Electrons are tiny and constantly in motion. How they behave in a crystal lattice determines key material properties: electrical conductivity, magnetism, or novel quantum effects. Anyone aiming to develop the information technologies of tomorrow must understand what electrons do. At Forschungszentrum Jülich, a new tool is now available for this purpose: a momentum microscope that was fully developed and built on site. “Internationally, we are currently seeing rapidly growing interest in this method,” explains Dr. Christian Tusche from Forschungszentrum Jülich.
Dr. Christian Tusche already played a key role in advancing momentum microscopy during his time at the Max Planck Institute of Microstructure Physics in Halle. Since moving to Jülich in 2015, he has continued to drive its development forward. His work has been recognized with several awards, including the Kai Siegbahn Prize in 2018 and the Innovation Award on Synchrotron Radiation in 2016. Most recently, he published a review article on the method in the journal Applied Physics Letters.
In recent years, numerous instruments have been commissioned at synchrotron facilities and X-ray lasers around the world. “The new device we built together with the Mechanical Workshop is a real innovation. There is currently nothing like it available from any specialist company,” says Dr. Tusche.
Does the universe need observers to exist? Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-hosts Chuck Nice and Gary O’Reilly explore questions about entropy, spontaneous symmetry breaking, spectroscopy and more with astrophysicist Charles Liu.
Does the universe require observers for information to exist? From Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation to modern neuroscience and philosophy, the crew explores whether measurement creates reality or reveals it. How does the double-slit experiment fit into this? Are wave and particle behaviors determined by how we measure them?
The conversation turns to information itself. What do physicists mean by “information”? How is entropy connected to hidden information in a system? We discuss entropy through everyday examples like coin flips, burning wood, and boiling water. How does this relate to quantum computing? We explore how astronomers separate cosmic redshift from stellar motion using spectroscopy, how interstellar dust and extinction curves complicate observations, and why mapping that dust is both a challenge and a source of discovery.
We discuss why the Big Bang didn’t form a black hole, how spontaneous symmetry breaking may have split the fundamental forces, and whether science can meaningfully investigate the universe’s earliest moments. Wrapping up, the team looks ahead to multi-messenger astronomy, next-generation telescope technology, exotic ideas about the speed of light, and how information continues to reshape what we know about the cosmos.
Thanks to our Patrons Avery Ellis, Markus Riegler, Linda Tullberg, Gami Lannin, Arief Aziz, Ron Lawhon, Corie Prater, Patrick McNaught, FracturedEquality, Spengler, Peter Harbeson, Oddron86, Hudson Lowe, Drew Romaniak, V2022, Kyle Ferchen, Branko Denčić, Patrick Borgquist, DJ Sipe, Andy Blair, Alan Keizer, SR, Nihat Cubukcu, Greg Lance, Diwas Pandit, Anik Kasumi, Alexander Albert, Kodai, Dyonne Peters Lewoc AKA DPTaterTot, Adrian, Ben Goff, Jose Barreiro, Saurabh Chaudhari, Wimberley Children’s House, Jean Arthur Deda, Jerrel Thomas, Serkan Ergenc, Douglas Kennedy, Lee Browner, Manuel Palmer, Dans Jansons, Russell Harvey, BladiX, Lars-Ove Torstensson, Norman Weizer, Arian Farkhoy, S. Madge, Pavel Seraphimov, Amanda Wolfe, Heisenberg, Mattchew Phillips, Caleb Berumen, Sretooh, Gary Tabbert, Oscar Abreu Lamas, Kevin Attebury, Volker Haberlandt, SeaGolly, B. Shoemaker, Ruben Ferrer, Steven Adams, Daniel Hintz, Nathaniel Richardson, Nick Griffiths, Adam Schmidt, Scott Plummer, Northernlight, JoMama, Beth, Frank Cottone, Yinj, Betty Anderson, Paul Smith, John Little, Emad Uddin, Brian O’Brien, Jayden Moffatt, Kevin Mace, Zara DeBresoc, Rain Bresee, Mara (Farmstrong), Rose, Stiven, Demethius Jackson, Alejandro Rodriguez, J Davis, Chris Buhler, Nathan Davieau, Sourav Prakash Patra, Wayne Rasmussen, John from Bavaria, Stephanie Phillips, Yohojones, Josh Farrell, John, Oo-De-Lally, Millie Richter, Montague Films, Lawrey Goodrick, and John Giovannettone for supporting us this week.
Matter. What is reality? And if it’s so fundamental, why do we all experience it so differently? Join us for a marathon through the discoveries and paradoxes that suggest modern physics is pointing to a deeply uncomfortable truth: that our picture of the universe is far from complete, and what we think about reality may be completely wrong.
00:00 Reality Is Already Broken 00:57 Scientists Build a Window into the Fourth Dimension 23:16 The Physicist Who Says Reality Is Not What It Seems 1:28:45 The Black Hole Paradox That Keeps Physicists Awake at Night 1:50:40 Sean Carroll: The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics 2:46:40 What are the foundations of reality?
About New Scientist: New Scientist was founded in 1956 for “all those interested in scientific discovery and its social consequences”. Today our website, videos, newsletters, app, podcast and print magazine cover the world’s most important, exciting and entertaining science news as well as asking the big-picture questions about life, the universe, and what it means to be human.
If a lot of light could be rapidly and precisely beamed off the chip, free from the confines of the wiring, it could open the door to higher-resolution displays, smaller Lidar systems, more precise 3D printers, or larger-scale quantum computers.
Now, researchers from MIT and elsewhere have developed a new class of photonic devices that enable the precise broadcasting of light from the chip into free space in a scalable way.
Space. Time. Matter. What is reality? And if it’s so fundamental, why do we all experience it so differently? Join us for a marathon through the discoveries and paradoxes that suggest modern physics is pointing to a deeply uncomfortable truth: that our picture of the universe is far from complete, and what we think about reality may be completely wrong.
00:00 Reality Is Already Broken 00:57 Scientists Build a Window into the Fourth Dimension 23:16 The Physicist Who Says Reality Is Not What It Seems 1:28:45 The Black Hole Paradox That Keeps Physicists Awake at Night 1:50:40 Sean Carroll: The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics 2:46:40 What are the foundations of reality?
In 2013, physicist Alex Wissner-Gross published a single equation for intelligence in [ITALIC] Physical Review Letters [/ITALIC]: # F = T∇Sτ
The force of an intelligent system equals its temperature — computational capacity, raw horsepower — multiplied by the gradient of its future option-space. Intelligence is not a mysterious property of carbon-based brains.
It is a physical force: the tendency of any sufficiently energetic system to maximize the number of future states accessible to it.
The equation was elegant. Correct. And incomplete.
It describes the force. It does not describe the geometry of the space through which that force navigates.
A gradient without a metric is a direction without distance — it tells the system where to push but not what distortion it will encounter on the way there.
We spent three years building the geometry. We tested it across 69 billion simulations. What we found changes everything. ## The Missing Geometry — From Force to Navigation.
Take back your personal data with Incogni! Use code Sabine at the link below and get 60% off annual plans: https://incogni.com/sabine.
One of the most perplexing questions in the foundations of physics is how our shared sense of reality emerges out of quantum mechanics. This is because in quantum mechanics, it seems, different observers can arrive at different conclusions about what is real and what not. A group of physicists now used an approach called “Quantum Darwinism” to solve this tricky problem. At least they say they solved it. I am not so sure. Let’s have a look.
Paper: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract… mugs, posters and more: ➜ https://sabines-store.dashery.com/ 💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg 👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine 📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/ 📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle… 👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl… 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ / @sabinehossenfelder 📚 Buy my book ➜ https://amzn.to/3HSAWJW #science #sciencenews #quantum #physics This video discusses the concept of “reality” in quantum physics, touching on how different observers can reach different conclusions. It features a presentation of a scientific paper on the “Metrological approach to the emergence of classical objectivity,” suggesting a potential solution to a long-standing problem in quantum mechanics. We explore how the “observer effect” and individual “consciousness” play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of “reality does not exist” within the realm of “quantum physics explained.” This deep dive connects the fundamental principles of “quantum mechanics” with profound questions in “philosophy.”
Curiosity-driven research has long sparked technological transformations. A century ago, curiosity about atoms led to quantum mechanics, and eventually the transistor at the heart of modern computing. Conversely, the steam engine was a practical breakthrough, but it took fundamental research in thermodynamics to fully harness its power.
Today, artificial intelligence and science find themselves at a similar inflection point. The current AI revolution has been fueled by decades of research in the mathematical and physical sciences (MPS), which provided the challenging problems, datasets, and insights that made modern AI possible. The 2024 Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry, recognizing foundational AI methods rooted in physics and AI applications for protein design, made this connection impossible to miss.
In 2025, MIT hosted a Workshop on the Future of AI+MPS, funded by the National Science Foundation with support from the MIT School of Science and the MIT departments of Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics. The workshop brought together leading AI and science researchers to chart how the MPS domains can best capitalize on — and contribute to — the future of AI. Now a white paper, with recommendations for funding agencies, institutions, and researchers, has been published in Machine Learning: Science and Technology. In this interview, Jesse Thaler, MIT professor of physics and chair of the workshop, describes key themes and how MIT is positioning itself to lead in AI and science.
