Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

100th Anniversary of Quantum Physics

Posted by michael on Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:58 PM
from the quanta-is-a-pretty-good-editor-too dept.
EricR writes "On December 14, 1900, Max Planck presented experimental results in front of the German Physical Society and announced that they could best be explained if energy exists in discrete packets, which he called "quanta." Today is the 100th birthday of Quantum Physics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • 100th? (Score:5, Funny)

    by servoled (174239) on Saturday December 14 2002, @11:59PM (#4890356)
    Would it be the 102nd? Or am I missing something here.
    • Re:100th? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:09AM (#4890397)
      >Would it be the 102nd? Or am I missing something here.

      The number 100 is correct.

      Slashdot is simply very late with the news this time.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:100th? (Score:5, Funny)

      by MrResistor (120588) <petehoff@@@pacbell...net> on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:09AM (#4890399) Homepage
      It's slashdot math. You know, it's just like how 50+2-1=49

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:100th? (Score:5, Funny)

      by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:11AM (#4890403) Homepage Journal
      It's 102 in imperial years, 100 in metric years.
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:100th? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Henry V .009 (518000) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:25AM (#4890448) Journal
      Oh ye of little faith!

      delta E * delta t >= h-bar

      Therefore, the slashdot editors are being careful about not determining the time too precisely lest Max Planck and the German Physical Society accidently obtain an energy with an order of magnitude anywhere between a butterfly's wings and a supernova.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:100th? by WPL510 (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @01:00AM
        • Re:100th? by Henry V .009 (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @01:56AM
          • Re:100th? by DrLudicrous (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @02:56AM
            • Re:100th? by Henry V .009 (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @03:16AM
              • Re:100th? by DrLudicrous (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @03:22AM
          • Re:100th? by Black Copter Control (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @04:12AM
            • Re:100th? by anthony_dipierro (Score:1) Monday December 16 2002, @11:01AM
        • Re:100th? by anthony_dipierro (Score:2) Monday December 16 2002, @10:59AM
      • Re:100th? by jaavaaguru (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @10:15AM
    • Re:100th? by AntiFreeze (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @12:27AM
    • Re:100th? (Score:5, Funny)

      by doubtless (267357) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:30AM (#4890461) Homepage
      Yes, it is the 100th anniversary, but we have problem zeroing in the exactly street address Max Planck started all this. However, scientists are pretty sure he was somewhere in Germany.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:100th? by enderwiggen (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @12:31AM
    • Yep by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @01:55AM
    • Re:100th? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Have Blue (616) on Sunday December 15 2002, @02:18AM (#4890746) Homepage
      Given that Slashdot time was 100 years and wall-clock time was 102 years, we can determine [fnal.gov] that Slashdot is moving at an average velocity of 2.941 x 10^8 meters per second relative to the news source. No wonder no one has time to read the article...
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:100th? by DrLudicrous (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @03:02AM
    • Re:100th? by riflemann (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @05:12AM
      • Re:100th? by Jamesie (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @03:53PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:100th? by Zork the Almighty (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @05:46AM
    • Re:100th? by popmaker (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @09:39AM
    • Y2k Compliance by LucianTheMad (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @10:15AM
    • Re:100th? by TheAncientHacker (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @12:47PM
    • 100th! by Knacklappen (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @05:32PM
    • Re:100th? by babbage (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @11:26PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Richard P. Feynman said... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bartash (93498) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:01AM (#4890364)
    "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

    • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... by missing000 (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @12:05AM
    • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... by grahamlee (Score:3) Sunday December 15 2002, @12:20AM
      • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DrLudicrous (607375) on Sunday December 15 2002, @03:13AM (#4890891) Homepage
        Einstein didn't have a problem with the discreteness of quantum mechanics. As a matter of fact, any halfway decent mathematician (physicists included) would disagree with this property- it is the result of systems that are represented with certain differential equations PLUS boundary conditions which limit the solutions to said equations. These types of systems and equations have existed for over a hundred years longer than quantum mechanics.

        What Einstein disagreed with were things like the Uncertainty Principle, the EPR paradox (If he had lived to see it), and most likely even Schrodinger's Cat. He disagreed with the assumptions that led to these conclusions. So Einstein was most definitely NOT a supporter of quantum mechanics as we now know it. Even the greatest can be mistaken.

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... (Score:5, Informative)

          by grahamlee (522375) <[iamleeg] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday December 15 2002, @07:05AM (#4891269) Homepage Journal
          What Einstein disagreed with were things like the Uncertainty Principle, the EPR paradox (If he had lived to see it), and most likely even Schrodinger's Cat[1]. He disagreed with the assumptions that led to these conclusions.

          I think his main problem was the idea of Universal instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction (which leads to "spooky action at a distance"[2] and God playing "dice with the Universe"). These concepts came from the Copenhagen Interpretation, and was the best way the Quantum theoreticians could think to explain the seemingly counterintuitive results of QM - it's pure philosophy and has nothing to do with the Physics.

          Of course not everyone necessarily subscribes Copenhagen now. My personal favourite explanation is the proposition popular in the 80s and in Sliders - that multiple Universes are created at each instant multiple outcomes are possible, each reflecting the different outcomes.

          So Einstein was most definitely NOT a supporter of quantum mechanics as we now know it.

          Quantum mechanics as we currently know it includes Bose-Einstein statistics describing the behaviour of systems of integer-spin particles (which leads to the concept of a Bose-Einstein condensate - a highly active area of research today); Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (described at the atomic scale by the Einstein coefficients); quantisation of electromagnetic radiation (proposed by Einstein); Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect (for which he received the Nobel prize). Stretching the boundaries a little, there are equations for the equilibrium number of charge carriers in Solid State physics which rely on the quantisation of charge in the material. These are known as the Einstein equations.

          Even the greatest can be mistaken.

          Such as when he removed lambda from his equation on the state of the Universe (his "biggest blunder", indeed :-)).

          [1]Point of order: even Schroedinger didn't believe in Schroedinger's Cat. He set it up as a thought experiment to show how absurd QM is (I mean, who could really believe in a dead/alive cat? Not him). The experiment has of course, since been done, sans cat.

          [2]He believed that the "instantaneous" collapse of the wavefunction would lead to information being propagated instantaneously throughout the Universe. Of course, the wavefunction is not a measurable quantity so this does not occur.

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... by dragonsister (Score:1) Monday December 16 2002, @12:56AM
        • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @09:05AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... by FosterSJC (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @12:25AM
    • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... by Llywelyn (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @01:01AM
    • Re:Richard P. Feynman said... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @09:10AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Enrico Fermi Institute - Dec 2nd (Score:5, Informative)

    by VoidEngineer (633446) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:05AM (#4890380) Homepage
    Gotta love quantum physics...

    Check out the University of Chicago's Physics Department [uchicago.edu] for all the information you could want to know about modern research in quantum physics.

    Oh, and December 2, 2002 was the 60th Anniversy of the first self-sustaining controlled release of nuclear energy [uchicago.edu]
  • boo hoo (Score:5, Funny)

    by coloth (630330) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:11AM (#4890402)
    I didn't understand the impact of uncertainty until I saw The Crying Game.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • My thoughts on the matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sean Johnson (66456) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:12AM (#4890409)
    Of course describing energy as quanta is just a way for us to understand how things work. Anytime we discover and present a theory as to how things work in the universe we are presenting a picture or an incomplete slice of the whole (as how we understand it). Sure it helps us understand better, but we have to realize that it is not the way things work out per say (as a whole). Meandering on: A GUT theory is an admiral thing to strive for, but we must understand what it must take to come to such a comprehensive theory. All present theories will have to be thrown out of the window. They will never make cohesive integral sense incorporated into a GUT. Each time we delve further into quantumn particles we find more and more suprises. Likewise with peering into the vastness of space.
    It is all so amazing and we must realize that any theories we come up with will never be able to describe things as a whole. It is basically the universe trying to understand itself...when it already knows. Dang....now I am getting into Zen philosophy so I will jsut shut up becasue I don't know where this is leading towards.
  • by IIRCAFAIKIANAL (572786) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:24AM (#4890442) Journal
    Happy Birthday Quantum Physics! [angryflower.com] :)
  • by eigerface (526490) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:29AM (#4890459)
    There is a finite probability that this will be modded up to 5.
  • Basis of all science (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mnmn (145599) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:33AM (#4890474) Homepage

    Through the wave of all the 2002-1900=100 jokes here, I would like to salute Mankinds greatest discovery, Qauntum Physics. This shows teh flexibility of the human brain, able to work with 4 dimensions (Relativity) to now (26 dimensions), and even something as strange as Quantum Mechanics, that defies our imagination and relies purely on reasoning, yet so powerful, it gave us the best of the last century's inventions, including the device you're staring at.

    Quantum Mechanics is more than the kind of Physics that allows engineers to make locomotives. Its even more than what allowed us to land on the moon. As a warmer, we get nukes and the mighty computer. This physics promises us glimpses of the time the Universe was born, the quantum computer, time travel, teleportation, and many other things we have'nt imagined yet.

    Physics has always been the foundation of knowledge, and it was replaced 100 years ago (+- 2 years). I think we're in for much bigger surprises this century.
  • Definitions (Score:2, Informative)

    by tgrotvedt (542393) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:34AM (#4890475) Journal
    Nine times out of ten, when people speak of quanta, they really mean photons. Photons are a typr of quanta, and by far the most understood type in science today. Photons are the quanta that make up the energy we see in light, and can detect along many of the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.

    When Planck was studying spectra, he was mostly dealing with photons, and then layed down the fundamental parts of quantum theory, outlining the physics behind these "digital" packages, which Einstein later defined as photons.

    • Re:Definitions by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @09:56AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Leeji (521631) <slashdot@leehol m e s.com> on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:34AM (#4890477) Homepage

    this page [todayinsci.com] talks about some other interesting scientific events that have their anniversary today:

    1986 - First non-stop, non-refuelled flight around the world
    1967 - Announcement of first synthesis of biologically active DNA
    1962 - Mariner transmits information from first-ever rendezvous with Venus

  • by Ignorant Aardvark (632408) <cydeweys&gmail,com> on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:34AM (#4890480) Homepage Journal
    Are you certain it's the 100th anniversary? No, because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ... well, can you at least give me a probability that it is the 100th anniversary? Personally, I'm putting my money on it being the 102th anniversary, but that's just me.
  • by Quirk (36086) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:36AM (#4890483) Homepage Journal
    ...discrete... indiscrete packets? Would Schrodenger's cat be let out of the bag?
  • by GMOL (122258) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:40AM (#4890502)
    I've read that the notion of quanta first came about from Boltzmann's statisical mechanics, with the notion of entropy coming in discrete units....
  • Quantum Physics -- entanglement (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Alan Holman (607935) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:55AM (#4890547) Journal
    I read a thing about entanglement; that's a quantum-physics thingy when one particle is "entangled" with another particle; it means that the two particles are exactly the same; they're a pair which do the exact same things at the exact same times, and it doesn't even matter how far apart they are in the universe; they'll always do the same things at the same times no matter where they are in the universe. One could be on mars, and a person could drain two electrons from it, and its partner could be on pluto with two electrons jumping from it. Yes, you can manipulate these particles and their manipulations would be copied wherever else they are in the entire universe -- isn't this freaky stuff? Ever since hearing this entanglement thing, which isn't a theory THERE'S PROOF!!! Anyhoo, once I heard about this, it started me thinking about communications applications, and soforth. Ever heard of an ansible? If you have, you're gasping now at the possibility of such things actually existing, all thanks to entanglement. For those who don't know, an ansible is an instantanious communication device which can be used anywhere in the universe; it's currently just a theory, but thanks to quantum entanglement of particles, it's more possible. See, entangled particles come in pairs. One could be on earth, and the other could be on Catland, which is the planet in the center of the universe. Someone makes the one on earth cause an atomic blast, and the one on Catland will cause an atomic blast -- faster than lightspeed travel because it's not actually faster than lightspeed travel because the pair of particles are the same thing! Trippy, ain't it? It's quantum physics. Quantum Physics is cool! Happy birthday Quantum physics! (Banana Chan, which wasn't mentioned here, is at http://www.geocities.com/radiomovie2002/ )
    • Re:Quantum Physics -- entanglement by Jason1729 (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @01:37AM
    • Re:Quantum Physics -- entanglement by Absurd Being (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @02:14AM
    • Re:Quantum Physics -- entanglement by fridzappa (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @02:38AM
    • Re:Quantum Physics -- entanglement by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @02:44AM
    • Re:Quantum Physics -- entanglement (Score:4, Informative)

      by etcshadow (579275) on Sunday December 15 2002, @03:20AM (#4890912)
      Wow... I don't even know where to start...

      "it doesn't even matter how far apart they are in the universe; they'll always do the same things at the same times no matter where they are in the universe"

      Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Quantum entanglement says that the two particles *started off the same (or opposite or some such relationship of the initial states). It follows, then that if you do not *observe* either particle for quite some time, and take the two of them far distant from one another, then the instant that you *observe* the state of one particle, you immediately *know* the state of the other particle (wherever it is).

      This gives at first pass the illusion that you have gotten information at faster than the speed of light... I mean, you did just *instantaneously* learn the state of a particle far, far away, right? That's gotta mean that you communcated with that thing way over there, right? No. Not at all.

      Now, what makes this interesting is the fact that quantum mechanics tells us that if you don't *observe* either particle's state, then neither particle has actually "picked" a state yet. So, it's as though the one particle *told* the other one that "hey I was observed at state A, so you must now occupy state B". So, now it appears that information has traveled faster than the speed of light... and I won't argue that point, because last I knew better scientists than me were still duking that one out.

      However, one thing that anyone with a basic understanding of this can agree upon is the fact that there is no way to *use* the possible information transfer involved in the collapse of a wave function to TRANSMIT INFORMATION. Why? Well, there is no way to observe a wave function directly. You can only measure some operator on a wave function (like energy, position, spin), and by doing so, you collapse the wave function into an eigenfunction of that operator. However there is no way to tell whether the eigenfunction you observe is the result of *your* observation or someone elses. In other words, you can't tell if you collapsed the wave function or if someone else did, and quantum entanglement doesn't *do* anything other than pre-collapse the wave-fcuntion for you.
      [ Parent ]
    • The ansible? by iq in binary (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @04:38AM
    • Re:Quantum Physics -- entanglement by Associate (Score:1) Monday December 16 2002, @02:04AM
    • Face it: The Universe is just plain Fscked by Tablizer (Score:3) Sunday December 15 2002, @02:48AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Just in case (Score:1)

    by drmofe (523606) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:57AM (#4890552)

    In case the Slashdot editor's inboxes get too clogged up, I'd just like to note that 2003 is the 100th anniversary of flight. Maybe someone can post the story now so that it makes it to the front page in time.

    Of course, here in New Zealand, we celebrate the anniversary somewhat earlier than you do in the US :-)

    STF

  • If only... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Stalyn (662) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:59AM (#4890557) Homepage Journal
    Quantum Physics was president we wouldn't have the problems we have today...
  • God bless this man (Score:3, Informative)

    by SteweyGriffin (634046) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:03AM (#4890572)
    Max Planck. Two words, one name. Leader of modern physics. Inventor. Courageous. Man of all worlds, man of all nations, lover of physics, worshipper of love and all that is good and worldly. Planck was a genius, but didn't claim to be one. Yet, he invented something in his lab that parallels the importance of Einstein, Feynman, and Wright's findings -- quantum physics! The interactions of small little particles. Here is some more information: World>Deutsch>Wissenschaft>Forschungseinrichtungen [google.com]

    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft [www.mpg.de] - [ Translate this page [google.com] ]
    Max-Planck-Institute betreiben Grundlagenforschung in den Natur-, Bio-
    und Geisteswissenschaften im Dienste der Allgemeinheit. Insbesondere ...
    Description: Übersicht aller Institute in Deutschland.
    Category: World>Deutsch>Wissenschaft>Forschungseinrichtungen [google.com]
    www.mpg.de/ - 20k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Max Planck Society [www.mpg.de]
    ... Max Planck Research 3/2002 Cover, The new issue of the MaxPlanckResearch
    magazine has been released. ... Recommendations of the Max Planck Society. ...
    Description: Max Planck Institutes carry on basic research in service to the general public in the areas of natural...
    Category: Science>Institutions>ResearchInstitutes [google.com]
    www.mpg.de/english/ - 17k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]
    [ More results from www.mpg.de [slashdot.org] ]

    MPIfM [mpim-bonn.mpg.de]
    MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR MATHEMATIK
    Vivatsgasse ... Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science Max ...
    www.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/static/home.html - 8k - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik: Home Page [mpi-sb.mpg.de]
    ... International Max Planck Research School for Computer Science (IMPRS) PhD Programme
    and fellowships for graduates of all nationalities European Union Marie ...
    Description: Saarbrücken (Deutschland)
    Category: World>Deutsch>...>Informatik>Forschungseinrichtung en [google.com]
    www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/ - 9k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Max-Planck-Institut fuer Astrophysik, Garching [mpa-garching.mpg.de] - [ Translate this page [google.com] ]
    Description: Prominent research institution in astrophysics.
    Category: Science>Physics>Astrophysics>Institutions [google.com]
    www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/ - 1k - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Planck [st-and.ac.uk]
    ... Max Planck came from an academic family, his father being professor of law at
    Kiel and both his grandfather and great-grandfather had been professors of ...
    www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/ Mathematicians/Planck.html - 12k - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen - Home [www.mpi.nl]
    ... The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics is one of the institutes of the
    German Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV Currently ...
    www.mpi.nl/world/ - 5k - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung - Homepage [mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de] - [ Translate this page [google.com] ]
    ... The Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies is an institute
    for advanced research in the social sciences. It builds a bridge ...
    Description: Köln (Deutschland)
    Category: World>Deutsch>...>Forschungseinrichtungen [google.com]
    www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/ - 21k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik [ipp.mpg.de] - [ Translate this page [google.com] ]
    Das Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik untersucht die physikalischen Grundlagen
    für ein Fusionskraftwerk, das - ähnlich wie die Sonne - Energie aus der ...
    Description: Garching (Deutschland)
    Category: World>Deutsch>...>Physik>Forschungseinrichtunge n [google.com]
    www.ipp.mpg.de/ - 14k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

    Max Planck Institut fuer Radioastronomie Bonn [mpifr-bonn.mpg.de] - [ Translate this page [google.com] ]
    [english]. Aktuell, Das Institut. Forschung, Mitarbeiter.
    Öffentlichkeit, Intranet. webmaster@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de.
    Description: Bonn (Deutschland)
    Category: World>Deutsch>...>Astronomie>Forschungseinrichtung en [google.com]
    www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/ - 2k - Cached [216.239.39.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]


  • Public Advisory (Score:5, Funny)

    by pyth (87680) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:07AM (#4890578)
    Our teams of scientists have discovered that this article contains trace references to Quantum Mechanics.
    As such, there is a risk of discussions developing that involve people talking out of their
    completely uninformed ass. Some of the most common symptoms of Quantum Ass-Talking Syndrome (QATS) involve the following topics:
    • Philosophy - free will, determinism, subjectivity
    • Theology - god's omni-something, predestination, free will [again]
    • Science - failure of predictability

    If you feel the urge to discuss these topics, we advise that you immediately consult somebody who knows what the hell they're talking about. If further trouble develops, a dose of reality is recommended.
  • In NETHACK (Score:1)

    by Genyin (415163) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:20AM (#4890611) Homepage Journal
    we EAT quantum mechanics.
    • Funny! by farrellj (Score:2) Sunday December 15 2002, @08:47AM
  • by danratherfan (624592) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:27AM (#4890631) Journal
    Well god bless. the development of quantum mechanics has allowed mankind a look into how strange the universe can really be.

    As Hawking said (to paraphrase)... not only does God play dice but some times he throws them where no one can see.

    One of the things i find so funny about it is how much physicist seem to hate it, even the ones that helped found it!

    However it is the most accurate theory in modern physics, which is why it has become known as the standard model.Perhaps string theory or M-theory can help make it a bit more astetic... which seems to be what most physicist go for these days.
  • /. submission queue (Score:4, Funny)

    by dfay (75405) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:42AM (#4890660)
    Wow, I guess that means that this is the 2-year anniversary of that story being first submitted to /. I'm glad to see it finally made it on to the front page. Congrats, EricR. :)
  • Oh, please... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:43AM (#4890663)
    ...a quick cut-and-paste from agnostica.com [agnostica.com] makes the front page?!


    Meh.

  • What Planck actually discovered (Score:5, Informative)

    by CactusCritter (182409) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:48AM (#4890677)
    The wavelength distribution of blackbody radiation had been determined some (many?) years earlier. However, no one could figure out how to to explain how it could come about.

    Somehow, Planck worked out an equation which yielded that wavelength distribution quite precisely. I believe that it is correct that his model was a "what if" conjecture about energy exisiting in discrete packets.

    As discussed, the rest is history.

    53 years of passing time has dimmed my memory, but I'm pretty sure that is the story.
    • Re:What Planck actually discovered (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 15 2002, @02:44AM (#4890807)
      wavelength distribution, while approximatedearlier than planck, wasn't known exactly. They just had some function(s) that fit the known data (ie, corrected the rayleigh-jeans ultraviolet catastrophe).


      Plank showed, by solving statistically-mechanically, a series of independent discrete quanta(estimating the photon oscillation as simple-harmonic), the allowed spectrum was consistent with the observed data.


      Lucky for him, simple harmonic oscillators have that exact energy spectra (E=hbar*omega(N+1/2)) where N is the energy-level (or quantum number) of the oscillator. Lucky guess, or insight of pure genious. No other (that i know of) systems have such an energy spectra (evenly-spaced, singly occupied). simple examples are particle-in-box and hydrogen atom.


      This method of the blackbody radiation as quantum simple-harmonic oscillators is also very nearly similar to calculating the specific heat of crystals (Einstein method for independent oscillators, but corrected by Debye for coupled oscillators up to a sharp cutoff frequency).


      This, though, ushered in new tidings, not just for pure quantum physics, but for statistical physics of quantum objects (bosons, fermions) which have different statistical distributions than classical particles (maxwell-boltzmann statistics). paved the way for solid-state physics to burgeon forth (hello transistors!!!)

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:What Planck actually discovered by Frodo2002 (Score:1) Sunday December 15 2002, @03:01PM
  • Happy Agnostica! (Score:1)

    by brandonY (575282) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:56AM (#4890700)
    Everybody get out your Schroedinger boxes [agnostica.com] out!
  • Birthday Party (Score:4, Funny)

    by hermescom (624888) on Sunday December 15 2002, @02:37AM (#4890791) Homepage
    At Quantum Physics' 100th birthday party, a number of notable personalities were on hand.

    Republican Majority Leader, Trent Lott, made a birthday speech congratulating Quantum Physics with its 100 year anniversary, and fondly recalled when during the planning stages of the Manhattan project, scientists were considering building a weapon of mass destruction based on Quantum Physical principles.

    "I can tell you now, I wish they'd picked Quantum Physics," Lott said, "If they did, I'm sure the world as we know it would be a better place for white people to live."

  • And he hated it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by teece (159752) on Sunday December 15 2002, @03:01AM (#4890855) Homepage
    Whats ironic is that Boltzmann first came up with this idea, and Planck was one of his primary detractors. Boltzmann, despondent that nobody found his description of a probabilistic interpretation of things interesting, killed himself.

    Not long after, Planck came forward using Boltzmann's ideas. There is some evidence to show that Planck's true hope was that he would be proved wrong -- he didn't like the quanta or probability interpretation at all.

    Tim
  • Chunk physics (Score:4, Interesting)

    Back in the late '80s John Wheeler [princeton.edu] was at the University of Alberta. As luck would have it I was the Tech at the student Radio station who got to edit his interview. I remember two things from him. One was the quote he found in a bathroom:
    Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once.
    The other was his discription of the etymology of "quantum". Essentially it's just German for "unit" or "chunk". He figured that if Plank had been a native English speaker, we'd probably be dealing with "chunk" physics instead of "quantum" physics.
    .. Just had to share that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 15 2002, @05:12AM (#4891078)
    Interview with David Bohm
    http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.ht m

    David Bohm 1917-1992

    In 1950 David Bohm wrote what many physicists consider to be a model textbook on quantum mechanics. Ironically, he has never accepted that theory of physics. In the history of science he is a maverick, a member of that small group of physicists-including Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, Erwin Schrödinger, Alfred Lande, Paul Dirac, and John Wheeler--who have expressed grave doubts that a theory founded on indeterminism and chance could give us a true view of the universe around us.

    Today's generation of physicists, impressed by the stunning successes of quantum physics--from nuclear weapons to lasers-are of a different mind. They are busy applying quantum mechanics to areas its original creators never imagined. Stephen Hawking, for example, used it to describe the creation of elementary particles from black holes and to argue that the universe exploded into being in a quantum-mechanical event.

    Bucking this tide of modern physics for more than 30 years, Bohm has been more than a gadfly. His objections to the foundations of quantum mechanics have gradually coalesced into an extension of the theory so sweeping that it amounts to a new view of reality. Believing that the nature of things is not reducible to fragments or particles, he argues for a holistic view of the universe. He demands that we learn to regard matter and life as a whole, coherent domain, which he calls the implicate order.

    Most other physicists discard Bohm's logic without bothering to scrutinize it. Part of the difficulty is that his implicate order is rife with paradox. Another problem is the sheer range of his ideas, which encompass such hitherto nonphysical subjects as consciousness, society, truth, language, and the process of scientific theory making itself.

    The son of a furniture dealer, Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1917. He studied physics at the University of California with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Unwilling to testify against his former teacher and other friends during the McCarthy hearings, Bohm left the United States and took a post at the University of São Paulo, Brazil. From there he moved to Israel, then England, where he eventually became professor of physics at Birkbeck College in London.

    Bohm is perhaps best known for his early work on the interactions of electrons in metals. He showed that their individual, haphazard movement concealed a highly organized and cooperative behavior called plasma oscillation. This intimation of an order underlying apparent chaos was pivotal in Bohm's development.

    In 1959 Bohm, working with Yakir Ahronov, showed that a magnetic field might alter the behavior of electrons without touching them: If two electron beams were passed on either side of a space containing a magnetic field, the field would retard the waves of one beam even though it did not penetrate the space and actually touch the electrons. This 'AB effect" was verified a year later.

    During the Fifties and Sixties Bohm expanded his belief in the existence of hidden variables that control seemingly random quantum events, and from that point on, his ideas diverged more and more from the mainstream of modern physics. His books Causality and Chance in Modern Physics and Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1957 and 1980, respectively, spell out his new theory in considerable detail. In the Sixties Bohm met the Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti, and their continuing dialogues, published as a book, The Ending of Time, helped the physicist clarify his ideas about wholeness and order.

    Recently retired from Birkbeck College, Bohm is now trying to develop a mathematical version of his implicate-order hypothesis-the kind of precise, testable theory that other physicists will take seriously. It is not an easy task, for Bohm's universe is a strange, mystical place in which past, present, and future coexist. The objects in his universe, even the subatomic particles, are secondary; it is a process of movement, continuous unfolding and enfolding from a seamless whole that is fundamental. To test the theory of general relativity, Einstein forecast that the sun's gravity would bend light waves from distant stars; he was correct. So far Bohm has been unable to find an experimental aspect that could support his ideas in the same way.

    Although recently recovered from serious heart surgery, Bohm continues to make frequent trips throughout Europe and to the United States, where he lectures, talks to colleagues, and encourages students. His ideas have been enthusiastically received by philosophers, neuroscientists, theologians, poets, and artists.
  • Bell's Inequality (Score:1)

    by donsaklad (618122) <dsaklad@zurich.ai.mit.edu> on Sunday December 15 2002, @05:38AM (#4891106) Homepage Journal
    What is Bell's Inequality?...



    Cheer and seasons greetings!
    oo__ don@saklad.org

    Weblog Guide to Problematical Library Use
    Updates
    http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.WebLogs.com [weblogs.com]
    http://zork.net/~dsaklad [zork.net]
    Stories
    http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.WebLogs.com/ stories [weblogs.com]
    Forum
    http://www.quicktopic.com/18/H/LvNZqHdLNB8 [quicktopic.com]
  • by kedi (583806) <kedi&juo,nu> on Sunday December 15 2002, @05:45AM (#4891115)
    Quantum Physicist and Philosopher David Bohm, born in Pennsylvania in 1917 died in England in 1992, a contemporary of Einstein and a student of Openheimer, wrote what many physicists consider to be a model textbook on quantum mechanics in 1950.

    According to this web site:
    http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/ 0/26DAA D8A936EA8D680256816005EB1D6/
    Bohm was also the founder of MITs DIALOGUE project, which somehow seems to be linked to or behind the OpenCourseware project.

    "The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained." David Bohm.

    Excerpts from an interview with David Bohm:

    Omni: Yet you've said that quantum mechanics doesn't provide a clear picture of nature. What do you mean?
    Bohm: The main problem is that quantum mechanics gives only the probability of an experimental result. Neither the decay of an atomic nucleus nor the fact that it decays at one moment and not another can be properly pictured within the theory. It can only enable you to predict statistically the results of various experiments.

    Physics has changed from its earlier form, when it tried to explain things and give some physical picture. Now the essence is regarded as mathematical. It's felt the truth is in the formulas. Now they may find an algorithm by which they hope to explain a wider range of experimental results, but it will still have inconsistencies. They hope that they can eventually explain all the results that could be gotten, but that is only a hope.

    Omni: How did the founders of quantum mechanics initially receive your book Quantum Theory?
    Bohm: In the Fifties, when I sent it around to various physicists-including [Niels] Bohr, Einstein, and [Wolfgangl Pauli--Bohr didn't answer, but Pauli liked it. Einstein sent me a message that he'd like to talk with me. When we met he said the book had done about as well as you could do with quantum mechanics. But he was still not convinced it was a satisfactory theory.
  • Bell's Inequality (Score:1)

    by donsaklad (618122) <dsaklad@zurich.ai.mit.edu> on Sunday December 15 2002, @05:50AM (#4891124) Homepage Journal
    How might Bell's Inequality be explained for a high school physics class?...
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Ektanoor (9949) on Sunday December 15 2002, @06:38AM (#4891221) Journal
    Today we commemorate the 100 years since /. editors managed to successfully demonstrate that quantum leaps also occur in the macroworld...
  • I'm waiting.... (Score:1)

    by zozzi (576178) on Sunday December 15 2002, @06:43AM (#4891230)
    I'm waiting for someone to post a slashdot link indicating it's dupe post from 2 years ago...

  • If I read the article... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ramsés Morales (13327) on Sunday December 15 2002, @10:03AM (#4891649) Homepage
    ...will it change?
  • GHZ (Score:1)

    by donsaklad (618122) <dsaklad@zurich.ai.mit.edu> on Sunday December 15 2002, @11:36AM (#4892037) Homepage Journal
    What's GHZ and how might GHZ be explained
    for a high school physics class?...



    oo__ don@saklad.org

    Weblog Guide to Problematical Boston Public Library Use
    http://GuideToProblematicalLibraryUse.WebLogs.com/ stories [weblogs.com]
  • Two year old news from Agnostica.com (Score:2, Informative)

    by Nukees (303274) on Sunday December 15 2002, @04:36PM (#4893738) Homepage
    Heh heh, that really was ripped word for word from Agnostica.com [agnostica.com], right down to the announcement of the "100th" anniversary. Of course, the funny thing is that that "news" item announced the launch of the Agnostica site, two years ago when it was the 100th year anniversary, for sure.

    Guess I need to update the site more often.

    Nice to know the folks at Slashdot celebrate Agnostica, though!
  • by peter303 (12292) on Monday December 16 2002, @11:20AM (#4899071)
    I can never find a good Quantum Mechanic when I need one. My qubits are entangled again and I need a tune up.
  • Re:1900 + 100 = ? (Score:1)

    by ramzak2k (596734) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:07AM (#4890389)
    Maybe I'm just sleepy, but wasn't the anniversary two years ago?

    Yes it was, they were a bit slow with it, but its finally here - the slashdot repost.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Belief in a God is stupid (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Sean Johnson (66456) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:34AM (#4890478)
    It could also be argued that science is used to control people...or capitalism for that matter. It all boils down to one things....human nature. There is a place for science and a place for religion, and they are on each one side of the coin. The thing we have to do is see the coin as a whole. It is best to realize that science AND religion are cohesive and not neccessarily "against" or "opposite" eachother Thus one may achieve harmony with both the knowable and the unknowable.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Bah (Score:1)

    by infernow (529374) on Sunday December 15 2002, @12:48AM (#4890524) Homepage
    Isn't it only fitting that there be uncertainty surrounding the origins of Quantum Physics?
    [ Parent ]
  • by Tomble (579119) <tomble@@@usermail...com> on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:01AM (#4890567) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I'm just sleepy, but wasn't the anniversary two years ago?
    Well, reader, that's certainly an easy mistake to make, considering the title of the story, but if you look a little more carefully at the body, it becomes clear that the title (perhaps chosen by someone else) was wrong and inaccurate in a very different way, probably only badly chosen, due to a simple misunderstanding of the facts:
    On December 14, 1900, Max Planck presented experimental results in front of the German Physical Society and announced that they could best be explained if energy exists in discrete packets, which he called "quanta". Today is the 100th birthday of Quantum Physics

    As you can doubtless see from a second look, it all fits into place that Planck's announcement, which lead to other scientists further investigating the full ramifications of the theory, was the conception of Quantum Physics as we know and love it today. Whilst the title is obviously innacurate, the observation that today is Quantum Physics' 100th birthday is clearly correct, as it is broadly accepted that models of reality have a 2 year gestation period- a similar duration to elephants, I believe.

    Sadly, though, Quantum Physics has not been too lucky in love, having had occasional brief flings with 50's icon Relativity, whom everyone would have liked to see it matched up with, but it never quite seemed to work out for them- it seems they just had too many differences.

    Although we all wish Quantum Physics well, and it seems surely impossible that such a great catch would never get married (who knows, maybe good old Q.P will be able to patch things up with Relativity after all), it shall obviously not be having any anniversaries for some time yet.

    Hope this clears everything up,
    Tomble

    [ Parent ]
  • In SOVIET POLAND,
    Notation reverses YOU!

    Whereas of course,
    In SOVIET RUSSIA,
    RPN POLISHES you!

    Although strictly speaking, that probably should have been:

    In SOVIET POLAND,
    Notation YOU! reverses

    Whilst SOVIET RUSSIA has it's own method of doing these things, which didn't quite catch on in the west.

    Sorry about that, everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by AresTheImpaler (570208) on Sunday December 15 2002, @01:52AM (#4890693) Homepage
    By the same phenomenon that will post this article late and then be moderated Redundant

    viva mexico!
    [ Parent ]
  • by citog (206365) on Sunday December 15 2002, @02:23AM (#4890756)
    He wanted QM to be open source, which is why he developed it on a chalkboard. Other developers could simply 'rub out' parts of the code they didn't like and overwrite that area of storage. :-P
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Uncertainty (Score:1)

    by A Gremlin In Kremlin (634248) on Sunday December 15 2002, @09:12AM (#4891507)
    Or the quantum leap years?

    [ Parent ]
  • 24 replies beneath your current threshold.