 levels.

At the time of writing, Trons TRX was down by 0.04% to $0.013995. A mixed start to the day saw Trons TRX rise to an early morning high $0.014092 before falling to a low $0.013995.

Trons TRX left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Trons TRX would need to move back through to $0.014 levels to support a run at the first major resistance level at $0.01457.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Trons TRX to break out from Mondays high $0.014442.

Barring an extended crypto rebound, the first major resistance level and Mondays high $0.014442 would likely limit any upside.

Failure to move through to $0.014 levels could see Trons TRX fall slide deeper into the red.

A fall through the morning low to sub-$0.01390 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.01330 into play.

Barring another crypto meltdown, however, Trons TRX should steer clear of sub-$0.013 levels.

Major Support Level: $0.01330

Major Resistance Level: $0.01457

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0322

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0452

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0663

Please let us know what you think in the comments below

Thanks, Bob

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

See the article here:

Litecoin, Stellars Lumen, and Trons TRX Daily Analysis 12/05/20 - Yahoo Finance

Litecoin, Stellars Lumen, and Trons TRX Daily Analysis 11/05/20 – Yahoo Finance

Litecoin

Litecoin tumbled by 10.22% on Sunday. Following on from a 1.66% fall on Saturday, Litecoin ended the week down 12.48% to $42.15.

It was a particularly bearish start to the day. Litecoin slumped from an intraday high $47.00 to a 1st hour low $40.03.

Litecoin fell through the major support levels before briefly recovering to $43 levels.

The partial recovery saw Litecoin break back through the third major support level at $42.65 before sliding to a late afternoon intraday low $39.98.

Litecoin fell back through the third major support level before wrapping up the day at $42 levels. The third major support level pinned Litecoin back late on.

At the time of writing, Litecoin was up by 0.28% to $42.27. A mixed start to the day saw Litecoin rise from an early morning low $42.03 to a high $43.14.

Litecoin left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Litecoin would need to move back through to $43 levels to support a run the first major resistance level at $46.11.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to break out from the morning high $43.14.

Barring an extended crypto rally, resistance at $45 would likely leave Litecoin short of the first major resistance level.

Failure to move through to $43 levels could see Litecoin struggle later in the day.

A fall through the morning low $42.03 would bring the first major support level at $39.09 into play.

Barring another extended crypto sell-off, however, Litecoin should steer clear of sub-$40 on the day.

Major Support Level: $39.09

Major Resistance Level: $46.11

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $62

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $78

62% FIB Retracement Level: $104

Stellars Lumen tumbled by 10.00% on Sunday. Following on from a 0.66% fall on Saturday, Stellars Lumen ended the week down 12.28% to $0.064198.

Tracking the broader market, Stellars Lumen slid from an intraday high $0.071329 to a 1st-hourintraday low $0.058794.

Stellars Lumen slid through the major support levels before recovering through the morning to $0.065 levels.

A 2nd sell-off, however, saw Stellars Lumen slide back to $0.060 levels before finding late support.

Stellars Lumen failed to break back through the third major support level at $0.06815 on the day.

At the time of writing, Stellars Lumen was up by 0.33% to $0.064411. A mixed start to the day saw Stellars Lumen rise to an early morning high $0.065014 before falling to a low $0.064000.

Stellars Lumen left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Story continues

Stellars Lumen would need to move back through to $0.06480 levels to bring the first major resistance level at $0.07077 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Stellars Lumen to break out from the morning high $0.065014.

Barring an extended crypto rebound, resistance at $0.070 would likely leave the first major resistance level out of play.

Failure to move back through to $0.06480 levels could see Stellars Lumen hit reverse.

A fall through the morning low $0.06400 would bring the first major support level at $0.05819 into play.

Barring an extended crypto sell-off, however, Stellars Lumen should steer clear of sub-$0.060 levels on the day.

Major Support Level: $0.05819

Major Resistance Level: $0.07077

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1051

38% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1433

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.2050

Trons TRX tumbled by 10.77% on Sunday. Following on from a 0.43% decline on Saturday, Trons TRX ended the week down 10.50% to $0.014323.

The Sunday meltdown saw Trons TRX slide from an intraday high $0.016052 to a 1st-hour intraday low $0.01300.

Trons TRX fell through the days major support levels before recovering to $0.014 levels.

Falling short of the third major support level at $0.01522, Trons TRX slid back to $0.01350 levels before finding late support.

At the time of writing, Trons TRX was up by 0.14% to $0.014343. A mixed start to the day saw Trons TRX rise to an early morning high $0.014441 before falling to a low $0.014258.

Trons TRX left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Trons TRX would need to move through to $0.01450 levels to support a run at the first major resistance level at $0.01592.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Trons TRX to break out from the morning high $0.014441.

Barring an extended crypto rebound, resistance at $0.015 would likely leave Trons TRX short of the first major resistance level.

Failure to move through to $0.01450 levels could see Trons TRX fall slide into the red.

A fall through the morning low $0.014258 would bring sub-$0.014 levels into play before any recovery.

Barring another crypto meltdown, however, Trons TRX should steer clear of the first major support level at $0.01286.

Major Support Level: $0.01286

Major Resistance Level: $0.01592

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0322

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0452

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0663

Please let us know what you think in the comments below

Thanks, Bob

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

Read the original:

Litecoin, Stellars Lumen, and Trons TRX Daily Analysis 11/05/20 - Yahoo Finance

Litecoin, Stellar’s Lumen, and Tron’s TRX – Daily Analysis 18/05/20 – FX Empire

Litecoin

Litecoin rose by 1.11% on Sunday. Following on from a 1.33% gain on Saturday, Litecoin ended the week up by 3.78% to $43.69.

A bullish morning saw Litecoin rally from an intraday low $43.09 to a mid-day intraday high $44.50.

Litecoin broke through the first major resistance level at $43.93 to come up against the second major resistance level at $44.60.

A bearish 2nd half of the day saw Litecoin fall back through to $43 levels to limit the upside on the day. The reversal also saw Litecoin fall back through the first major resistance level at $43.93.

At the time of writing, Litecoin was up by 1.51% to $44.35. A bullish start to the day saw Litecoin rise from an early morning low $43.64 to a high $44.52.

Litecoin broke through the first major resistance level at $44.43 early on.

Litecoin would need to move back through the first major resistance level to bring the second major resistance level at $45.18 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to break out from the morning high $44.52.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and morning high would likely limit any upside.

Failure to move through the first major resistance level could see Litecoin struggle later in the day.

A fall back through to sub-$43.80 levels would bring the first major support level at $43.01 into play.

Barring an extended crypto sell-off, however, Litecoin should steer clear the second major support level at $42.34.

Major Support Level: $43.01

Major Resistance Level: $44.43

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $62

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $78

62% FIB Retracement Level: $104

Stellars Lumen rose by 1.51% on Sunday. Following on from a 1.85% gain on Saturday, Stellars Lumen ended the week up by 6.23% to $0.068994.

A bullish morning saw Stellars Lumen rally from an intraday low $0.067968 to an early afternoon intraday high $0.071519.

Stellars Lumen broke through the first major resistance level at $0.06889 and the second major resistance level at $0.06966.

Falling short of the third major resistance level at $0.07156, Stellars Lumen slid back to sub-$0.069 levels.

The pullback saw Stellars Lumen fall back through the second major resistance level before steadying.

At the time of writing, Stellars Lumen was up by 1.46% to $0.069999. A bullish start to the day saw Stellars Lumen rise from an early morning low $0.068782 to a high $0.069999.

Stellars Lumen left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

Stellars Lumen would need to move back through to $0.070 levels to bring the first major resistance level at $0.07102 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Stellars Lumen to break out from $0.07050 levels.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level would likely limit any upside.

Failure to move through to $0.070 levels could see Stellars Lumen fall into the red.

A fall through to sub-$0.06950 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.06747 into play.

Barring an extended crypto sell-off, however, Stellars Lumen should steer clear of sub-$0.067 support levels.

Major Support Level: $0.06747

Major Resistance Level: $0.07102

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1051

38% FIB Retracement Level: $0.1433

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.2050

Trons TRX rose by 0.34% on Sunday. Following on from a 0.76% gain from Saturday, Trons TRX ended the week up by 4.93% to $0.014993.

A relatively bullish start to the day saw Trons TRX rise to a mid-day intraday high $0.015154.

Trons TRX broke through the first major resistance level at $0.01513 before hitting reverse.

The reversal saw Trons TRX slide to a late intraday low $0.014918. In spite of the reversal, Trons TRX steered well clear of the first major support level at $0.01477.

At the time of writing, Trons TRX was up by 1.06% to $0.015151. A bullish start to the day saw Trons TRX rise from an early morning low $0.015016 to a high $0.015151.

Trons TRX broke through the first major resistance level at $0.01513 early on.

Trons TRX would need to avoid sub-$0.015 levels to support a run at the second major resistance level at $0.01526.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Trons TRX to break out from the first major resistance level at $0.01513.

Barring an extended crypto rebound, the first major resistance level and Sundays high $0.015154 would likely limit any upside.

Failure to avoid sub-$0.015 levels could see Trons TRX struggle later in the day.

A fall through the morning low to sub-$0.015 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.01489 into play.

Barring an extended crypto sell-off, however, Trons TRX should steer clear of the second major support level at $0.01479.

Major Support Level: $0.01489

Major Resistance Level: $0.01513

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0322

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0452

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.0663

Please let us know what you think in the comments below

Thanks, Bob

See the rest here:

Litecoin, Stellar's Lumen, and Tron's TRX - Daily Analysis 18/05/20 - FX Empire

Litecoin price analysis: Starting to turn bearish – Capital.com

Litecoin is under pressure over the short and medium term after the LTC/USD pair plunged lower over the weekend alongside the broader cryptocurrency market.

Litecoin price analysis shows that a break under the $38.00 support level could trigger even more downside in the seventh largest cryptocurrency.

Litecoin has reversed back towards the $40.00 support level after the cryptocurrency suffered another flash crash last weekend.

Litecoin technical analysis shows that a bearish breakout from a large triangle pattern is close to taking place on the daily time frame.

The daily time frame shows that price is starting to test towards the bottom of a large triangle pattern, around the $41.00 level.

According to the size of the triangle pattern, a breakout below the $41.00 level could cause the LTC/USD pair to fall towards the $20.00 level.

It is worth noting that the LTC/USD pair has a bearish medium-term bias while price trades below the $51.50 level.

Saudi vs Russia oil price war

Litecoin technical analysis shows that the cryptocurrency only has a bearish short-term bias while price trades below the $44.00 level.

The four-hour time frame shows that a head-and-shoulders pattern appears to be taking shape.

According to the size of the bearish pattern, the LTC/USD pair could fall towards the $22.00 level over the short term.

Watch out for a steep decline in the LTC/USD pair if price starts to hold below the neckline of the pattern, around the $37.00 level.

Litecoin technical analysis shows that a bearish reversal pattern may be forming. The higher time frames also show that a triangle pattern breakout is close to happening on the daily time frame.

Ready to get started?

Download Capital.com

Original post:

Litecoin price analysis: Starting to turn bearish - Capital.com

Litecoin (LTC) Down $0.19 On 4 Hour Chart, Started Today Up 1.19%; in a Downtrend Over Past 14 Days – CFDTrading

Litecoin 4 Hour Price Update

Updated May 18, 2020 03:18 AM GMT (11:18 PM EST)

Litecoin entered the current 4 hour candle at 45.56 in US dollars, up 4.28% ($1.87) from the last 4 hour candle. Out of the 5 instruments in the Top Cryptos asset class, Litecoin ended up ranking 3rd for the four-hour candle in terms of price change relative to the last 4 hour candle.

Litecoin is up 1.02% ($0.44) since the previous day, marking the 2nd day in a row an upward move has occurred. The change in price came along side change in volume that was up 0.74% from previous day, but down 16.26% from the Sunday of last week. Out of the 5 instruments in the Top Cryptos asset class, Litecoin ended up ranking 4th for the day in terms of price change relative to the previous day. Here is a daily price chart of Litecoin.

Moving average crossovers are always interesting, so lets start there: Litecoin crossed above its 50 day moving average yesterday. The clearest trend exists on the 14 day timeframe, which shows price moving down over that time. For additional context, note that price has gone up 17 out of the past 30 days.

Over on Twitter, here were the top tweets about Litecoin:

Announcements for #Litecoin are not geared towards gaining a higher price. Theyre geared towards informing anyone interested on new information that is relevant to its existence. What anyone does with the info is up to the individual.

7/13/2012 was the first known tracked amount of 24 hr trx sent activity for #Litecoin. It totaled $8,8235/17/2020, 24 hr trx sent total was $123+ mlnA 13,940% increase in #LTC $ trx volume per 24 hrs

@crypto_skillz @crypto_king_win @DaddyCool1991 @johnkim77 @ihatecodee People like you will never realize that people like myself have nothing to do with the Foundation, we just choose to work on #Litecoin because we like it. And by the way, I am a payment processor and work with actual payment companies building new solutions.

View post:

Litecoin (LTC) Down $0.19 On 4 Hour Chart, Started Today Up 1.19%; in a Downtrend Over Past 14 Days - CFDTrading

The Crypto Daily Movers and Shakers -18/05/20 – FX Empire

Bitcoin rallied by 3.01% on Sunday. Following on from a 0.86% gain on Saturday, Bitcoin ended the week up by 10.86% to $9,668.2.

It was a bullish start to the day. Bitcoin rallied from an early morning intraday low $9,329.7 to a mid-afternoon intraday high $9,883.5 before hitting reverse.

Bitcoin broke through the first major resistance level at $9,571.33 and the second major resistance level at $9,754.67.

A late pullback saw Bitcoin fall through the second major resistance level to $9,601.9 before finding support.

The near-term bearish trend, formed at late June 2019s swing hi $13,764.0, remained firmly intact, reaffirmed by the March swing lo $4,000.

For the bulls, Bitcoin would need to break out from $10,000 levels to form a near-term bullish trend.

Across the rest of the majors, it was a mixed end to the week.

Ethereum led the rest of the pack, rallying by 3.27%.

Binance Coin (+1.31), Bitcoin Cash ABC (+0.90%), Bitcoin Cash SV (+1.12%), Cardanos ADA (+0.41%), Litecoin (+1.11%), Ripples XRP (+0.79%), Stellars Lumen (+1.51%), and Trons TRX (+0.34%) also saw green.

Moneros XMR (-0.14%) and Tezos (-0.49%) bucked the trend on the day, with relatively minor losses.

It was a bullish week for the majors, however. Ethereum and Moneros XMR rallied by 10.34% and by 10.58% to lead the way.

Binance Coin (+5.79%), Cardanos ADA (+7.33%), EOS (+6.99%), Stellars Lumen (+6.23%) also found strong support.

Bitcoin Cash ABC (+2.44%), Bitcoin Cash SV (+3.48%), Litecoin (+3.78%), Ripples XRP (+2.07%), Tezos (+2.45%), and Trons TRX (+4.93%) trailed the front runners.

Through the week, the crypto total market cap rose from a Monday low $229.41bn to a Thursday high $265.28bn. At the time of writing, the total market cap stood at $265.59bn.

Bitcoins dominance visited sub-67% levels before recovering. At the time of writing, Bitcoins dominance stood at 67.5%.

24-hour trading volumes rose to an early Monday high $206.86bn before easing back to sub-$140bn levels. Interest picked up on mid-week, however, with volumes revisiting $190bn levels before easing back. At the time of writing, 24-hr volumes stood at $129.67bn.

Follow this link:

The Crypto Daily Movers and Shakers -18/05/20 - FX Empire

Ethereum, XRP, and Litecoin Prices Wait for Bitcoins Halving – Crypto Briefing

Following a massive retracement over the weekend, the cryptocurrency market appears to consolidate as it waits for volatility to strike back. Key Takeaways

With Bitcoins halvingjust a few hours away, the cryptocurrency market appears to have entered a stagnation phase. Ethereum, XRP, and Litecoin are currently held by critical support levels that will determine where they are headed next.

Ethers price action appears to be contained within an ascending parallel channel that developed on its daily chart since the March crypto market free-fall.

Each time ETH rises to the upper boundary of this channel, it retraces down to hit the lower boundary, and from this point, it bounces back up again. This is consistent with the characteristics of a channel.

Under this premise, the Apr. 30 high of $227 represented a retest of the top of the channel.

This resistance barrier prevented ETH from further advance as it has tested this high over the past three months. Subsequently, resulting in a pullback to the bottom of the channel, which coincides with the downward impulse seen over the weekend.

If the ascending parallel channel continues to hold, it is reasonable to expect a bounce back to the middle or upper boundary of this technical pattern.

Such a bullish outlook seems very likely considering the strength that the lower boundary of the channel has shown.

Alongside this barrier sit the 50-, 100-, and 200-day exponential moving averages, which provide an extra layer of support.

Therefore, a spike in demand from the current price levels could see Ethereum climbing to the middle or the top of the channel once again.

These resistance walls sit at $227 and $250, respectively.

An increase in the selling pressure behind Ethereum can still jeopardize such an optimistic scenario.

If this were to happen, a key level of support to watch out for is the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement level that is located around $174.

A daily candlestick close below the aforementioned support barrier could be catastrophic for Ethereum as it increases the odds for a steeper decline towards $142 or even $119.

Crypto Briefing has repeatedly warned investors about the strength of XRPs 100- and 200-day moving averages.

As predicted, this supply zone was able to reject Ripples token from posting more gains. Consequently, putting a stop to the bullish momentum seen in late April.

Now, the cross-border remittances token has dropped to try to find support around its 50-day moving average. This support level appears to be holding steady, but may be weakening.

Indeed, the moving average convergence divergence, or MACD, recently turned bearish within the same timeframe. This technical indicator follows the path of a trend and calculates its momentum.

As the 12-day exponential moving average moved below the 26-day exponential moving average, the odds for a further decline increased.

Like Ether, the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement level is also key to XRPs trend.

A spike in sell orders that allows the international settlements coin to close below the support area ahead may trigger panic among investors.

Such a bearish impulse would likely see XRP crash to $0.14 or even make a new yearly low as trading veteran Peter Brandt estimated.

Nonetheless, XRP may continue to consolidate around the current price level, which could see a sudden rise in demand.

If so, an increase in the buying pressure behind this cryptocurrency might allow it to bounce back to the 100- or 200-day moving averages and retest their resistance.

The 100-day exponential moving average has proven to be a major resistance wall impeding bulls from taking control of Litecoins price action. On eight different occasions over the past two weeks, this barrier was contained LTC from advancing further up.

The most recent rejection from this resistance level was so significant that it flipped the parabolic stop and reverse, or SAR, on the 1-day chart. Every time the stop and reversal points move above the price of an asset, it is considered to be a negative sign.

The recent parabolic SAR flip estimates that the direction of Litecoins trend changed from bullish to bearish.

The TD sequential indicator within the same time frame adds credence to the pessimistic outlook.

This technical index presented a sell signal the moment the current red two candlestick began trading below the close of the preceding red one candlestick.

Due to the strength of the setup trendline and the 100-day exponential moving average, the range between these support and resistance levels is a reasonable no-trade zone.

A daily candlestick close below $40 or above $48 will determine where Litecoin is headed next.

Regardless of the popular belief that Bitcoins halving is the catalyst for a full-blown bull market, data shows that in the short-term that might not necessarily be the case.

In a recent report, OKEx analyzed how Bitcoin and other altcoins behaved before and after their respective halvings. The Malta-based cryptocurrency exchange concluded that this event usually turns into a buy the rumor, sell news scheme.

Smart investors usually long before halving, short on the halving date, and unwind the final position three days after halving, according to the report. The exchange added:

The theory behind it is that due to the heated discussion and news on halving, the demand for that coin will increase prior to the event; but as the news dies down after it halves, the buying pressure is gone and the coin price would drop, said OKEx.

Under this premise, one could argue that the cryptocurrency market is poised for a steeper decline.

Thus, it is very important to pay close attention to the support levels mentioned in this analysis. Waiting for confirmation is one of the best ways to avoid getting caught on the wrong side of the trend.

The information on or accessed through this website is obtained from independent sources we believe to be accurate and reliable, but Decentral Media, Inc. makes no representation or warranty as to the timeliness, completeness, or accuracy of any information on or accessed through this website. Decentral Media, Inc. is not an investment advisor. We do not give personalized investment advice or other financial advice. The information on this website is subject to change without notice. Some or all of the information on this website may become outdated, or it may be or become incomplete or inaccurate. We may, but are not obligated to, update any outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate information.

You should never make an investment decision on an ICO, IEO, or other investment based on the information on this website, and you should never interpret or otherwise rely on any of the information on this website as investment advice. We strongly recommend that you consult a licensed investment advisor or other qualified financial professional if you are seeking investment advice on an ICO, IEO, or other investment. We do not accept compensation in any form for analyzing or reporting on any ICO, IEO, cryptocurrency, currency, tokenized sales, securities, or commodities.

See full terms and conditions.

Read more from the original source:

Ethereum, XRP, and Litecoin Prices Wait for Bitcoins Halving - Crypto Briefing

Blockchain Currencies That Evolved Post Bitcoin – MENAFN.COM

(MENAFN - MENAFN Authors)

Developed by software developer Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin was the first digital currency to hit the market. This electronic payment system is based around a mathematical proof, making money independent from governments, banks, and other central authorities. In the beginning, internet users were skeptical about using it, and it was often seen as money for geeks and criminals. Nonetheless, Bitcoins success over the years has led to the launch of thousands of other cryptocurrencies on the market.

Here are the top four blockchain-based currencies that evolved after Bitcoin. These digital currencies are commonly known as altcoins.

Ethereum (ETH)

From a technological point of view, Ethereum is the second most significant cryptocurrency after Bitcoin. Technically, the coins are known as Ether (ETH), and Ethereum is the platform that supports the currencies. However, well just stick with the colloquial word, Ethereum to refer to both for simplicity sake.

Ethereum was developed to aid in smart contracts creation, execution, and implementation. This feature attracts many blockchain-based software developers and companies using ICOs to raise capital. Ethereum is among the hottest cryptocurrency trends in 2020, and experts predict that it will overtake Bitcoin soon.

Litecoin (LTC)

Unlike Ethereum, Litecoin is a Bitcoin-based cryptocurrency that was created with several improvements over BTC, making it faster and more robust. Similar to Bitcoin, the currency is designed for peer-to-peer payments and not as a token in a certain application.

Litecoin has been around since 2011, and it has been skyrocketing in both value and usage. However, Litecoin is more volatile than Bitcoin and isnt as widely accepted for making payments.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

Like Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash is yet another successor for BTC. This digital currency was created to address the scalability issues in Bitcoin, but inheriting the ledger of all BTC transactions before August 2017. Additionally, it uses bigger blocks of transactions that have ever occurred since then.

Though many industry experts supported the launch of BCH as Bitcoins successor, some still oppose it vehemently. As such, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are still operating separately and simultaneously. Both cryptocurrencies use the PoW (Proof of Work) consensus mechanism when creating new coins, though Bitcoin Cash doesnt incorporate Segregated Witness to accommodate more transactions in each block.

Ripple (XRP)

Ripple is a digital currency native to the Ripple Network, providing real-time transfer, currency exchange, and money transfer services for financial institutions. Unlike other blockchain applications, Ripple was specifically designed for financial institutions and not businesses or consumers. It also uses a consensus process to validate ledger transactions.

Unlike Bitcoin which is completely decentralized, Ripple is managed and maintained by a specific company, which also validates the system. Fortunately, the Ripple network is a lot faster than Bitcoin. More importantly, XRP price skyrocketed in 2017, and the company that manages Ripple is now worth billions of dollars.

Bottom Line

While there are hundreds if not thousands of blockchain-based digital currencies out there, these four crypto coins are the major players that rose due to Bitcoins success. Most of them have been trying to overtake Bitcoin for years, though none of them have successfully done that. Nonetheless, these cryptocurrencies will change the way people and organizations process transactions.

MENAFN1505202002030000ID1100169049

View post:

Blockchain Currencies That Evolved Post Bitcoin - MENAFN.COM

Federal Reserve: Ripples XRP reacts differently than Bitcoin to regulatory news – Crypto News Flash

The U.S. Federal Reserve, Dallas branch, released a report on the price performance of the major cryptocurrencies and the reaction of the price performance they show to regulatory news. The study, entitled Cryptocurrency Market Reactions to Regulatory News, shows how news about new regulations can have an effect on the crypto market depending on the nature of the regulation. The study reveals a particular behavior for XRP.

The study analyzes the behavior of Bitcoin and its forks, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash. The behavior of Ethereum is also taken into consideration. In that sense, the study says the following:

() cryptocurrencies are often thought to operate out of the reach of national regulation, but in fact, their valuations, transaction volumes, and user bases react substantially to news about regulatory actions.

The study creates an index that measures the reaction of Bitcoins price to different regulatory news. The same figures are taken for other cryptocurrencies as well. The study describes in more detail:

This index captures how, on a given day, regulatory events would have moved the price of bitcoin. We then gauge the price responses of other cryptocurrencies to changes in this index, i.e. we essentially see whether the prices of these other cryptocurrencies reacted more or less strongly to regulatory news than bitcoin did, on average.

Source: https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/institute/wpapers/2020/0381.pdf

According to the studys conclusions, BTC price has a high response, rather positive or negative, to regulatory news. In addition, the study finds that Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum have a similar reaction to Bitcoin on regulatory news:

Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin as well as the second largest cryptocurrency by valuation, Ethereum, react significantly to CRNI (cryptocurrency regulatory news index, columns 24). The impact is not significantly different from 1, however, ie they are as strongly affected by these news events as bitcoin is.

Meanwhile, Monero and Zcash showed completely different reactions. Monero is more responsive to regulatory news than Bitcoin. Zcash, on the other hand, has a low reaction to regulatory news. In that sense, XRP shows a similar behavior. The reason can be found in the centralization of the token and Ripples supposed control over XRP:

The XRP token also react less, which may reflect that its network of trusted nodes is centrally controlled by its issuer Ripple, making the XRP token distinct from other, permissionless, cryptocurrencies.

Read more:

Federal Reserve: Ripples XRP reacts differently than Bitcoin to regulatory news - Crypto News Flash

Exploring the quantum field, from the sun’s core to the Big Bang – MIT News

How do protons fuse to power the sun? What happens to neutrinos inside a collapsing star after a supernova? How did atomic nuclei form from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang?

Simulating these mysterious processes requires some extremely complex calculations, sophisticated algorithms, and a vast amount of supercomputing power.

Theoretical physicist William Detmold marshals these tools to look into the quantum realm. Improved calculations of these processes enable us to learn about fundamental properties of the universe, he says. Of the visible universe, most mass is made of protons. Understanding the structure of the proton and its properties seems pretty important to me.

Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the worlds largest particle accelerator, investigate those properties by smashing particles together and poring over the subatomic wreckage for clues to what makes up and binds together matter.

Detmold, an associate professor in the Department of Physics and a member of the Center for Theoretical Physics and the Laboratory for Nuclear Science, starts instead from first principles namely, the theory of the Standard Model of particle physics.

The Standard Model describes three of the four fundamental forces of particle physics (with the exception of gravity) and all of the known subatomic particles.

The theory has succeeded in predicting the results of experiments time and time again, including, perhaps most famously, the 2011 confirmation by LHC researchers of the existence of the Higgs boson.

A core focus of Detmolds research is on confronting experimental data from experiments such as the LHC. After devising calculations, running them on multiple supercomputers, and sifting through the enormous quantity of statistics they crank out a process that can take from six months to several years Detmold and his team then take all that data and do a lot of analysis to extract key physics quantities for example, the mass of the proton, as a numerical value with an uncertainty range.

My driving concern in this regard is how will this analysis impact experimental results, Detmold says. In some cases, we do these calculations in order to interpret experiments done at the LHC, and ask: Is the Standard Model describing whats going on there?

Detmold has made important advances in solving the complex equations of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), a quantum field theory that describes the strong interactions inside of a proton, between quarks (the smallest known constituent of matter) and gluons (the forces that bind them together).

He has performed some of the first QCD calculations of certain particle decays reactions. They have, for the most part, aligned very closely with results from the LHC.

There are no really stark discrepancies between the Standard Model and LHC results, but there are some interesting tensions, he says. My work has been looking at some of those tensions.

Inspired to ask questions

Detmolds interest in quantum physics dates to his schoolboy days, growing up in Adelaide, Australia. I remember reading a bunch of popular science books as a young kid, he recalls, and being very intrigued about quarks, gluons, and other fundamental particles, and wanting to get into the mathematical tools to work with them.

He would go on to earn both his bachelors degree and PhD from the University of Adelaide. As an undergraduate studying mathematics, he encountered a professor who opened his eyes to the mysteries of quantum mechanics. It was probably the most exciting class Ive had. And I get to teach that now.

Hes been teaching that introductory course on quantum mechanics at MIT for a few years now, and he has become adept at spotting those students who are similarly seized by the subject. In every class there are students you can see the enthusiasm dripping off the page as they write their problem sets. Its exciting to interact with them.

While he cant always bring the full complexity of his research into those conversations, he tries to infuse them with the spirit of his enterprise: how to ask the questions that might yield new insights into the deep structures of the universe.

You can frame things in ways to inspire students to go into research and push themselves to learn more, he says. A lot of teaching is about motivating students to go and find out more themselves, not just information transmission. And hopefully I inspire my students the way my professor inspired me.

He adds: With all of us stuck at home or in remote locations, Im not sure that anyone is feeling particularly inspired right now, but this pandemic will eventually end, and sometimes getting lost in the intricacies of Maxwells equations gives a nice break from what is going on in the world.

Enhancing experiments

When he isnt teaching or analyzing supercomputer data, Detmold is often helping to plan better experiments.

The Electron-Ion Collider, a facility planned for construction over the next decade at Brookhaven National Lab on Long Island, aims to advance understanding of the internal structure of the proton. Some of Detmolds calculations are aimed at providing a qualitative picture of the structure of gluons inside the proton, to help the projects designers know what to look for, in terms of orders of magnitude for detecting certain quantities.

We can make predictions for what well be seeing if you design it in a certain way, he says.

Detmold has also become something of an expert at orchestrating complex supercomputing projects. That entails figuring out how to run a huge number of calculations in an efficient way, given the limited availability of supercomputing power and time.

He and his lab members have developed algorithms and software infrastructure to run these calculations on massive supercomputers, some of which have different types of processing units that make data management complicated. Its a research project in its own right, how to perform those calculations in a way thats efficient.

Indeed, Detmold spends time working on how improve methods for getting to the answer. New algorithms, he says, are a key to advancing computation to tackle new problems, calculating nuclear structures and reactions in the context of the Standard Model.

Lets say theres a quantity we want to compute, but with the tools we have at the moment it takes 10,000 years of running a massive supercomputer, he says. Coming up with a new way to calculate something that actually makes it possible to do thats exciting.

Inspiring interest in the unknown

But fundamental mysteries are still at the center of Detmolds work. As quarks and gluons get farther apart from each other, the strength of their interactions increases. To understand whats happening in these low-energy states, he has advanced the use of a computational technique known as lattice quantum chromodynamics (LQCD), which places the quantum fields of the quarks and gluons on a discretized grid of points to represent space-time.

In 2017, Detmold and colleagues made the first-ever LQCD calculations of the rate of proton-proton fusion the process by which two protons fuse together to form a deuteron.

This process kicks off the nuclear reactions that power the sun. Its also exceedingly difficult to study through experiments. If you try to smash together two protons, their electric charges mean they dont want to be near each other, says Detmold.

It shows where this field can go, he says of his teams breakthrough. Its one of the simplest nuclear reactions, but it opens the doorway to saying we can address these directly from the Standard Model. Were trying to build upon this work and calculate related reactions.

Another recent project involved using LQCD to study the formation of nuclei in the universe its earliest moments. As well as looking at these processes for the actual universe, hes performed computations that change certain parameters the masses of quarks and how strongly they interact in order to predict how the reactions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis might have happened and how much they might have affected the evolution of the universe.

These calculations can tell you how likely it is to end up producing universes like the one we see, Detmold says.

Read more:

Exploring the quantum field, from the sun's core to the Big Bang - MIT News

Physicists Just Built The First Working Prototype Of A ‘Quantum Radar’ – ScienceAlert

Quantum entanglement that strange but potentially hugely useful quantum phenomenon where two particles are inextricably linked across space and time could play a major role in future radar technology.

In 2008, an engineer from MIT devised a way to use the features of entanglement to illuminate objects while using barely any photons. In certain scenarios, such technology promises to outperform conventional radar, according to its makers, particularly in noisy thermal environments.

Now, researchers have taken the idea much further, demonstrating its potential with a working prototype.

The technology might eventually find a variety of applications in security and biomedical fields: building better MRI scanners, for example, or giving doctors an alternative way of looking for particular types of cancer.

"What we have demonstrated is a proof of concept for microwave quantum radar," says quantum physicist Shabir Barzanjeh, who conducted the work at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria.

"Using entanglement generated at a few thousandths of a degree above absolute zero, we have been able to detect low reflectivity objects at room temperature."

The device works along the same principles as a normal radar, except instead of sending out radio waves to scan an area, it uses pairs of entangled photons.

Entangled particles are distinguished by having properties that correlate with one another more than you'd expect by chance. In the case of the radar, one photon from each entangled pair, described as a signal photon, is sent towards an object. The remaining photon, described as an idler, is kept in isolation, waiting for a report back.

If the signal photon reflects from an object and is caught, it can be combined with the idler to create a signature pattern of interference, setting the signal apart from other random noise.

As the signal photons reflect from an object, this actually breaks the quantum entanglement in the truest sense. This latest research verifies that even when entanglement is broken, enough information can survive to identify it as a reflected signal.

It doesn't use much power, and the radar itself is difficult to detect, which has benefits for security applications. The biggest advantage this has over conventional radar, however, is that it's less troubled by background radiation noise, which affects the sensitivity and the accuracy of standard radar hardware.

"The main message behind our research is that quantum radar or quantum microwave illumination is not only possible in theory but also in practice," says Barzanjeh.

"When benchmarked against classical low-power detectors in the same conditions we already see, at very low-signal photon numbers, that quantum-enhanced detection can be superior."

There's plenty of exciting potential here, though we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves just yet. Quantum entanglement remains an incredibly delicate process to manage, and entangling the photons initially requires a very precise and ultra-cold environment.

Barzanjeh and his colleagues are continuing their development of the quantum radar idea, yet another sign of how quantum physics is likely to transform our technologies in the near future in everything from communications to supercomputing.

"Throughout history, proof of concepts such as the one we have demonstrated here have often served as prominent milestones towards future technological advancements," says Barzanjeh.

"It will be interesting to see the future implications of this research, particularly for short-range microwave sensors."

The research has been published in Science Advances.

See the original post:

Physicists Just Built The First Working Prototype Of A 'Quantum Radar' - ScienceAlert

Devs: Here’s the real science behind the quantum computing TV show – New Scientist News

In TV series Devs, a tech company has built an extremely powerful quantum computer. The show is both beautiful and captivating, says Rowan Hooper

By Rowan Hooper

BBC/FX Networks

Devs

BBC iPlayer and FX on Hulu

Halfway through episode two of Devs, there is a scene that caused me first to gasp, and then to swear out loud. A genuine WTF moment. If this is what I think it is, I thought, it is breathtakingly audacious. And so it turns out. The show is intelligent, beautiful and ambitious, and to aid in your viewing pleasure, this spoiler-free review introduces some of the cool science it explores.

Advertisement

Alex Garlands eight-part seriesopens with protagonists Lilyand Sergei, who live in a gorgeous apartment in San Francisco. Like their real-world counterparts, people who work atFacebook orGoogle, the pair take the shuttle bus to work.

They work at Amaya, a powerful but secretive technology company hidden among the redwoods. Looming over the trees is a massive, creepy statue of a girl: the Amaya the company is named for.

We see the company tag line asLily and Sergei get off the bus: Your quantum future. Is it just athrow-away tag, or should we think about what that line means more precisely?

Sergei, we learn, works on artificial intelligence algorithms. At the start of the show, he gets some time with the boss, Forest, todemonstrate the project he has been working on. He has managed to model the behaviour of a nematode worm. His team has simulated the worm by recreating all 302 of its neurons and digitally wiring them up. This is basically the WormBot project, an attempt to recreate a life form completely in digital code. The complete map of the connections between the 302 neurons of the nematode waspublished in 2019.

We dont yet have the processing power to recreate theseconnections dynamically in a computer, but when we do, it will be interesting to consider if the resulting digital worm, a complete replica of an organic creature, should be considered alive.

We dont know if Sergeis simulation is alive, but it is so good, he can accurately predict the behaviour of the organic original, a real worm it is apparently simulating, up to 10 seconds in thefuture. This is what I like about Garlands stuff: the show has only just started and we have already got some really deep questions about scientific research that is actually happening.

Sergei then invokes the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics conceived by Hugh Everett. Although Forest dismisses this idea, it is worth getting yourhead around it because the show comes back to it. Adherents say that the maths of quantum physics means the universe isrepeatedly splitting into different versions, creating a vast multiverse of possible outcomes.

At the core of Amaya is the ultrasecretive section where thedevelopers work. No one outside the devs team knows what it is developing, but we suspect it must be something with quantum computers. I wondered whether the devssection is trying to do with the 86 billion neurons of thehuman brain what Sergei has been doing with the 302 neurons of the nematode.

We start to find out when Sergei is selected for a role in devs. He must first pass a vetting process (he is asked if he is religious, a question that makes sense later) and then he is granted access to the devs compound sealed by alead Faraday cage, gold mesh andan unbroken vacuum.

Inside is a quantum computer more powerful than any currently in existence. How many qubits does it run, asks Sergei, looking inawe at the thing (it is beautiful, abit like the machines being developed by Google and IBM). Anumber that it is meaningless to state, says Forest. As a reference point, the best quantum computers currently manage around 50 qubits, or quantum bits. We can only assume that Forest has solved the problem ofdecoherence when external interference such as heat or electromagnetic fields cause qubits to lose their quantum properties and created a quantum computer with fantasticprocessing power.

So what are the devs using it for? Sergei is asked to guess, and then left to work it out for himself from gazing at the code. He figures it out before we do. Then comes that WTF moment. To say any more will give away the surprise. Yet as someone remarks, the world is deterministic, but with this machine we are gaining magical powers. Devs has its flaws, but it is energising and exciting to see TV this thoughtful: it cast a spell on me.

More on these topics:

Read more:

Devs: Here's the real science behind the quantum computing TV show - New Scientist News

Quantum Brakes to Learn About the Forces Within Molecules – SciTechDaily

An ultrashort x-ray laser pulse (in violet) removes an inner-shell electron from the iodine atom in ethyl iodide. The experiment times the propagation of the electron with attosecond precision, and measures how much the released electron is decelerated or accelerated by intramolecular forces. Credit: Philipp Rosenberger / LMU

Physicists have measured the flight times of electrons emitted from a specific atom in a molecule upon excitation with laser light. This has enabled them to measure the influence of the molecule itself on the kinetics of emission.

Photoemission the release of electrons in response to excitation by light is one of the most fundamental processes in the microcosm. The kinetic energy of the emitted electron is characteristic for the atom concerned, and depends on the wavelength of the light employed. But how long does the process take? And does it always take the same amount of time, irrespective of whether the electron is emitted from an individual atom or from an atom that is part of a molecule? An international team of researchers led by laser physicists in the Laboratory for Attosecond Physics (LAP) at LMU Munich and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) in Garching has now probed the influence of the molecule on photoemission time.

The theoretical description of photoemission in 1905 by Albert Einstein marked a breakthrough in quantum physics, and the details of the process are of continuing interest in the world of science and beyond. How the motions of an elementary quantum particle such as the electron are affected within a molecular environment has a significant bearing on our understanding of the process of photoemission and the forces that hold molecules together.

In close collaboration with researchers from the King Saud University (KSU) in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), and additional international partners, the team at LAP has now determined how long it takes electrons to be photo-emitted from a specific atom within a molecule (in this case, the iodine in ethyl iodide). The measured times were in the range of tens of attoseconds. One attosecond is a billionth of a billionth of a second.

The researchers used a range of pulses in the x-ray region to excite the targeted electron. The use of machine learning helped to improve the precision of the analysis of the experimental data, and resulted in more accurate comparisons with theoretical predictions. The comparison of the experimental data with theoretical simulations finally revealed the influence of the molecule on the time that electrons need for the photoemission process, explains Professor Matthias Kling, who heads the Ultrafast Imaging and Nanophotonics group within the LAP team. The researchers found that the delay attributable to the molecular environment became larger as the energy of the light pulses and hence the initial kinetic energy imparted to the electrons was reduced.

The observations may be compared with exploring a landscape. When flying over it, many details on the ground remain unnoticed. At ground level, every single bump makes itself felt. The same is true for excited electrons. If the initial impulse is just enough to enable them to leave the molecule, the retarding effect of the forces that hold the molecule together is greater than when the kick is sufficiently energetic to eject them more promptly.

Our observations indicate that experiments tracing photoemission time permit us to learn about the forces within molecules, explains Professor Abdallah Azzeer, Head of the Laboratory for Attosecond Physics at KSU in Riyadh. These studies could improve our understanding of quantum effects in molecules and chemical reactions, adds Prof. Alexandra Landsman from Ohio State University in the US, who leads the group that conducted the majority of the theoretical work.

Reference: Probing molecular environment through photoemission delays by Shubhadeep Biswas, Benjamin Frg, Lisa Ortmann, Johannes Schtz, Wolfgang Schweinberger, Tom Zimmermann, Liangwen Pi, Denitsa Baykusheva, Hafiz A. Masood, Ioannis Liontos, Amgad M. Kamal, Nora G. Kling, Abdullah F. Alharbi, Meshaal Alharbi, Abdallah M. Azzeer, Gregor Hartmann, Hans J. Wrner, Alexandra S. Landsman and Matthias F. Kling, 11 May 2020, Nature Physics.DOI: 10.1038/s41567-020-0887-8

More:

Quantum Brakes to Learn About the Forces Within Molecules - SciTechDaily

How To Choose The Best Toaster – Forbes

Silver colored toaster with single slice of toast.

We're living in unprecedented times. Sure, there's a pandemic changing the world and retail shopping as we know it, but there are people making toast in their air fryers. Listen, air fryers are great and all, but leave the toasting to the toasters.

So what do we look for in a toaster? A fancy touchscreen? The ability to cook hot dogs? How about a combination toaster oven that bakes and toasts; or toasts, broils and bakes; or toasts, bakes, broils and is also an air fryer? How do you choose the best toaster for your kitchen?

When we think of a toaster we generally take the device itself for granted. A toaster is simply a device that turns electricity into heat to lightly burn the bread product that has been placed inside (or against the coils, as it was with the first toasters). It's not a complex process. Considering how old toaster technology is, thinking retro is completely aesthetic. Like this retro toaster that has a 50s look.

If you want something a bit more mid-century modern, then this group of toasters is your butter. While we cannot escape the crushing doom of time continuously moving forward, ignoring our minuscule and meaningless interactions, we can at least control the appearance of the devices we use to pass that time with bread products.

"It takes me back to a time when toast was really toast," said someone who likes retro toasters.

There are a lot of toasters that claim to be able to toast bagels, but those toasters are liars. If bagels are your main source of toasted carbs, then you are going to want to get an actual bagel toaster with extra wide slots and a croissant heating rack. This toaster says perception is a hot, buttered croissant.

The argument against wide slot toasters is that they are not as effective with slim white bread, but isn't the basic nature of your interaction with the passage of time just a metaphor for choosing what kind of bread to eat? The thickness of bagels speak to your inherent need to fill your time with as many new experiences as possible, while basic bread represents the monotony of life; a repeating cycle of mundane activities that separate us only slightly from ants because sometimes we wear hats.

"The only good bagel is an everything bagel", said my uncle at oneg between mouthfuls of white fish.

If you need more than just toast, then clearly you have risen to a plane of self awareness that demands multiple sources of stimulation in both the physical and mental realms. A combination toaster and oven might just help you ascend to undiscovered plateaus of existence with some crispy leftover chicky nugs.

There are some extremely complex toaster ovens out there, let's call them the quantum mechanics of toasters. There is a relatable confusion to all the buttons, settings and dials but like overall quantum physics, they are still relatable. But they aren't very easy to clean.

Which is why you should look for a toaster with a roll-top door. These toasters, unlike your never-ending struggle with the mental clutter that permeates your waking hours, are easy to clean. The roll-top prevents crumbs from getting stuck in between the door and the toaster, but like everything in existence, they are still touching in some sense. There are no spaces between the spaces. It's all connected. But with a roll-top, it's so much easier to clean the spaces that don't exist.

"It's really hard to cook leftover pizza in a regular toaster," said a guy hanging out at the vape shop.

We wake up every day, only slightly aware that it's a different day from the day before it, but a new day begins every moment, even in the fractional moments between the moments that we can just barely perceive thanks to the light from our sun and the whittling chucks falling from whatever we can grasp as our souls. Simplicity is often the best option.

You want toast? Get a basic toaster. It toasts, costs less than a fancy latte with whipped cream and an eye-rolling tip in the change jar and performs the primary function of a toaster it toasts bread.

Isn't that all we really want in life? To find our bread, in whatever form, and toast it when desired? To change the physical properties of something we generally take for granted in order to heighten our mental awareness of it for a myriad of pleasurable effects? That's what toast is. It's our sense of everything changing, while giving us some semblance of control.

Read the rest here:

How To Choose The Best Toaster - Forbes

Exploring new tools in string theory – Space.com

String theorists are shifting focus to solve some rather sticky problems in physics.

Over the past few years, string theory has been less about trying to find a unifying description of all forces and matter in the universe, and more about exploring the AdS/CFT correspondence, a potential link between the tools and methods developed in the string community and some strange physics problems.

While it doesn't have a particularly catchy name, the AdS/CFT correspondence, it is a potentially powerful (but so for unproven) tool to solve complex riddles.

Related:Putting string theory to the test

The "AdS" in the AdS/CFT correspondence stands for "anti-de Sitter," which doesn't explain much at first glance. The name was inspired by Willem de Sitter, a physicist and mathematician who played around with Einstein's theory of general relativity shortly after it was published in 1917. De Sitter experimented with the idea of different kinds of theoretical universes, filling them up with various substances and figuring out how they would evolve.

His namesake, the "de Sitter universe," represents a theoretical cosmos completely devoid of matter but filled with a positive cosmological constant. While this isn't how our universe actually is, as the universe continues to age it will look more and more like de Sitter's vision.

The anti-de Sitter universe is the exact opposite: a completely empty cosmos with a negative cosmological constant, which is quite unlike what we see in our real universe.

But, while this strange theoretical "anti" universe isn't real, it's still a handy mathematical playground for string theory.

String theory itself requires 10 dimensions to be complete (6 of which are tiny and curled up to microscopic proportions), but versions of it can be cast into only 5 dimensions in an anti-de Sitter spacetime, and, while useful for our universe, can still function.

The other side of the AdS/CFT correspondence, CFT, stands for conformal field theory. Field theories are the bread and butter of our modern understanding of the quantum world; they are what happens when you marry quantum mechanics with special relativity and are used to explain three of the four forces of nature. For example, electromagnetism is described by the field theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED), and the strong nuclear force by the field theory called quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

But there's an extra word there: conformal. But before we get to conformal, I want to quickly talk about something else: scale invariance (trust me, this will make sense in a minute). A field theory is said to be scale invariant if the results don't change if the strength of interactions are varied. For example, you would have a scale invariant engine if you got the same efficiency no matter what kind of fuel you put in.

In strict mathematical terms, a conformal field theory is just a certain special case of scale invariant field theory, but almost all the time when physicists say conformal, they really mean scale invariant. So in your head every time you read or hear conformal field theory you can just replace it with scale invariant field theory.

Our universe is, by and large, decidedly not scale invariant. The forces of nature do change their character with different energy scales and interaction strengths some forces even merge together at high energies. Scale invariance, as beautiful as it is mathematically, simply doesn't seem to be preferred by nature.

Related:The history and structure of the universe (infographic)

So, on one side of the AdS/CFT correspondence, you have a universe that doesn't look like ours, and on the other, you have mathematical theory that doesn't apply to most situations. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that over twenty years ago, physicists and mathematicians found a surprising link between string theories written in a five-dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetime and conformal field theories written on the four-dimensional boundary of that spacetime. This correspondence so far unproven, but if there is a connection, it could have far-reaching consequences.

There are a lot of tools and tricks in the language of string theory, so if you're facing a thorny physics problem that can be written in terms of a conformal field theory (it's not common, but it does happen occasionally), you can cast it in terms of the 5d string theory and apply those tools to try to crack it.

Additionally, if you're trying to solve string theory problems (like, for example, the unification of gravity with other forces of nature), you can translate your problem into terms of a conformal field theory and use the tried-and-true techniques in that language to try to crack it.

Most work in this arena has been with trying to use the methods of string theory to solve real-world problems, like what happens to the information that's fallen into a black hole and the nature of high-energy states of matter.

Paul M. Sutteris an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute, host of Ask a Spaceman and Space Radio, and author of Your Place in the Universe.

Learn more by listening to the episode "Is String Theory Worth It? (Part 7: A Correspondence from a Dear Friend)" on the Ask A Spaceman podcast, available oniTunesand on the Web athttp://www.askaspaceman.com. Thanks to John C., Zachary H., @edit_room, Matthew Y., Christopher L., Krizna W., Sayan P., Neha S., Zachary H., Joyce S., Mauricio M., @shrenicshah, Panos T., Dhruv R., Maria A., Ter B., oiSnowy, Evan T., Dan M., Jon T., @twblanchard, Aurie, Christopher M., @unplugged_wire, Giacomo S., Gully F. for the questions that led to this piece! Ask your own question on Twitter using #AskASpaceman or by following Paul @PaulMattSutter and facebook.com/PaulMattSutter.

Read more:

Exploring new tools in string theory - Space.com

Quantum computing will (eventually) help us discover vaccines in days – VentureBeat

The coronavirus is proving that we have to move faster in identifying and mitigating epidemics before they become pandemics because, in todays global world, viruses spread much faster, further, and more frequently than ever before.

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, its that while our ability to identify and treat pandemics has improved greatly since the outbreak of the Spanish Flu in 1918, there is still a lot of room for improvement. Over the past few decades, weve taken huge strides to improve quick detection capabilities. It took a mere 12 days to map the outer spike protein of the COVID-19 virus using new techniques. In the 1980s, a similar structural analysis for HIV took four years.

But developing a cure or vaccine still takes a long time and involves such high costs that big pharma doesnt always have incentive to try.

Drug discovery entrepreneur Prof. Noor Shaker posited that Whenever a disease is identified, a new journey into the chemical space starts seeking a medicine that could become useful in contending diseases. The journey takes approximately 15 years and costs $2.6 billion, and starts with a process to filter millions of molecules to identify the promising hundreds with high potential to become medicines. Around 99% of selected leads fail later in the process due to inaccurate prediction of behavior and the limited pool from which they were sampled.

Prof. Shaker highlights one of the main problems with our current drug discovery process: The development of pharmaceuticals is highly empirical. Molecules are made and then tested, without being able to accurately predict performance beforehand. The testing process itself is long, tedious, cumbersome, and may not predict future complications that will surface only when the molecule is deployed at scale, further eroding the cost/benefit ratio of the field. And while AI/ML tools are already being developed and implemented to optimize certain processes, theres a limit to their efficiency at key tasks in the process.

Ideally, a great way to cut down the time and cost would be to transfer the discovery and testing from the expensive and time-inefficient laboratory process (in-vitro) we utilize today, to computer simulations (in-silico). Databases of molecules are already available to us today. If we had infinite computing power we could simply scan these databases and calculate whether each molecule could serve as a cure or vaccine to the COVID-19 virus. We would simply input our factors into the simulation and screen the chemical space for a solution to our problem.

In principle, this is possible. After all, chemical structures can be measured, and the laws of physics governing chemistry are well known. However, as the great British physicist Paul Dirac observed: The underlying physical laws necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty is only that the exact application of these laws leads to equations much too complicated to be soluble.

In other words, we simply dont have the computing power to solve the equations, and if we stick to classical computers we never will.

This is a bit of a simplification, but the fundamental problem of chemistry is to figure out where electrons sit inside a molecule and calculate the total energy of such a configuration. With this data, one could calculate the properties of a molecule and predict its behavior. Accurate calculations of these properties will allow the screening of molecular databases for compounds that exhibit particular functions, such as a drug molecule that is able to attach to the coronavirus spike and attack it. Essentially, if we could use a computer to accurately calculate the properties of a molecule and predict its behavior in a given situation, it would speed up the process of identifying a cure and improve its efficiency.

Why are quantum computers much better than classical computers at simulating molecules?

Electrons spread out over the molecule in a strongly correlated fashion, and the characteristics of each electron depend greatly on those of its neighbors. These quantum correlations (or entanglement) are at the heart of the quantum theory and make simulating electrons with a classical computer very tricky.

The electrons of the COVID-19 virus, for example, must be treated in general as being part of a single entity having many degrees of freedom, and the description of this ensemble cannot be divided into the sum of its individual, distinguishable electrons. The electrons, due to their strong correlations, have lost their individuality and must be treated as a whole. So to solve the equations, you need to take into account all of the electrons simultaneously. Although classical computers can in principle simulate such molecules, every multi-electron configuration must be stored in memory separately.

Lets say you have a molecule with only 10 electrons (forget the rest of the atom for now), and each electron can be in two different positions within the molecule. Essentially, you have 2^10=1024 different configurations to keep track of rather just 10 electrons which would have been the case if the electrons were individual, distinguishable entities. Youd need 1024 classical bits to store the state of this molecule. Quantum computers, on the other hand, have quantum bits (qubits), which can be made to strongly correlate with one another in the same way electrons within molecules do. So in principle, you would need only about 10 such qubits to represent the strongly correlated electrons in this model system.

The exponentially large parameter space of electron configurations in molecules is exactly the space qubits naturally occupy. Thus, qubits are much more adapted to the simulation of quantum phenomena. This scaling difference between classical and quantum computation gets very big very quickly. For instance, simulating penicillin, a molecule with 41 atoms (and many more electrons) will require 10^86 classical bits, or more bits than the number of atoms in the universe. With a quantum computer, you would only need about 286 qubits. This is still far more qubits than we have today, but certainly a more reasonable and achievable number.The COVID-19 virus outer spike protein, for comparison, contains many thousands of atoms and is thus completely intractable for classical computation. The size of proteins makes them intractable to classical simulation with any degree of accuracy even on todays most powerful supercomputers. Chemists and pharma companies do simulate molecules with supercomputers (albeit not as large as the proteins), but they must resort to making very rough molecule models that dont capture the details a full simulation would, leading to large errors in estimation.

It might take several decades until a sufficiently large quantum computer capable of simulating molecules as large as proteins will emerge. But when such a computer is available, it will mean a complete revolution in the way the pharma and the chemical industries operate.

The holy grail end-to-end in-silico drug discovery involves evaluating and breaking down the entire chemical structures of the virus and the cure.

The continued development of quantum computers, if successful, will allow for end-to-end in-silico drug discovery and the discovery of procedures to fabricate the drug. Several decades from now, with the right technology in place, we could move the entire process into a computer simulation, allowing us to reach results with amazing speed. Computer simulations could eliminate 99.9% of false leads in a fraction of the time it now takes with in-vitro methods. With the appearance of a new epidemic, scientists could identify and develop a potential vaccine/drug in a matter of days.

The bottleneck for drug development would then move from drug discovery to the human testing phases including toxicity and other safety tests. Eventually, even these last stage tests could potentially be expedited with the help of a large scale quantum computer, but that would require an even greater level of quantum computing than described here. Tests at this level would require a quantum computer with enough power to contain a simulation of the human body (or part thereof) that will screen candidate compounds and simulate their impact on the human body.

Achieving all of these dreams will demand a continuous investment into the development of quantum computing as a technology. As Prof. Shohini Ghose said in her 2018 Ted Talk: You cannot build a light bulb by building better and better candles. A light bulb is a different technology based on a deeper scientific understanding. Todays computers are marvels of modern technology and will continue to improve as we move forward. However, we will not be able to solve this task with a more powerful classical computer. It requires new technology, more suited for the task.

(Special thanks Dr. Ilan Richter, MD MPH for assuring the accuracy of the medical details in this article.)

Ramon Szmuk is a Quantum Hardware Engineer at Quantum Machines.

View original post here:

Quantum computing will (eventually) help us discover vaccines in days - VentureBeat

An observed thing never doesnt change – Lowell Sun

One of my favorite things to talk about is attention. Its a highly underrated life practice, paying attention. Its mindfulness by another word. Being aware of ones own experience.

It doesnt end with that because the things that get our notice have a tendency to change once weve noticed them. Realize there is a hopeful thought in that fact alone. Add it to the math that there is more love in the world than hate, and what is revealed is an obvious trajectory that humanity steadily improves itself over time through the act of attention. Even if two steps forward usually means suffering through one step back, the overall movement is forward.

As far as the math goes, love is prevailing. It just doesnt make as big a show of itself as fear does. Love doesnt pique our sense of outrage. Dont be mistaken about how much love and attention and compassion and creativity and collaboration it takes to endure a pandemic. With so many of us on the planet, love is the reason our species even still exists. Take comfort in that if you can.

So here it must be pointed out that we are paying very special attention to a number of things right now that will undoubtedly reap the benefits of our heightened notice. There are systems on our planet that are in need of change. And it is not for me to conclude what systems need to change or in what ways. I have my opinions, however, that health care and the pharmaceutical industry will probably get the special attention they deserve. I think systems of government are under a very particular kind of scrutiny right now. I think we are noticing all of the fear that has been percolating beneath the surface of our society for so many decades. These things need our attention. And theyre getting it.

Humanity at large is getting a little bit of a reboot right now. The pandemic has focused our attention on things that have been neglected. That is a good thing. The positive aftershocks of this tragic time will be felt for decades to come.

Thats largely due to the physics of attention. The physics of attention are themselves an even more fascinating aspect of the entire mindful practice of simply noticing things. Because on the atomic level, we are able to prove that particles behave differently when we are looking at them. But heres the real shocker our linear brains cant seem to comprehend: Even when we record them using an electronic device with no one actually watching, they still behave differently. Just as if theyre being watched live. Like they know theyre being recorded.

It makes me deeply curious about what effect our attention has on our lives, and our obstacles. Especially when considered through the lens of future historians. Quantum physics explains it very technically that our heightened attention collapses a waveform from a series of potentials into specific outcomes that align with the observers expectations. Does that mean we have more power to effect positive change than we recognize, simply through our act of chosen observation?

When we are paying special attention to an issue, it typically gains wider attention when there is something about it that inspires us to feel better, or to want to feel better. Attention is an emotional experience. We gravitate toward the online content designed to ease our fears, or assuage our anger over injustice. Or alert us to it.

This is why fear is rampant on the internet. Conspiracy theories abound out of a desire to feel better, to feel safer, by being in the know. By being ready. By not having been made a fool of. No one wants to feel like that. Its easy to see how excessive fear or anxiety can drive us to tend to things that are in alignment with them. Our anxieties continuously seek validation. Pay attention to something different. And pray for those who are afraid.

We share loving stories for the same reason, though to feel better. We share them to feel safer by fostering a sense of belonging. All we all want is just to feel better. Fortunately, good thoughts are more powerful than negative ones. It takes fewer of them to create balance.

So if our attention goes where our emotional state drives us, and follows a predictable path, what is our role in the creation of our future not just that of the world, but our own individual lives? How about just getting through a day? Notice what youre noticing. Notice your emotions. Notice the emotions of other people. Send hope and love to others. Collapse their waveforms from a series of unknown potentials into something safe and concrete.

Thats what quantum physics is literally telling us occurs on the atomic level. What impact might that have on our consciousness? What impact might it have on the field that surrounds us?

Theres a beautiful line in Proverbs that invites us to make our ears attentive to wisdom and incline our hearts toward understanding. It teaches that if we call out for insight and raise our voice for understanding, if we seek it like silver and search for it as hidden treasures, we will understand and find the knowledge of God.

I love the beauty and poetry of the way the advice and encouragement is given. It counsels us on what to notice most. It is teaching us to choose deliberately the things to which we attend, and defines their category: love. It leads us to believe that there is something to be gained by tending to wisdom and love. It is not instructing us toward any action other than to notice and seek.

For now, take some comfort if you can in the category of things that are getting our attention right now. Think of whats occurring in your own home at this moment and how your particular attention could transform your experience. Are you properly attending to things that deserve your gratitude?

What is being noticed by the world right now? Look for where the attention is going, for thats what will change next. Quite possibly for the better.

Wil Darcangelo, M.Div., is the minister at First Parish UU Church of Fitchburg and of First Church of Christ, Unitarian, in Lancaster and producer of The UU Virtual Church of Fitchburg and Lancaster on YouTube. Email wildarcangelo@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter @wildarcangelo. His blog, Hopeful Thinking, can be found at http://www.hopefulthinkingworld.blogspot.com.

View post:

An observed thing never doesnt change - Lowell Sun

Develop inner peace, compassion to overcome COVID stress: Dalai Lama – The Tribune India

Tribune News Service

Dharamsala, May 16

The Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, after a three-month-long break from all engagements since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, on Saturday, began two-day live teaching on tackling negative emotions of fear and anxiety precipitated by the global health crisis.

Drawing from the teachings of Buddhist scholar, Nagarjuna, in his text Precious Garland, the Dalai Lama stated that the analytical and scientific approach of the Nalanda tradition, forming the base for Tibetan Buddhism, was precise in the study of the workings of the human mind.

He compared it to quantum physics that made a distinction between appearance and reality.

Appearance can be misleading. An object can be dissected into the tiniest molecule. While inherently the object holds no fixed meaning, we as observers ascribe meaning to the object. Therefore, we should instead seek an objective reality, the Dalai Lama said.

The Dalai Lama observed how materialistic development with its comfort and ease has brought along the human ignorance towards inner peace, so much that even materially successful people feel discontent.

The antidote to this discontent was the understanding that mental and emotional well-being is central to self-confidence and happiness. Tibetan Buddhist philosophy espouses the transformation of mind as the key to achieving peace and happiness within oneself and in the world at large, Dalai Lama added.

Especially relevant in the present circumstances, the Dalai Lama spoke on the interdependence of all living beings.

An individual is reliant on the community to survive which teaches us to strive for kindness and compassion towards one another, qualities intrinsic to human nature, he said.

Similarly, in the COVID-19 crisis that we are facing today, the Dalai Lama stressed global cooperation and focus on what unites us as members of one human family.

In this vein, the Dalai Lama called upon all citizens of the world to also pay attention to the long-term issue of global climate change that had been set in motion and is expected to have far-reaching consequences within the next two decades.

Earlier whenever the Dalai Lama used to hold his teachings in Mcleodganj, it was a boom time for the local tourism industry. However, now with virtual online teachings, Mcleodganj wore a deserted look.

The general secretary of the Smart City Hotel Association, Dharamsala, Sanjeev Gandhi, said we hoped with the blessings of the Dalai Lama, the good days would return to the area and normalcy would return.

Visit link:

Develop inner peace, compassion to overcome COVID stress: Dalai Lama - The Tribune India

OK, WTF Are Virtual Particles and Do They Actually Exist? – VICE

Last June, Boston University professor Gregg Jaeger travelled to Vxj, Sweden for a conference. It was the twentieth time that philosophers had gathered there to discuss questions that strike at the foundations of physics. Jaeger had been invited to give the opening talk, to speak about mysterious and sometimes controversial entities called virtual particles."

Whereas matter had long since been recognized to be made up of particles, the existence of virtual particles had been debated by philosophers of physics for at least thirty years. Mostly, they leaned towards their dismissal, but Jaeger is a believer.

Like ordinary particles, virtual particles come up incessantly in physicists work, in their theories, papers, and talks. But as their name suggests, they are far stranger than ordinary particles, which are already notoriously odd. Particles are the chief representatives of the world of the small, the quantum world. If you scaled everything up so that a particle was the size of a sand grain, you would be as tall as the distance from Earth to the Sun.

Physicists know from experience that particles are undoubtedly there, beyond sight. Virtual particles are much more elusive, to the point that the non-believers say they only exist in abstract math formulas. What does it even mean for virtual particles to be real?

Jaeger is a physicist-turned-philosopher, who published important quantitative results early in his career before spending the last ten years focused on the philosophy and interpretation of physics. He arrived at virtual particles as only the latest stop in a long journey of making sense of the quantum world.

There are two distinct narratives for virtual particles, and Jaeger subscribes to what philosophers call the realist position. Believers or realists argue that virtual particles are real entities that definitively exist.

In the realist narrative, virtual particles pop up when observable particles get close together. They are emitted from one particle and absorbed by another, but they disappear before they can be measured. They transfer force between ordinary particles, giving them motion and life. For every different type of elementary particle (quark, photon, electron, etc.), there are also virtual quarks, virtual photons, and so on.

Jaeger in his office. Image: Author

A useful analogy to the realist narrative of virtual particles is to imagine going to a big family reunion, full of cousins, parents, grandparents, and others. Each group of relatives represents some different type of particle, so for example, you and your siblings might all represent electrons, and your cousins might all represent photons. At this reunion, everyone happens to be a little stand-offish, mostly tucked away out of sight. When you see your sister, you walk up to shake hands, but when you look at her hand and go to grasp it, you find that your cousin has stuck his hairy hand in. He quickly shakes your hand and then your sisters. But when you look up, hes somehow disappeared, and your sister is walking away. Your cousin, the virtual photon, has just mediated the interaction between the two electrons of you and your sister.

Other philosophers have mainly upheld an opposing narrative, where virtual particles are not real and show up only in the mathematical theories and equations of quantum physics, which describe the particle world. The equations are correct, the doubters recognize, predicting all sorts of things like the peculiar magnetic properties of electrons and muons, for example.

But the entities called virtual particles are just parts of the math, these experts claim. Virtual particles have never been and cannot be directly observed, by their mathematical definition. They supposedly pop up only during fleeting particle interactions. And if they are real then they would possess seemingly unacceptable properties, like masses with values that can be squared (multiplied by themselves) to give negative numbers. They would be entirely out of the ordinary.

That physicists still claim these things to be real has haunted philosophers. Philosophers of physics, often highly trained physicists themselves, demand a story of reality that makes senseat least, as much as possible. Can the realist narrative really be true? Do bizarre things called virtual particles pop up and mediate all the interactions between observable particles?

As Jaeger explains, there are at least four different overarching mathematical theories of the quantum world. The most basic of these is called quantum mechanics. Virtual particles originate from a more advanced mathematical apparatus known as quantum field theory (QFT). If quantum mechanics is like the childrens book Clifford the Big Red Dog, then QFT is the Necronomicon, bound in skinfar more arcane and complex.

Physicists use quantum mechanics to explain the most fundamental quantum phenomena, like the simultaneous wave and particle nature of light. QFT on the other hand is used for predicting the results of extreme experiments at places like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). QFT does the heavy lifting, in other words.

The LHC is famous for its scattering experiments, where two or more particles are collided together and scatter off one another. During the collision, old particles are destroyed and new ones created. Physicists perform collisions over and over again in highly controlled circumstances and try to predict what particles come out and how. Recalling the metaphor of a family reunion, scattering experiments tell the story of how likely it is that your sister walks out from the handshake, and not some other relativean odd and yet distinct possibility.

In QFT, the probability of what particle comes out is decided by a complicated equation. Physicists solve it with a clever trick. They write out the solution as a sum of much simpler terms (summands), which is then squared. Technically, the sum contains infinitely many terms, but for many scenarios only the first few terms matter. Each of the terms in the sum contains physical quantities related to the incoming and outgoing particles, like their momentum, mass, and charge, all of which can be directly observed. However, each term can also contain physical quantities (like mass or charge) that correspond to entirely different particles, which are never observed. These are what are known as the virtual particles.

Before the LHC existed, in the 1940s, the renowned physicist Richard Feynman introduced a diagrammatic technique that made the role of the virtual particles clear. For each term in the sum for the QFT calculation, a so-called Feynman diagram can be drawn that depicts the incoming and outgoing particles. Virtual particles are drawn popping up in the center. These diagrams greatly aid in doing the complicated calculations. For every line in a diagram, for example, a physicist simply sticks another variable in their solution.

Feynman diagrams can seem to provide a temptingly accurate picture of what goes on in an experiment. However, for any experiment, there are actually infinitely many different Feynman diagrams, one for each term in the sum. This poses an interpretive problem because it seems incoherent. The theory suggests that anytime particle relatives shake hands at the family reunion, every other relative (an infinite number of them!) also stick theirs hands in.

One of Feynmans well-known contemporaries, Freeman Dyson, addressed this problem by making it clear that Feynman diagrams did not show a literal picture of reality. They were only supposed to be used as an aid to doing the math. On the other hand, Feynman sometimes suggested that the pictures actually were representative of reality.

But regardless of their interpretation, the diagrammatic technique caught on. And the virtual particles in the diagrams and the mathematics became objects of constant reference for physicistseven though the math was only meant to predict the outcomes of scattering experiments. The process of particles colliding into each other, which one would naively expect to be about forces and energy, turned out to be about virtual particles.

Image: Wikipedia/Krishnavedala

The fundamental thing that makes you know that the physical world is there is forces. Like you bang into things, right? Jaeger said, hitting his hand on the desk in his office. Ow! So thats something there. There's a world out there that's transmitted by a force. But when you try to [mathematically] understand this process of transmission, from the point of view of whats out there, and whats its structure, you end up with these virtual particles.

Many physicists who focus on quantitative results believe in a reality filled with virtual particles because QFT performs astoundingly well, predicting the outcomes of countless experiments. And QFT is rampant with virtual particles.

I have no problem at all with the fact that these virtual particles are real things that determine the forces in nature (except for gravity), said Lee Roberts, an experimental physicist and professor at Boston University, located only two blocks down from Gregg Jaegers office.

Roberts helps lead current efforts to measure the magnetic properties of muon particles with greater precision than ever before at Fermilabs Muon g-2 experiment. And whatever the questions may be around the existence of virtual particles, physicists like Roberts can hardly interpret the properties of muons without them.

Muons are like heavy electrons, carrying negative electric charge and a quantum property called spin. Roughly speaking, the muons spin can be thought of like the actual spin of a tiny rotating top. The rotation of the muons intrinsic charge produces a small magnetic field, called its magnetic moment.

Because it acts like a tiny magnet, the muon interacts with other electromagnetic fields, which are represented in the particle world by photons. To calculate the interaction, physicists use a similar process as for scattering experiments, writing the solution as an infinite sum. The terms in the sum are represented by nothing other than Feynman diagrams, where one muon particle and one photon flies in, and one single muon flies out. Virtual particles are drawn in the center hairy relatives, sticking their hands in.

All these interactions sum up to give the muon an anomalous magnetic moment, anomalous compared to the results of theories that came before QFT. But with QFT, physicists have predicted the magnetic moment almost exactly, like marking off the lines on a football pitch blindfolded and getting them accurate to the width of a hair. The accuracy of these calculations relies indispensably on the virtual particles.

With QFT being so accurate, it is clear that there must be some kind of reality to it. Perhaps the question then is not so much whether virtual particles are real, but what exactly the general picture of reality is, according to QFT.

Oliver Passon is one of the physicist-philosophers who object to the notion that virtual particles are real. He earned his Ph.D. in particle physics and is a highly experienced physicist, but now focuses on education research at the University of Wuppertal in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. He studies how particle physics should be taught to high-school students, for whom it has become part of the standard curriculum.

Virtual particles are a mess, Passon summarized for Motherboard.

For Passon, the realist view arises from a sloppy interpretation of the math, and it has led physicists to make other interpretive mistakes, for example, in explaining the discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC. He wrote about his views in a paper last year.

Passons objections can be explained in the context of the famous quantum mechanics test-case known as the double-slit or two-slit experiment. In a two-slit experiment, physicists fire particles such as photons one at a time at a wall with two tiny slits. The probability of where exactly a particle lands on the other side of the wall is related to the square of a sum, similarly as in a scattering calculation from QFT. But in this case there are only two terms in the sum, each reflecting the narrative of the particle passing through only one of the slits. Which slit does the particle pass through? Quantum mechanics cannot say, because the mathematics requires the term that represents each possibility to be summed with the other and squared.

The question whether one or the other thing happens makes no sense. Its not a tough questionits not even reasonable to ask, Passon said. This is what I take to be the key message of all of quantum mechanics.

The two-slit experiment seems to show that individual mathematical terms by themselves have no realism, and only their superposition (summation and squaring) have meaning. Thus, in Passons view, virtual particles that show up in individual QFT terms should not be considered real. This argument against virtual particles is known to philosophers as the superposition argument, and it can seem like a strong one.

But Jaeger thinks the argument is besides the point. Ironically, he sees this critique as being stuck in mathematical abstractions itself. He agrees that the individual terms cannot tell the whole story, "but it doesnt mean the particle didnt go through space, he said.

The mathematics may not tell which slit the particle passes through, but it doesnt mean that the mathematics is wrong. The mathematics still correctly predicts the passage of a particle through intervening space, and the probability of where it eventually lands. And in QFT, the mathematics indisputably relies on the presence of virtual particles.

Interestingly, quantum field theory actually says matter is fundamentally made up of fields rather than particles, let alone virtual particles. For every elementary particle, such as a photon, QFT says there is a fundamental field (such as a photon field) existing in space, overlapping with all of the other particle fields. Most of these fields are invisible to our eyes, with notable exceptions like the photon field.

Ask any physicist on the planet, whats our current best theory of physics, and theyre going to give you a theory of fields, said David Tong, a theoretical physicist and professor at the University of Cambridge. It doesnt include one particle in those equations [for fields]. Still, physicists more commonly refer to particles than their underlying fields, as particles can provide a more convenient and intuitive concept.

To question the existence of ordinary (non-virtual) particles would be counterproductive, according to Brigitte Falkenburg, a professor at the Technical University of Munich who wrote a comprehensive book on the subject, Particle Metaphysics.

The evidence against their existence is that they cannot be directly observed, but then, this was the argument of Galileos enemies, who refused to look through the telescope to observe Jupiters moons, Falkenburg said.

Particles and fields might instead be looked at as two different interpretations of the same thing. The physicist Matt Strassler has blogged extensively to try and clarify the interpretation of virtual particles based on an understanding of fields.

As he writes on his blog, particles can be thought of like permanent ripples in the underlying particle fields, like ripples fixed on the surface of water. Virtual particles on the other hand are more like fleeting waves.

As Jaeger points out, under this interpretation, the narrative of infinitely many virtual particles popping up makes more sense. There are only a finite number of particle fields, since only a finite number of elementary particles have been discovered. An infinitude of virtual particles popping up would be just like the infinitude of small changes that we can feel in a single gusting wind.

Jaeger is currently refining his own picture of virtual particles as fluctuations in the underlying quantum fields. The key part about these fluctuations for Jaeger is that they must conserve overall quantities like energy, charge and momentum, the key principles of modern physics.

In the end, there seems to be good reason not to think of virtual particles as ordinary, observable particles, but that whatever they are, they are real. The difficulty of interpreting their existence points at the complexity of the quantum field theory from which they originate.

As of now, no one knows how to replace QFT with a theory that is more straightforward to explain and interpret. But if they did, then they would have to settle the question of the true nature of the virtual particle, perhaps the most enigmatic inhabitant of the smallest of scales.

Visit link:

OK, WTF Are Virtual Particles and Do They Actually Exist? - VICE