Quantum Trickery - Einstein's Strangest Theory

breckinshire writes "The New York Times is running an interesting story on Einstein's strangest theory. The theory was brought to light this past fall when 'scientists announced that they had put a half dozen beryllium atoms into a "cat state." [...] These atoms were each spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time.' It is an interesting writeup for even the uninitiated and also concentrates on Einsteins role as a 'founder and critic of quantum theory.'"

Clockwise=Counter-Clockwise

[theheff]

If you were to look at a clock backwards, the hands would be moving counter-clockwise from your perspective. It's all relative. So in theory, both could be happenning at the same time.

Re:Non-registration article text

[chriseyre2000]

I am reminded of one of the statements in an "Introduction To Quantum Mechanics" course: If anyone says they understand quantum mechanics they are probably lying.

Re:Clockwise=Counter-Clockwise

[Anonymous Coward]

what if you were to look at a clock from it's (the clock) perspective. would the hands be moving clockwise or counter-clockwise?

Re:Physicists Don't Seem too Philosophical

[Vellmont]

As Richard Feynman pointed out, "why" is a question of philosophy, not science. The question why has no end. Why do electrons repel each other? That no one knows, they just do. I might go so far as to say it can't be known. Most people stop asking why when they get an answer they're familiar with. Science deals with questions of how. How do electrons repel each other? Well, current theory says that photons travel from one electron to another and push them apart.

Queue the crappy philosophy and mysticism...

[Vellmont]

Anytime quantum mechanics is brought up among a non-science crowd (sorry, desipte the geekyness of slashdot, the moderation and general comments I see indicate it's a non-science crowd) you wind up getting half-truth mystical garbage like this [imdb.com] and this. [imdb.com] The more hard to understand it is, the more people will come up with their own, wrong interpretations.

Re:Quantum theory means the world may be a simulat

[meringuoid]

Now assume someone with insufficient knowledge about such a universe who tries to model a simulation to get predictions, much like having for of war in a strategy game - when a unit disappears into fog of war (since x turns ago), it would be essentially in all places that in could reach in x turns at once.

Not quite. That would be what's called a hidden variables [wolfram.com] system: the unit still does have a real location, which is tracked by the program, even if it's inaccessible to an observer within the system. However, that doesn't appear to be the way our universe works; the Bell inequalities [wolfram.com] show that hidden variables are incompatible with locality.

Re:Here's to the atom bomb

[Rocketship Underpant]

"Why do they always have to use the atomic bomb as an example of the applications of quantum mechanics?"

It's the only way to get some Americans interested in science. ;)

[obligatory karma-burning acknowledgement goes here]

Re:Question about Q-phys

[Rocketship Underpant]

"I've been curious what is the justification for support of: particles are in multiple simultaneous states until measured causing the distributed probabilities to collapse into a definite known state"

The famous double-slit experiment demonstrates the problem very well. Imagine shooting electrons through a wall with two slits. The slits are close enough that each electron, given the vagueness of its exact position, could go through either slit. After going through the slits, the electrons register themselves on a detection screen of some kind.

Well, if you have a sensor at each slit watching to see where the electrons go, they each go through either one slit or the other quite nicely, and they register their impacts on the screen in a nice bell distribution.

However, if you don't check which slit the electrons go through, there is equal possibility of going through both. Therefore, bizarrely enough, they actually *do* go through both slits at once. The detector then records a more complicated ripple pattern of impacts, as each electron's ghostly half interferes with the other half in a wave pattern.

So when we say there are two opposite states existing at once in the quantum world, it is actually true, and the effect is often bizarre. But the state of a particle behaves itself when you decide to "look" at it.

"Alternately, if schroedinger's cat is in an alive/dead superposition in the box, then if the cat experiences a sane and straightforward set of experiences yet the outside-of-box observer claims it to be in an alive/dead combo state, then outside the box observer and inside the box observer's consciousness lines must potentially deviate."

Schödinger introduced the cat just to point out this weirdness. What does the cat see? Is he both alive and dead at once? Does the universe split into two timelines? Adherents of the "Copenhagen Interpretation" would, I think, argue over whether or not the cat qualifies as an observer, and can collapse the quantum randomness on his own.

Another, more intriguing interpretation, is that at last, when you look at the cat and see whether he died or not, your observation propagates a randomness-collapsing wave *backwards in time* that forces the past action of the cat living/dying to resolve itself. There are variations of the double-slit experiment (like measuring the slits after the electron's already through) that reinforce this idea.

Note that I'm not a physicist, and not necessarily good at explaining things.

Bullshit - bad reporting, not bad science

[GuyFawkes]

it's bloody obvious that nothing can spin clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously.

this is an experiment in heisenbergs closed box, it's not factual, it's not real world, it's a thought experiment in the realms where we have a whole bunch of other thought experiments that attempt to explain the real world.

Re:Einstein was right, these guys are still on cra

[eraserewind]

I don't know enough/anything about quantum mechanics to agree or disagree, but I don't really like your distinction between our minds and reality/nature. Our minds are a part of nature, and all the knowledge contained in them is a part of nature. Anything we observe is through interaction with other parts of nature. Perhaps you can rephrase your arguments to take that into account?

Re:Physicists Don't Seem too Philosophical

[thesandtiger]

There are, broadly speaking, two types of scientist - theorists and experimentalists.

Theorists focus on the "why" (to some extent, but really more of a "how") - "Why don't we see starlight in every portion of the sky?" leads to a question of "What are the possible scenarios in which we would see the sky as we see it?" leads to theories - "We see the night sky the way it is because [...]"

Experimentalists then enter the picture. "Well, if [...] was the reason for the sky looking as it does, then we should find X and Y traits also." Then they do their experiments and record the observations. Sometimes, those observations match up with the theoretical predictions. Sometimes, those observations are almost, but not quite right, and sometimes they're incredibly far off, and everyone needs to go back and look for sources of difference.

Now, you dismiss experimentalists as being just "applied mathematicians" (or, at least, that is certainly what your tone implies - they're somehow less relevant, valuable, whatever than "pure" mathematicians) - however, one cannot be terribly effective without the other.

Some scientists are exceptional at both theory and experiment - Issac Newton would be an excellent example of that fusion. Some are pure theorists - Einstein is a poster child for those folks. And some are pure experimentalists - Hubble would be my pick as an archetypical experimentalist.

Re:wouldn't that be...

[Sique]

Quite easy. A. Einstein took the Quantum Theory and tried to get very, very strange predictions from it. Basicly he did what Science is about: To test the theory, he used it to predict the outcome of certain experiments.

Most of the predictions appeared completely absurd to him, and he wrote papers about those (like the Bose-Einstein-Condensate or the synchronous state as mentioned in the article). Because of the counterintuitive results he was getting from applying Quantum Theory he doubted its validity.

But most of the described experiments weren't feasible at the time they were thought out. Some of them are right now, and the Bose-Einstein-Condensate is a reality, and this article in the NYT describes another one of the strange predictions being proved.

So with doubting the predictions of Quantum Theory and describing experiments to falsify them A. Einstein in fact lead the way to the advancement of the same theory he had his problems with. That's a fine example of how Science is supposed to work: Always try to find contradictions to the theories and describe experiments which might falsify the theory. Advancement of Science doesn't care if you believe the theories to be correct. Every new hypothesis has its bugs and rough edges which can only be corrected if someone actually finds experiments where the bugs show up.

You are, simply, wrong.

[bad mechanic]

Sorry man, but you're just wrong. If this was actually just an incompleteness of information, then the classic double slit experiment wouldn't work. When the experiment is done emitting just one photon at a time, if the particle always has a specific location and speed in time then the experiment would break and you wouldn't get the interference pattern, you'd just get two bands of light on the target. However, since the position of the photon actually is indeterminist until measurement, it interferes with itself, thus creating the interference pattern, even though only one photon at a time is being emitted.

It has withstood rigorous experimentation. Just because you do not understand Quantum Mechanics (very few people, if that, would claim to understand Quantum Mechanics) doesn't make it false.

Re:Physicists Don't Seem too Philosophical

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard this many times and held it myself for a while, but it is not entirely true upon reflection. Yes science does not care the purpose of existence: why am I born? Science concentrates on a mathematical description of the world, which is the idea Newton championed when he gave a description of planetary movements without specifying why they move in this way. Of course it was a great achievement since it gave predication too and that really impressed people. Newton did not give what Aristotle wanted, a physical explanation, which we do have today, it is called relativity, so scientists do not foreswear the whys completely.

This is more than a history lesson because Newton wasn't blind when he gave his beautiful math, he had a religious faith underpinning his formulas, which undermined that religious faith, so now we are left only formulas, and that is very unsettling.
One can not grasp science without at least being aware of its assumptions because great progress is made when assumptions change. One clue is Galileo thought inertia should be circular, guess what Newton thougt.

Re:And it's evolution that's hard to swallow?

[meringuoid]

Quantum mechanics is such an easier target because maybe 50 people worldwide really understand it (okay, I'm exaggerating, but by how much?)

I'd say by about 50.

Re:And it's evolution that's hard to swallow?

[ronys]

Simple, really:

1. Evolution theory is, in essence, simple. You've described it pretty accurately in a couple of sentences. It's also very simple to misunderstand, e.g., get only the "random variation part". Quantum mechanics is so counter-intuitive as to be considered incomprehensible.

2. Evolution theory poses a clear and present danger to the religious worldview, insofar as one of the strongest (perhap the strongest) cases for belief in a diety is the argument from design ("can you imagine a building without a builder?" etc.). The whole point of evolution undermines this argument: Yes, it is possible to get from something simple to something complex without a "designer". Quantum mechanics, OTOH, falls under "god works in mysterious ways" to most folks.

Re:Here's to the atom bomb

[lbrandy]

Why do they always have to use the atomic bomb as an example of the applications of quantum mechanics? It really gives it a bad name.

Maybe because it's one of the most impressive inventions to result from it? I thought we here at slashdot don't let our politics mix with our science (evolution, cough, cough)... or does that rule only apply when it supports our own personal politics.

Re:Einstein was right, these guys are still on cra

[johansalk]

"I could do a thesis with Oppy only if it was his thesis, not mine."This is very common in Academia, especially the experimental sciences, in fact, if you want to do a thesis with someone famous and reputable, as I had the experience with a world authority on a topic, you better be humble enough to bin your ideas for a good while and do his, however hard you try to be assertive and however nice he may try to be. It just won't work out otherwise. If this is not the case, you're not working with someone important enough, you're not working with someone who has more important work than he can fit into a lifetime. Do your own stuff when you get a tenure and even more so when you become a professor, but till then, just be a humble servant who knows the sceitnific method from A to Z and who'd antitipate what his master's next order is and politely suggests it. The better you get at anticipating what his next order is and suggesting it to him the faster you'll shoot up the ranks. All the rest about originally and et cetera is a facade. Trust me, a facade. That's how you make it in Academia, that's what you should spend your nights thinking about, not brainstorming your own ideas. Your own ideas, however brilliant, will be shot down, unless you're willing to relocate halfway around the world to where there is an interested authority for your idea of the month, and you shouldn't, because until your ideas are tested and replicated, they're not worth betting anything on. Modern Academia is a place filled with pride and politics, they'll bark at the wrong tree as long as they please and when they tire they'll bark at another tree without regard to who might've barked at it before. No one cares where the ideas came from, untested ideas are fantasies, the person who's got the job to enable him to secure the funding, men and equipment required to test them is whom they'll thank. If you have other plans just get out of Academia, and remember that Einstein wasn't a junior Academic when he had the freedom to work on his own stuff, and that they took their time to accept his, and that without his luck, yes, luck no doubt however brilliant, his ideas could've been disproved by experiment, and that for every recognised Einstein there must be countless unrecognised ones.

It is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm the AC that posted that comment, and I assure you that it was sarcasm, and honestly, I'm a little surprised that it wasn't modded down as flamebait or offtopic. It's intended as a reference to ID advocates who take the position that G— er, an "Intelligent Designer"—must be responsible for creation since the world is so complex and we haven't managed to explain it all to a scientific certainty yet, and that every once in a while, scientists argue among competing theories to try to get to the truth.

Funny, you don't see similar protests and rallying against teaching of physics and its theories because stuff like quantum mechanics isn't fully understood. No school board has been trying to put stickers in physics books saying, "This textbook contains material on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a theory, not a fact, regarding the existence of matter and energy. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Evolution's Leap is Not Quantum Leap

[Anonymous Coward]

When an evolutionist looks at various rings on a fruit fly, they make a leap and say, see that proves their is no God. Christians say, that proves nothing of the sort, you made an interpretation leap that is illogical.

Thusly, when a quantum mechanic says that's an electron doing something weird, Christians say, "yep, that's weird." Now at the point when a quantum mechanic makes the leap to say, "ok see that proves there is no God," thats when the Christians will say your interpretation is illogical.

It's the same reason Christians don't get all huffy about airplanes. Christians say, "Yep, that's an airplane." But if you were to say, "See that proves there is no God." That's when Christians would say your leap of interpretation is illogical.

If science were to just present what they know about evolution rather than making illogical leaps, then Christians wouldn't care. So, if you make the statement that it's evolution that you observe various fruit fly rings and you say that proves evolution, then why can't you really prove evolution by turning a fruit fly into a dog?" Sure evolutionists can show genetic variance such as hair color, but chromosomal variance such as species jumps, they can't. (micro vs macro) Geneticists can get into a cell and force mutation but then it's not evolution anymore, it's Intelligent Design. So really, you haven't proven your thinking, just your wishful thinking. But, proud scientists instead of admiting they don't know something to christians, they'd rather make leaps in logic. Really, isn't that what science is really all about, trying to upset Christians for no good reason? You basically believe what you want to believe but the burden of proof is still on the Scientists, that's why they're so up in arms when Christians won't fall in line to their leaps of reasoning.

So to answer your question, basically quantum mechanics don't make crazy leaps in faith where evolutists do.

Re:Here's to the atom bomb

[Sebilrazen]

Why do they always have to use the atomic bomb as an example of the applications of quantum mechanics? It really gives it a bad name.

I couldn't agree more. Why slander the atomic bomb, what did it ever do to anybody?

Re:Physicists Don't Seem too Philosophical

[ceoyoyo]

Engineers tend to deal with things on scales and in situations that we are intuitively familiar with. When the engineer says "does this make sense" his intuition and experience can be useful tools because they have been developed to deal with the kinds of problems he's looking at.

Physicists who study the very small, very high or low energy and very fast on the other hand, are looking at phenomenon that we have no everyday experience with, so our intuition is useless. There is no reason why the rules we're familiar with from every day life should apply to these realms and, as relativity and quantum mechanics tell us, it looks like they don't. So a quantum engineer (an applied physicist) has to ask "does this make sense?" in terms of the theory and previous experiments (his experience).

Re:And it's evolution that's hard to swallow?

[Jerf]

where are all the gadflies who normally come out of the woodwork with dire warnings about passing off rank theory as fact?

All over the place. They just aren't connected to religion (or at least not major religions), so they don't get the microphone of a major religious organization.

Hang out on one of Usenet's science groups, or look through the archive, and you'll find all sorts of kooks with all sorts of theories "proving" QM, or General Relativity (link to examples) [google.com], or Gravitation, or the accepted theories of Cosmology, wrong.

The thought has crossed my mind [jerf.org] that more people would be more upset about physics if they realized how thorougly it contradicts their ideas about how the universe works, and really, that statement isn't just limited to the religious, either. But most people live in varying states of blissful ignorance, and ultimately, that's probably just fine.

Re:Scientist and Science

[ceoyoyo]

Instincts are wonderful, until you apply them to a situation in which they aren't appropriate. Then they'll help you be wrong more often than you would otherwise. In such a case you need to develop new instincts. Saying quantum mechanics doesn't make sense in the context of my life of baseballs and refrigerators and therefore must be wrong may be a useful starting point to test a theory, but is not a scientific way of judging it.

Science isn't an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a method for generating that knowledge. The method may be followed to a greater or lesser degree by scientists.

Re:most successful theory in history?

[MustardMan]

Quantum is a theory, based on completely counter-intuitive postulates, which predicts completely ludicrous sounding experimental results, many years before we are technologically advanced enough to carry out the experiments. NO other theory has ever come close to the impact of quantum physics - to not only explain these really strange results, but to predict them many years before they could be tested. Einstein considered many of his thought experiments to be a way to show that quantum physics was an incomplete theory - in reality his papers would be the foundation for proving that quantum IS, in fact, the most successful theory in history.

Re:Queue the crappy philosophy and mysticism...

[aeoo]

The more hard to understand it is, the more people will come up with their own, wrong interpretations.

There is no such thing as "wrong interpretation".

If there was "wrong interpretation" then there would be "right interpretation" also.

But, the very meaning of the word "interpretation" is "not the original".

Because interpretation is not the original, it is always, always misleading (or, plainly put, false).

When we say that something is a mystery we mean we don't understand it. There is only one kind of person who constantly denigrates the mystical -- the one who tries to eliminate non-understanding and replace it with understanding at every opportunity. And what kind of person is that? Usually it's a very fearful person who tries to secure themselves based on understanding. But because there is never enough understanding, for there are always questions available to those willing to ask, there is never any security for such person. Thus they remain fearful and have to resort to denigration of mystics out of their own fear.

On the other hand, any fool who lost desire to ask questions can claim to have complete understanding. Ignorance is bliss.

The scientific community tends to fall into "I am quite satisfied with my understanding of the universe" crowd. Why do I say this? Because, except for the top few luminaries, most are lemmings who uncritically read the limited words of other scientists as unquestionable truth.

When Einstein first came out with his ideas, the scientific community said he was insane. But now look how embedded his name became within the community. Shame the fools don't learn their lesson.

Re:Queue the crappy philosophy and mysticism...

[Vellmont]

It's more than just quantum physics. It's science in general. There's a vast and terrible missunderstanding of science on slashdot. Computer knowledge is pretty good. Politics ain't so bad.. science isn't a lot better than the people who read popular science.

Re:Queue the crappy philosophy and mysticism...

[Vellmont]

There is no such thing as "wrong interpretation"

Sorry, but in science there is. If you don't like being wrong I suggest you take up a pursuit like philosophy.


The scientific community tends to fall into "I am quite satisfied with my understanding of the universe" crowd.

I don't know where you got this idea, but it's exactly the opposite. Science deals with things that AREN'T understood. Scientists, by definition are people who aren't satisfied with the "explanations" (science is about understanding and predictability, not explanations) of the universe. Maybe you're thinking about religion?

When Einstein first came out with his ideas, the scientific community said he was insane. But now look how embedded his name became within the community. Shame the fools don't learn their lesson.

That's just plain not true. Einstein wasn't laughed at and he wasn't thought to be insane, though his theories weren't just blindly accepted either. Science takes time to sort out the the correct theories from the flat out wrong theories. There's no magic device that you throw theories into and they're seperated into true ones and false ones. Dissent is extremely important in science, and the fact that there were skeptics of Einsteins theories is a stength of science, not a weakness.