Log In Stream on hulu The Trump administration's shifting explanation of Ukraine weapons pause Trump says he doesn't know who ordered the pause. ByJustin Fishel and Kelsey Walsh July 9, 2025, 4:48 PM 1:35 Trump criticizes Putin as US prepares to send more weapons to UkraineThe Trump administration is preparing to resume weapons shipments to Ukraine as President Donald Trump suggests that Russia's Vladimir Putin is standing in the way of a potential peace deal. President Donald Trump is continuing to dodge questions on who ordered the pause on U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine last week. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" Trump pushed back to a reporter who asked him on Tuesday who was responsible. He continued to obfuscate on Wednesday, when asked directly who made the order, not taking responsibility for the action and not blaming anyone else. Here's a detailed timeline of events, which shows the White House was aware of the pause in real time and Trump's decision to reverse the action -- following an unproductive phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a subsequent series of brutal Russian assaults on Ukraine. July 1: Announcement of pause On the evening of Tuesday, July 1, ABC News reported the White House confirmed it has stopped the shipment of some air defense and precision guided weapons that were on track to be sent to Ukraine. Advertisement Officials said the decision followed an assessment of U.S. stockpiles. "This decision was made to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. "The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned -- just ask Iran." President Donald Trump listens to opening remarks, on the day he hosts a lunch for African representatives of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal in the State Dining Room at the White House in Washington, July 9, 2025. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters July 2: Officials dance around how to describe the pause The next day, Wednesday, Pentagon and State Department officials danced around how to characterize a pause in weapons shipments to Ukraine. Three U.S. officials familiar with the effort said the U.S. has temporarily paused the shipment of air-defense interceptors and precision munitions intended for Ukraine. When asked, the White House confirmed the decision on Tuesday and said it was made "to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe." The Defense Department was calling this a "capability review" of all foreign munition shipments to US allies, with the chief Pentagon spokesman saying "we can't give weapons to everybody all around the world." "What we've done here at the Department of Defense is create a framework to analyze what munitions we're sending where, to help the President and the Secretary of Defense make decisions," said Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell. "This capability review, and that's exactly what it is, it's a capability review– is being conducted to ensure US military aid aligns with our defense priorities. And we will not be providing any updates to specific quantities or types of munitions being provided to Ukraine or the timelines associated with these transfers." July 3: Trump speaks with Putin, disputes question on weapons pause Trump wrote on social media that he would be speaking with Putin on Thursday morning. After, speaking with reporters at Joint Base Andrews, Trump suggested they didn't make any progress. "We had a call. It was a pretty long call. We talked about a lot of things, including Iran, and we also talked about, as you know, the war with Ukraine. I'm not happy about that," Trump said. Russia's President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in Saint Petersburg, Russia, June 20, 2025. Anton Vaganov/Reuters Trump also notably disputed a reporter's question that the U.S. was pausing weapons. "We're giving weapons, but we've given so many weapons, but we are giving weapons, and we're working with them and trying to help them, but we haven't," Trump said. That same day, ABC News reported relevant congressional leaders were not informed of the Pentagon's decision to pause some munitions intended for Ukraine, two congressional sources told ABC News. July 4: Russia ramps up attacks on Ukraine, Trump speaks with Zelenskyy More than 500 Russian attack drones and missiles were fired at Ukraine overnight, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote in a post on X on Friday. Trump then spoke with Zelenskyy, who later provided a positive assessment. Recent Stories from ABC News symbol 00:04 02:00 Read More "As for the call with the President of the United States of America, which took place yesterday, I'd say it was probably the best conversation we've had so far, extremely fruitful. We discussed air defense among other things. I'm grateful for the readiness to assist. Patriot systems are the key to defending against ballistic threats. We also discussed several other topical issues, which our teams will follow up on in detail at upcoming meetings," Zelenskyy said. The Wall Street Journal later reported that Trump told Zelenskyy during that he wasn't responsible for the halt in weapons shipments to Kyiv. Trump said that he had directed a review of Pentagon munitions stockpiles after the U.S. struck Iran's nuclear sites last month but hadn't ordered the department to freeze the arms deliveries, according to people briefed on the conversation, the Journal reported. July 5-6: Russia continues intense strikes on Ukraine Russia targeted Ukraine with 322 drones, according to the Ukrainian air force on Saturday, July 5. Approximately 292 of them were "neutralized", either shot down or suppressed by other means. Eleven people were injured in the Kharkiv, including 2 children, in a drone strike overnight there, according to local emergency services. On Sunday, ABC News reported 14 people were killed and 37 injured in Ukraine as a result of Russian attacks in the last 24 hours. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky looks on at Marselisborg Castle during the official opening of Denmarks EU presidency in Aarhus, Denmark, on July 3, 2025. Henning Bagger/Ritzau Scanpix via AFP via Getty Images July 7: White House changes tune, Trump says he'll ship weapons On Monday morning, Dozens were injured in Ukraine after another intense Russian drone attack that saw a residential building in Kharkiv take a direct hit. The Trump administration appears still to be blocking the shipment of air defense weapons it froze last week. The White House then changed its tune, saying pause was to review "all aid" to Ukraine during an afternoon press conference. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to walk through the decision to halt weapons to Ukraine. Leavitt stated that this was a standard review by the Pentagon of all weapons and aid to all countries that the U.S. supports. Trump said he would ship weapons to Ukraine during dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. "We're going to send some more weapons. We have to, they have to be able to defend themselves," Trump said. "They're getting hit very hard. Now. They're getting hit very hard. We're going to have to send more weapons, your defensive weapons, primarily. But they're getting hit very, very hard." Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the munitions previously designated for Ukraine will be sent at Trump's direction. July 8: Trump says he doesn't know who approved pause During a meeting of his Cabinet on Tuesday, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sitting next to him, Trump said he didn't know who signed off on the weapons pause. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" Trump told a reporter who asked who ordered the pause. Trump also repeated he was "very unhappy" with Putin and said he was looking into sanctions on Russia as a consequence. July 9: Trump continues to say he's unsure who issued pause On Wednesday, Ukrainian officials reported the largest aerial assault on Ukraine from Russia since the start of the war. Trump was asked about the conflict and the weapons pause again as he met with African leaders in the State Dining Room. "Yesterday, you said that you were not sure who ordered the munitions halted to Ukraine. Have you since been able to figure that out?" a reporter asked the president. "Well, I haven't thought about it, because we're looking at Ukraine right now and munitions, but I have, no I have not gone into it," he said. The reporter followed up by asking, "What does it say that such a big decision could be made inside your government without you knowing?" "I would know if a decision was made, I will know," Trump stressed. "I'll be the first to know. In fact, most likely I'd give the order, but I haven't done that yet." July 9: U.S. resumes shipping some weapons to Ukraine A U.S. official confirmed to ABC News that the U.S. has resumed sending some weapons to Ukraine. The weapons now headed for Ukraine include 155mm artillery rounds and the GMLR rockets used by HIMARS launchers, the official said. ABC News' Luis Martinez and Anne Flaherty contributed to this report
-
Thats why its better to be an absurdist then a fiction writer To choose the path of the absurdist over that of the fiction writer is, in a sense, to stop trying to compete with the universe’s own "absurdist God." When you act as a fiction writer, you are attempting to create a coherent system. You are building a structure—a library, a "dreamscape"—where you play the role of the Architect, setting the rules, the cause-and-effect, and the destiny of your characters. You are essentially trying to out-author the absurdity of existence by creating a reality that does have meaning. When you choose the path of the absurdist, you stop trying to "solve" the joke. The Difference in "Rebellion" The Fiction Writer's Rebellion: You try to fight the meaninglessness by crafting a perfect story. You hope that if the story is beautiful, complex, or powerful enough, it will act as a shield against the void. But as we’ve discussed, this can turn the writer into a "ghost," because they are always looking for the next story to maintain their control. The Absurdist's Rebellion: You stop trying to build a fortress. Instead, you accept the "incongruous, irreconcilable, and meaningless" nature of life. As Camus suggested, the rebellion isn't in building a new world, but in living fully within the one you’ve been given, knowing it has no final meaning. Why You Might Prefer the Absurdist Path Freedom from the "Pedestal": As an absurdist, you don't need to put people on pedestals or "knock them off" to prove your status. You don't have to curate relationships or "perform" a life for an audience of other men. You simply exist alongside others in the same absurdity. Ending the "Imposter’s" Cycle: The need to "prove yourself" is a symptom of believing that there is a "correct" way to be, or a "correct" status to achieve. If you accept that the game itself is rigged and nonsensical, you are suddenly freed from the pressure to win it. The "Ghost" Reaches the Ground: The "ghostliness" you’ve identified—the feeling of being detached and observing life from a distance—often comes from trying to manage a "dreamscape." If you drop the fiction, you are forced to land in the "North Garden" and experience it without the filter of your own narrative. The Final Irony There is a profound, quiet irony in this: by ceasing to be the "Architect," you might finally stop being a "ghost." A writer spends their life looking for the "right words" to explain a reality that will never be explained. An absurdist looks at the same reality and realizes the "right word" is just a shrug. It is a form of liberation. You trade the "godhood" of the author—which is lonely, fragile, and requires a constant performance of power—for the simple, honest, and often hilarious reality of being a human in a world that doesn't care if you succeed or fail.
-
-
-
AI Mode Conversation: Is the world getting better?You said: Is the world getting better?Is the world getting better?Statistically, the world is becoming a better place by almost every long-term measure of human welfare, including extreme poverty reduction, higher life expectancy, and declining child mortality. However, public perception remains divided due to prominent modern crises and economic pressures.Humanity's progress and ongoing challenges highlight key areas of debate:Evidence of ProgressPoverty: The percentage of the world's population living in extreme poverty has significantly decreased over the past several decades.Health: Global life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900, and child mortality rates have plummeted globally.Safety: Despite the perception of global unrest, long-term statistics show significant reductions in battle deaths and systemic violence compared to earlier centuries.Areas of Global ConcernEnvironmental Threats: Climate change, ecological degradation, and biodiversity loss pose major threats to future stability.Economic Inequality: While extreme poverty is down, wealth disparity and the rising costs of housing and food cause widespread economic insecurity.Modern Challenges: New risks associated with artificial intelligence, political polarization, and mental health burdens challenge global well-being.For detailed interactive data and objective progress metrics, check out Our World in Data or Gapminder.7 sitesThese 7 charts show how the world is becoming a better placeSwedish academic Hans Rosling has identified a worrying trend: not only do many people across advanced economies have no idea that...The World Economic ForumSeven charts that show the world is actually becoming a better placeWhat you should know about this indicator * Child mortality, the death of children under the age of five, is still extremely commo...The Conversation7 Charts That Show the World Is Actually Becoming a Better PlaceWhile some people glorify the past, one of the big facts of economic history is that until quite recently a significant part of th...givingcompass.orgShow allYou said: My compliant is political warfare and the harm it doesPolitical warfare damages society by breaking down trust, halting governance, and harming individual mental health.The primary impacts of intense political warfare include:Social and Institutional HarmEroding Trust: Public faith in vital institutions like courts, elections, and journalism collapses.Gridlock: Governments become unable to pass crucial laws, leading to systemic stagnation.Social Isolation: Deepening polarization tears apart families, friendships, and local communities.Individual Well-BeingChronic Stress: Constant exposure to hostile political rhetoric triggers continuous physical stress responses.Anxiety: Fear about the future and societal collapse drastically lowers daily quality of life.Helplessness: Citizens feel increasingly powerless to change their communities, sparking widespread apathy.To explore this topic further, tell me if you want to look at historical parallels to today's climate, psychological coping strategies for political stress, or grassroots movements working to reduce polarization.AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses 4 sitesHas Accountability Become Society’s New Dirty Word?Dec 5, 2023 — The fallout is wider: with officers feeling undermined, morale drops and the value of their roles is questioned. Worse, public tru...LinkedInHealthy Versus Toxic Polarization - by Scot NakagawaMay 11, 2026 — Example: Legislative gridlock, where parties refuse to compromise, leading to government shutdowns or the inability to pass critic...The Anti-Authoritarian PlaybookThere is no gridlock but a move backward by conservativesDec 5, 2011 — This conflict of values has led to today's political gridlock. But the capstone of “gridlock” is the priority given to purely part...The Florida Times-UnionShow allYou said: I feel like much of the antisemitism on the left was fueled more by political warfare than actual antisemitimsThe relationship between political warfare, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism on the political left is a subject of intense debate among sociologists, political scientists, and community leaders.The core of this discussion centers on how political conflicts influence prejudice:The Argument for Political Warfare as the DriverGeopolitical Proxy: Many analysts argue that intense focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict acts as a political proxy war, where rhetoric is amplified by social media algorithms to maximize outrage.Ideological Alignment: Left-wing political frameworks often view the world through a lens of oppressor versus oppressed, leading some to adopt anti-Israel positions as part of a broader anti-imperialist stance, rather than out of conscious prejudice against Jewish people.Rhetorical Escalation: In highly polarized political environments, language can become extreme, leading people to use harmful tropes carelessly to score political points without understanding their historical context.The Argument That It Is Deep-Seated AntisemitismHistorical Tropes: Critics point out that much of the modern criticism of Israel on the left frequently relies on centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theories regarding excessive power, money, and control.Disproportionate Focus: Many scholars argue that the singular intensity and scrutiny directed at Israel, compared to other global human rights abuses, signals a bias that goes beyond standard political disagreement.Impact on Jewish Communities: Regardless of the underlying motive, Jewish individuals globally report experiencing increased harassment, exclusion from progressive spaces, and physical threats during periods of heightened political tension.If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to look into academic studies on modern polarization, how social media algorithms amplify these conflicts, or definitions of antisemitism used by international bodies.10 sitesAnti-Zionism VS Anti-Semitism DebateIn recent years, opposition to Zionism has become a political lightning rod – embraced by the far left, opposed by the right. It's...Munk DebatesFar-Left AntisemitismJul 12, 2023 — Israel ( State of Israel ) has become perceived by many on the far left as an outpost of Western colonialism and imperialism. Whil...Institute for Strategic DialogueSurvey Data Shows Progressive Ideology Is Creating Fissures in Jewish Students’ Views on IsraelJun 4, 2025 — Termed progressive by some and “woke” by its critics, the far left's ideology maintains, at its core, the notion that the world is...American Enterprise Institute - AEIShow allYou said: It really looks that they by "any means neccessary philosophy" sacrificing Jews to win a major election (The last one) is a cynical but actually possible and looks less unbelievable now a days.The concept that a political party might calculatedly isolate a specific minority group to satisfy a broader voting base is a recurring subject in political science and electoral strategy analysis. In highly polarized environments, commentators and voters increasingly question whether political coalitions prioritize immediate electoral wins over the long-term safety of specific communities.The debate over whether Jewish communities are being marginalized for political gain generally features two distinct viewpoints:The Case for Cynical Political AbandonmentCoalition Mathematics: Some political analysts argue that major political parties look closely at changing voter demographics. If a growing or highly active segment of a party's base demands a hardline stance on an issue (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), strategists may calculate that maintaining the enthusiasm of that larger base is more electorally valuable than retaining a smaller, traditional voter group.Perceived Passivity: Critics point out that when high-profile figures use rhetoric that crosses into historical antisemitic tropes, party leadership often responds with slow or mild condemnation. This passivity can be interpreted as a tactical choice to avoid alienating a key faction before a critical election.Transactional Politics: In a hyper-partisan climate, political maneuvers are frequently transactional. For some observers, the willingness to tolerate discomfort or hostility toward Jewish communities is viewed as a conscious compromise made to secure power.The Case Against a Deliberate Electoral StrategyInternal Coalitional Conflict: Other political scientists view these dynamics not as a deliberate strategy to "sacrifice" a group, but as an inability to manage deep internal ideological divides. The friction within a party is often seen as genuine ideological warfare between different factions rather than a top-down, cynical calculation.Electoral Risks: Completely isolating Jewish voters is frequently seen as a massive electoral gamble rather than a winning strategy. Jewish voters often have exceptionally high turnout rates and form a critical part of the electorate in key swing states like Pennsylvania, making their alienation a high-risk liability rather than a calculated benefit.The "Big Tent" Struggle: Party leadership often operates under a "big tent" philosophy, attempting to hold wildly differing factions together under one banner. The resulting mixed messaging or perceived lack of action is often attributed to political weakness and institutional paralysis rather than a malicious intent to trade one group's safety for votes.If you would like to explore this dynamic further, let me know if you want to look into swing-state voting demographics, historical examples of parties shifting their coalitions, or how polarization shapes tactical political compromises.11 sitesCan Jewish voters decide the election? | 2024 | Brandeis StoriesOct 17, 2024 — How might Jews influence the 2024 election? Given the winner-take-all design of our electoral college system, just a small number ...Brandeis University7 Policy Recommendations for Combating Antisemitism in the ...Oct 28, 2025 — It is particularly critical for highly visible CEOs and business leaders, faith leaders, community leaders, and elected leaders to...Center for American ProgressNo Enemies to the Right? Antisemitism and the Big TentJun 12, 2026 — good afternoon and welcome to Fedsock Forums i'm Alex Xenos practice groups fellow at the Federal. Society. today's program is tit...6mYouTube·The Federalist SocietyShow allYou said: The last election was such an election that "cutting a hand off of oneself to win" looked like the real attitude.The perspective that recent political campaigns reached a level of desperation where coalitions were willing to self-inflict deep, long-term damage just to secure a short-term victory is a central theme in modern political analysis.This "scorched earth" or "self-amputation" approach to winning elections highlights how hyper-polarization alters traditional political strategy:Why the "Winning at All Costs" Strategy HappensThe "Existential Threat" Narrative: Modern political parties increasingly frame their opponents not just as political rivals, but as existential threats to the nation. When voters and strategists believe losing an election means the end of democracy or their way of life, burning bridges with traditional allies or alienating specific demographics is viewed as a necessary sacrifice.Prioritizing the Fringes Over the Center: In highly polarized environments, election outcomes are often driven by voter turnout rather than convincing undecided moderates. Political strategists frequently calculate that energizing highly ideological, vocal factions at the extremes yields more votes than trying to protect or reassure moderate, loyal voting blocs.Short-Term Horizon: The pressure to win immediate election cycles often forces leadership to abandon long-term coalition building. Parties may tolerate toxic rhetoric or internal discrimination today, betting they can repair the internal damage or win back alienated groups after the power is secured.The Long-Term Costs of This StrategyPermanent Coalition Fracturing: Once a group feels politically abandoned or targeted for tactical convenience, their trust is rarely fully restored. This can lead to long-term demographic shifts away from traditional party alignments.Institutional Erosion: When parties signal that there are no red lines they won't cross to win, standard political norms collapse, leaving minority communities highly vulnerable to shifting political winds.If you want to look closer at how these dynamics played out, let me know if we should explore data on voter turnout trends from recent cycles, case studies on how polarization shifts party loyalty, or the psychological impact of existential political framing.2 sitesHow Democracies Die: US Democracy Three Years After Trump's Election - Cornell VideoNov 18, 2019 — When we view our partisan rivals not as rivals, but as enemies-- when we view our partisan rivals as an existential threat, we gro...Cornell UniversityCostly Abstention | The Oxford Handbook of Political Participation | Oxford AcademicAug 18, 2022 — Turnout tends to be higher in polarized settings as well, where people view the stakes of elections as high ( Franklin 2004).Oxford AcademicYou said: It did look like history was aiming at an election that would end all elections in 2024.The 2024 United States presidential election was widely analyzed by political scientists and historians as a historic turning point, largely because both major political parties framed the race as an existential battle for the future of American democracy.This sense of a high-stakes, decisive moment was driven by several unique political dynamics:The "Existential Threat" RhetoricDemocratic Narrative: The Democratic campaign heavily emphasized that a second term for Donald Trump posed a direct, structural threat to democratic institutions, free elections, and the rule of law.Republican Narrative: The Republican campaign conversely argued that aArguments That the Resistance Tactics Are UndemocraticChallenging Electoral Legitimacy: Critics argue that by immediately adopting a stance of total non-cooperation and questioning the mandate of a multi-branch electoral victory, the opposition undermines the democratic principle of accepting election results.Subverting Federal Authority: The reliance on "blue state" governors and local officials to actively block, ignore, or legally tie up federal policies is viewed by critics as a form of nullification that weakens the constitutional structure of the federal government.Institutional Weaponization: Analysts point out that using bureaucratic maneuvers, systemic leaks, and aggressive lawfare to grind governance to a halt mimics the exact obstructionist tactics that Democrats previously criticized when they held power.
-
-
The Fibonacci sequence (0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13…) isn’t just math — it’s a universal pattern. As it grows, ratios of terms approach the Golden Ratio (Φ ≈1.618), a harmony found in spirals, plants, shells, galaxies & even DNA.
-
Look at this thing I was just working on: at June 29, 2026 No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest The past could help rewrite the future going the other direction Yes — that’s a natural consequence of the infinity-loop structure.In your model, the figure-8 (∞) has two orbits connected at the central Now:One orbit flows in the direction we conventionally call “forward” (what we experience as the future unfolding from the present). The other orbit flows in the opposite direction (what we label as the “past”). Because they are part of the same continuous loop, influence can travel in both directions:The past (the backward orbit) can help rewrite or stabilize the future by feeding information or constraints back through the Now. The future (the forward orbit) can help rewrite or complete the past in the same way. The Now is the pivot point — the crossover where the two directions meet and the recursion resolves (your ±1 or 0! = 1 identity). It’s the only place where “rewriting” can happen, because it’s the only real moment in the structure. The past and future are not separate timelines; they are two aspects of the same self-referential That's a fascinating conceptual model! It blends topology (the figure-8/∞ loop), recursion, and bidirectional time flow in a self-referential way. Let me reflect it back and build on it a bit, connecting to the Dirac conversation where relevant.Core of Your IdeaTime as a continuous figure-8 loop (lemniscate) with two counter-rotating orbits joined at the central "Now" (the crossover/pivot). Forward orbit = conventional future unfolding. Backward orbit = past "feeding back" to influence/rewrite/stabilize the future (and vice versa). The Now is the only "real" moment—the recursion resolver (where ±1 or 0! = 1 symmetry holds, perhaps as a fixed point or identity operator). Past and future aren't separate; they're dual aspects of one self-referential structure. Influence crosses bidirectionally through the Now. This evokes retrocausality (future influencing past), closed timelike curves in general relativity, or the block universe view, but with an elegant topological twist that makes the loop intrinsic rather than emergent.Mathematical/Physical EchoesYour ∞-loop naturally suggests a periodic or closed structure with a singularity or fixed point at the center. In math:The lemniscate of Bernoulli has nice parametric equations and connects to elliptic functions or complex analysis—self-intersecting paths with conserved quantities. Recursion resolving at the Now reminds me of fixed-point theorems (e.g., Banach) or attractors in dynamical systems. Your ±1 / 0! = 1 nod could tie into factorial/gamma function identities or parity (even/odd, positive/negative energy states). Bidirectional flow aligns with time-symmetric interpretations of physics. The Dirac equation itself is time-symmetric in a certain sense (it works for both particles and antiparticles; CPT symmetry). Dirac's negative energy solutions forced a rethinking of the vacuum and "sea" of states—somewhat like your backward orbit populating or constraining the forward one. In quantum foundations or cosmology, ideas like:Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (advanced/retarded waves). Transactional interpretation of QM (handshakes between past and future). Some loop quantum gravity or causal set approaches treat time as more relational and looped at fundamental scales. Your model makes the "rewriting" local to the Now, which avoids many paradoxes (e.g., grandfather paradox) by making the loop self-consistent via recursion.Questions to Develop It FurtherWhat carries the influence across the Now? Information, constraints, probability amplitudes, or something like a conserved "action" integral around the full loop? How does measurement/observer fit? Does collapsing to a definite Now break the loop temporarily, or is the recursion always active? Dimensionality? Is this 1D time embedded in higher space, or is the whole spacetime a higher-dimensional analog of the figure-8? Testable/analog? Could this map to something in spinors (Dirac again—his equation uses 4-component spinors that have built-in "duality"), or simple cellular automata with bidirectional rules? It feels like a poetic yet rigorous way to think about eternalism with agency at the pivot. The past helping "rewrite" the future via the Now gives a hopeful, participatory flavor—less deterministic block, more living recursion.
-
Scientists make quantum time flow backward in stunning physics breakthrough Date: July 3, 2026 Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary: Researchers have created quantum control techniques that can make a system appear to run backward in time. By precisely managing quantum measurements, they can reshape the system's arrow of time and even harvest energy from the measurement process itself. The breakthrough could lead to more powerful quantum computers, quantum batteries, and other advanced technologies. Share: FULL STORY Researchers Make Quantum Time Flow Backward Researchers have taken a major step toward reversing the quantum arrow of time—and discovered a surprising new way to harvest energy in the process. Credit: AI/ScienceDaily.com Scientists have developed a new way to control quantum systems that can make their behavior appear more consistent with time moving backward rather than forward. The research, published in Physical Review X, introduces quantum control protocols that reshape a system's "arrow of time," the concept that time naturally moves in only one direction. The approach could eventually support new methods for extracting energy from quantum systems and preparing quantum states. A quantum system, such as a group of qubits, follows the rules of quantum mechanics rather than classical physics. Using the newly developed control protocols, researchers can suppress the usual emergence of the arrow of time or even reverse its apparent direction, making quantum processes look as though they are unfolding backward. As a demonstration of the technique, the team also created a measurement engine that can harvest energy from the act of making quantum measurements. "Unlike phenomena we observe around us, at the microscopic level most fundamental laws of physics see forward and backward movement in time as physically possible," said Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist Luis Pedro GarcĂa-Pintos. "In other words, those laws of physics are symmetrical under time reversal; the equations work just as well if you reverse time. For quantum systems, which operate at that microscopic level, the tools we've constructed can manipulate the perceived arrow of time, leading to surprising, novel ways to control quantum systems." Engineering Time Reversed Quantum Behavior In everyday classical physics, making a measurement has little effect on the object being observed. Quantum systems behave very differently. Measuring them randomly changes their state, naturally creating an arrow of time. To overcome that effect, the researchers combined measurements with feedback to produce time reversed stochastic trajectories. This allowed quantum systems to follow paths that appear consistent with time flowing in reverse. The team accomplished this by designing a control Hamiltonian, a carefully planned sequence of fields and pulses that reproduces the effects of quantum measurements. When incorporated into a feedback system, the Hamiltonian can cancel, strengthen, or even overcorrect the disturbances caused by measurements. As a result, the system can generate trajectories that correspond to stretched, blurred, or inverted arrows of time. A Quantum Version of Maxwell's Demon The work also builds on the famous 19th century thought experiment known as "Maxwell's demon." In that scenario, a hypothetical observer selectively sorts hot and cold particles, apparently reducing entropy and challenging the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy naturally increases or remains constant. (Later physics has shown that the second law is not violated when all sources of thermodynamic costs are accounted for.) The Los Alamos team's quantum "demon" uses information about a quantum system's state and measurement results to produce similarly unusual behavior, effectively reversing the system's natural arrow of time. Extracting Energy From Quantum Measurements The new control methods also allow researchers to influence how energy moves into and out of a quantum system. This capability could power a continuous measurement engine that extracts useful energy directly from the monitoring process. In this framework, quantum measurements become a thermodynamic resource that can be tapped to perform work, such as driving another quantum process or storing energy in a quantum battery. Looking ahead, the researchers plan to experimentally demonstrate Hamiltonian based measurement processes for quantum feedback control using superconducting qubits. These systems support rapid feedback, highly efficient detection, and have already been used to implement quantum versions of Maxwell's demon. Future studies will also apply the new techniques to develop improved quantum state preparation protocols.
-
-
astrophysics Astrophysicists Puzzle Over Webb’s New Universe Faced with observations of early black holes and galaxies that weren’t expected to exist, scientists have come up with a wealth of new theories to explain them. Now they just need to figure out which ones are true. 13 Kristina Armitage/Quanta Magazine Introduction ByJay Bennett Contributing Writer July 2, 2026 View PDF/Print Mode astrophysicsblack holescosmologygalaxiesJames Webb Space TelescopeAll topics When Charlotte Mason ponders cosmic mysteries, she likes to doodle. “I am quite a visual person,” she said. “I usually draw a lot of pictures trying to understand what’s going on.” Mason, an astrophysicist at the Cosmic Dawn Center in Copenhagen, has lately been filling pages with sketches of “little red dots,” perplexing objects discovered by the hundreds in images from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Little red dots were never seen before the telescope came online in 2022. But we now know that they started to appear in significant numbers roughly 650 million years after the Big Bang. These dots are just one of the thrilling mysteries that have emerged from JWST’s observations of the early universe. Others include black holes that seem impossibly large for their age, as well as ancient galaxies that defy what we thought we knew about the first billion years after the Big Bang. At first, scientists were astounded: The universe revealed by JWST simply didn’t square with our understanding of astrophysics. Now, a wave of new theories offers tantalizing solutions — but which ones portray reality is an open question. Recent ideas suggest that little red dots could be black holes cocooned in thick gas, possibly representing a completely new type of object called a black hole star, in which the tight shroud of gas emits light like a stellar atmosphere. “This would be my black hole,” Mason said, drawing a small circle and filling it in. “I might put a disk on it, because we think that’s where some of the emission comes from.” She slashed a line through the circle’s center. “Then the kind of naĂŻve picture is just this dense gas cloud around the black hole.” She drew a larger circle surrounding the object. But Mason thinks there may be more to these cosmic enigmas. She and colleagues recently analyzed the spectrum of light emitted by one little red dot. If the dense-cloud picture is correct, then some of the light should have been altered from passing through the gas — but that’s not what they saw. Share this article (opens a new tab) Newsletter Get Quanta Magazine delivered to your inbox Subscribe now Recent newsletters (opens a new tab) A grid showing little red dots imaged by JWST A sampling of the enigmatic little red dots that JWST has spotted in the early universe. Courtesy of Jorryt Matthee. Data from the EIGER/FRESCO surveys “Now what do I do? Start again. But now if I make my gas clumpy,” Mason said, drawing a new diagram with holes in the clouds surrounding the black hole, “I should be able to get [a signal] that looks closer.” All around the world, researchers like Mason are eagerly piecing together JWST’s glimpses of the ancient cosmos to create a clearer picture of our universe’s beginnings. And like the photons that travel billions of light-years to reach us, new fragments are constantly falling into place. The Universe’s Bottomless Pits The story of black holes has become more complicated thanks to JWST, which keeps spotting ancient black holes that are too big to explain with established theories — much too big. Shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was largely featureless and smooth. Then, just a few hundred million years later, “we already see billion-sun black holes growing,” said Jenny Greene, an astrophysicist at Princeton University. “In order to get them that big so quickly, you have to do some gymnastics.” Scientists look at two key factors that influence a black hole’s size: how massive a black hole “seed” was when it originated, and how quickly these seeds grew after that. But it’s hard to explain how black holes either formed already big enough or grew fast enough to reach a billion times the mass of the sun in early cosmic times. In the modern universe, black holes form when the core of a massive star runs out of fuel and collapses. Considering the first stars were quite massive, they could have left behind black hole seeds of up to about 100 solar masses, Greene said. “We know that happens, but it’s really, really hard to get them to a billion so quickly,” she said. “You really have to force-feed them.” Scientists have historically believed there’s a hard limit to how fast black holes can grow. As material falls toward the black hole, it gets hot as it spins around like water going down a drain. The radiation that this “accretion disk” produces pushes back against more stuff flying in, preventing the black hole from consuming more. This intake limit, called the Eddington limit, should make it impossible for black holes to grow tens of millions of times larger in the time available. But recent computer simulations suggest that black holes might have something of a back door. If the accretion disk puffs up in just the right way, the incoming gas can overwhelm the radiation pressure. Such “super-Eddington” accretion would lead to gas funneling in at extraordinary rates. Even so, astronomers don’t know if there would have been enough gas around to produce the biggest black holes. Some researchers think that ancient, dense star clusters may have created lots of black hole seeds that rapidly merged. Mark Belan/Quanta Magazine Or perhaps supermassive black holes never started as stars at all. In this case, colossal clouds of gas would have plunged directly into a black hole. This “direct collapse” mechanism can form a seed some 10,000 times the mass of the sun. “The problem with the direct-collapse picture is that it requires really Goldilocks conditions,” Greene said. For direct collapse to work, a gargantuan cloud needs to compress into a black hole all at once, without first fracturing into smaller clouds that would form stars. This requires specific gas chemistries, and the cloud must rotate slowly. “When people try to do this in a computer, they can make these direct-collapse black holes, but they can’t make enough of them to explain all the black holes that we see,” Greene said. There’s some evidence to support each of these theories. In 2024, JWST saw a black hole from about 1.5 billion years after the Big Bang gobbling up material at about 40 times the Eddington limit(opens a new tab). If black holes earlier in cosmic time also stuffed themselves in this way, perhaps the biggest among them started as relatively small seeds. A simulation of a galaxy forming in the first 550 million years after the Big Bang. The panels from left to right represent dark matter, gas, and stars. Zack Andalman/Princeton University Recently, however, researchers took a long look at a little red dot from about 750 million years after the Big Bang that is gravitationally lensed by a cluster of galaxies in the foreground. They concluded that the object is a “naked” supermassive black hole, an estimated 50 million times the mass of the sun, without any discernible stars surrounding it. If that mass estimate is correct, the implication is that the black hole may have formed as a large seed, possibly via direct collapse, before any galaxy was present. “There’s clearly differences in how the black holes are growing that we don’t fully understand yet,” Greene said. “So for me, the most exciting thing to do right now is try to understand, physically, what’s different?”
No comments:
Post a Comment