Testing Quantum Behavior — From Earth to the ISS 196
KentuckyFC writes "Einstein famously believed that the instantaeous effect of quantum entanglement would allow 'spooky action-at-a-distance' in violation of special relativity. Every test of entanglement on Earth has so far agreed with quantum mechanics but naysayers continue to point out various loopholes that might allow the results of these experiments to be determined in advance rather than instantaneously as QM suggests. Today, an international team of scientists is proposing the mother of all entanglement experiments, to be performed in space. The plan is to send entangled photons between an observer on the ground and one on the International Space Station. By the peculiarities of special relativity, the high relative velocity between the observers means that both will always be able to claim to have carried out their measurement first, thereby ruling out the naysayers' arguments (abstract). The experiment, called Space-QUEST, would be housed aboard Europe's Columbus module and would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change."
Derision (Score:4, Insightful)
That won't necessarily help with the derision, as nobody denies the fact that interesting experiments are possible in space. The main point of contention will still be if you need to keep live persons there continuously to perform them. It'd have to be shown that a satellite or a simple orbiting mission couldn't have performed the same experiments for a fraction of the total costs.
Re:sounds more like a metaphysical question (Score:1, Insightful)
First was egg.
It was produced by chicken's ancestor.
Re:Could it be useful? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Derision (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the real question would be how many experiments do we neeed to do aboard the ISS before it becomes cheaper than sending up mission after mission after mission.
Re:Derision (Score:5, Insightful)
But the ISS is not only about science, it's also about engineering and learning how to live for long periods off the world (the MIR was pioneer, but its design and MO would be too dangerous to use beyond Earth's orbit). The next target will be the Moon and then probably Mars, but we had to learn how to walk before we can run.
Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Could it be useful? (Score:5, Insightful)
we know this because in a quantum superposition, different possibilities in the superposition can interfere with other possibilities, making certain results more or less likely. this is shown by the double-slit experiment [wikipedia.org]. shooting photons at a screen through two slits produced not two stripes like you'd expect, but several stripes. this is because each photon went through 2 waves of possibilities, one through each slit, and the waves then collided with each other, making certain ares of the screen more likely to be hit than others.
Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgive my modification to your quote, but I think that print offers better coverage of science issues. And while Fox News may report science news as well as CNN does, an astrologer reports as much science as either one of them as well. Fox News is crap. If other TV channels are also crap, well, good job my friend, you're still watching crap.
Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the accusation that the ISS is a white elephant. Your claim of "hundreds" of experiments is padded by a considerable number of low value experiments such as archiving (in addition to the regular sampling if I read the list correctly) fluid and tissue samples from the crew of each expedition (there have been 17 returned expeditions so far, hence, 17 "experiments"). Let's put this in perspective. By the time the ISS has run through 2016, it'll have consumed around $150-160 billion between NASA and the other participants. This includes a decade or so of the Space Shuttle which we could have phased out in 2000 or earlier, if it wasn't for the ISS. Even after completion, it'll cost almost $2 billion dollars a year to maintain.
In comparison. including launch costs the MIR station cost a few billion and the first serious NASA proposal in the mid-80's was around $12 billion in today's dollars, including launches. If NASA had gone with a scaled down station, it would have been completed years ago and generating a similar quantity of useful science (over its lifetime) for a small fraction of the cost of the ISS. The high maintenance cost means that there's a good chance that it'll be cheaper to splash the ISS and launch a new station, than to leave the ISS up there. Finally, I think it's clear that the primary purpose of the ISS has always been to extend the lifespan of the Shuttle (and deliver public funds to NASA contractors) rather to do anything useful in space. In that, it has been remarkably successful.
I find it odd that ISS supporters have to resort to the numbers game and other vague arguments (like lauding the value of "international cooperation"). If you can't find 5 or so big reasons that justify the ISS, you're not going to make up the difference with thousands of mediocre ones. What justifies almost $2 billion a year in maintenance and the huge opportunity cost of putting almost a sixth of a trillion dollars into this project? As I see it, we could have done a hell of a lot more in space with that money.
Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy (Score:4, Insightful)
The facts [sciencedaily.com]: "On this first ATV mission, Jules Verne will deliver 4.6 tonnes of payload to the ISS, including 1 150 kg of dry cargo, 856 kg of propellant for the Russian Zvezda module, 270 kg of drinking water and 21 kg of oxygen. On future ATV missions, the payload capacity will be increased to 7.4 tonnes.
About half of the payload onboard Jules Verne ATV is re-boost propellant, which will be used by its own propulsion system for periodic manoeuvres to increase the altitude of the ISS in order to compensate its natural decay caused by atmospheric drag."
Also [itwire.com]: On April 25, 2008, the European Space Agency announced that earlier in the day its first automated transfer vehicle (ATV), the "Jules Verne," increased the altitude of the International Space Station by about 2.8 miles (4.5 kilometers)--the first time an ESA craft had performed such an important task. The 12.3 minute maneuver was directed by ESA's ATV Control Center, which is located in Toulouse, France.
At 6:22 a.m. Central European Summer Time (CEST) (0422 GMT), controllers turned on two of the Jules Verne's four main engines. The two engines produced a thrust that increased the station's speed by about 8 feet per second (2.65 meters per second).
To achieve this re-boost in altitude, the ATV consumed 537 pounds (244 kilograms) of fuel. In all, the ATV carries about two metric tons (about 4,400 pounds) of propellant for re-boost activities.
After the burn was completed, the new altitude of the ISS became 212.5 miles (342 kilometers) above the Earth's surface.
The Space Station needs periodic boosts to raise its orbit because its orbit decays slowly over time due to a very small amount of atmospheric drag on the large structure as it orbits about the Earth.
In the past, the RSA Progress, the NASA Space Shuttle, or the ISS itself has performed such a maneuver. However, only RSA Progress and the ESA ATV are able to re-boost the space station to such a high level due to the amount of fuel onboard each vessel.
The Jules Verne ATV (ATV-001) will perform three additional re-boost maneuvers over the next few months: on June 12th, July 8th, and August 6th. Normally, the space station tries to keep at an orbital height of about 211 miles (340 kilometers) above the Earth's surface.
Later in August 2008, the Jules Verne, loaded with waste and unneeded materials from the space station, will be undocked from the ISS. The ATV has a capacity of carrying up to 6.3 metric tons (13,900 pounds) of unwanted material from the Station."
So what most people don't realize is that JV carries a LOT more (dense, low-volume) as mass as fuel for reboost than it does anything else in that cool pressurized comparment it has the astronauts go in. I understand that the JV maneuvers were held off to allow Shuttle attachment of KiBo at the lower and easy to reach altitude. But my point is that things are only going to get worse and will ultimately I think go beyond what JV is designed or funded to do to keep ISS up.
JV is an experiment in European autonomous docking technology, not an integrated reboost system. I have yet to see any plans for how many JVs will be flown in the long run - currently there are only 4 more in the pipeline thru 2015. The numbers above represent the data required to figure out just how many JVs will be required to keep ISS up for X number of years. I predict that when that calculation is finally run - and when NASA explains to ESA that there will be zero American funding to keep the JV production line running - that ESA will say, OK, we ain't payin no Euros to keep this junkheap up either, which side of Hawaii do you want us to splash the ISS in?
Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could it be useful? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. But QM says they are.
H polarized photon = Cat dead. V polarized photon = Cat alive. 45 degree polarized photon = Cat dead, 135 degree polarized photon = Cat alive.
Until Alice and Bob make their measurements we really do find that the cat is both dead and alive.
But what does "measurement" mean? If we really were using dead/alive cats to do this experiment (currently we lack the ability to keep something the size of a cat in a superposition of states) then presumably the cat knows if it's alive. But where/how does this stop. If not a cat, what about a mouse? An amoeba? A virus? A protein? an O2 molecule? An atom? An electron?
I think currently we're up to the atom or small molecule point with still no sign of QM breaking down.
There are ways around these conceptual problems, many worlds being one.
Tim.
Re:Scaling (Score:3, Insightful)