Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Hubble Too Sharp? Quantum Theory Flaws? 70

Posted by michael from the telephoto dept.
sckienle writes "Space.com has an article suggesting that the Hubble space telescope's pictures are too sharp. At least they are based on current interpretations of quantum theory. When viewing distant objects, 'the expected quantum effect is like a subtle version of the blurring caused by Earth's atmosphere, which makes stars twinkle.' But those effects do not seem to be present. The research will be published April 10 in the journal Astrophysical Research-Letters."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hubble Too Sharp? Quantum Theory Flaws? More

Hubble Too Sharp? Quantum Theory Flaws?

Comments Filter:

  • Of course (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The hubble telescope kicks ass!

  • Too Sharp? (Score:4, Funny)

    by blues5150 ( 161900 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @09:50AM (#5644149) Homepage
    This is a bad thing because?

    • Re:Too Sharp? (Score:4, Informative)

      by psavo ( 162634 ) <psavo@iki.fi> on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @09:58AM (#5644230) Homepage
      because they don't know why.

      • Re:Too Sharp? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by aziegler ( 201013 )
        Again ... that's bad? It just means that the current *theory* needs work. And here I thought that the point of science was to actually *seek answers*.

        -a
      • > because they don't know why.

        Because there is someone sitting in a NASA back room (in area 51) with GIMP on a 386SX drawing those images. And you all thought they where for real, silly geeks...

    • Re:Too Sharp? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Smidge204 ( 605297 )
      It's bad because the way Quantum theory is currently structured, it should be impossible for the image to be that clear. This observation basically threatens to turn all of quantum physics on it's ear.

      Of course, you could RTFA and get the exact same info. (3rd paragraph, to save you the trouble of reading the "whole thing")

      =Smidge=
      • It's not bad, it's good. This means that quantum theory will become more refined, or perhaps (though not bloody likely) just have quantum physics thrown out entirely for some other, better theory.
        • Well, I didn't mean bad as in catastrophe, I ment bad as in "Crap, back to the drawing board." This is actually the very essence of science: Come up with a theory, and if evidence comes along that the theory can't explain, reconsider the theory. (As opposed to making excuses or ignoring the evidence)

          =Smidge=

      • Re:Too Sharp? (Score:5, Funny)

        by RealErmine ( 621439 ) <commerce.wordhole@net> on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @12:43PM (#5645441)
        Finally we are on to the aliens' plot! They've been holding still images in front of the Hubble lens for years, trying to keep us from seeing what's truly out there (namely: aliens and God's house). If it weren't for quantum theory we never would have figured it out. Those crafty, green devils!
        • Finally we are on to the aliens' plot! They've been holding still images in front of the Hubble lens for years, trying to keep us from seeing what's truly out there (namely: aliens and God's house)

          Or, maybe they are just protecting us from the horrid Goatcex Nebula.

  • About time... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by oren ( 78897 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @10:00AM (#5644245)
    Applying relativity to the cosmos at large requires us to come up with exotic explanations for the "dark matter" problem. So far quantum mechanics had the luxury of not having such a problem. It is nice to know it has finally acuired one. It makes things more fair, somehow :-)

    What I'd love to see is someone showing that the effect on light over long distances was not to blur it, but rather to shift it to the red. Now *that* would really make a "big bang" out of our theories :-)
    • Unfortunately, that's not really correct. It's quantum gravity that's having the problem, not quantum mechanics.

      Do we have a good theory of quantum gravity? Well, no. Guess what? It has problems. Good old quantum mechanics - the kind that doesn't try to look at times below the Planck time - still works perfectly fine.

      (Incidentally, redshifted light wouldn't cause a problem with the Big Bang - the Big Bang's best evidence is the god-awful huge ball of fire that we're bathed in that's taken the age of the u

  • never happy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wuffle ( 651894 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @10:06AM (#5644301) Homepage
    First too blurry, now too sharp.

    Some people...

  • Damn! I knew it should never have been repaired [chron.com]!

  • Perhaps the rules were relaxed for what were assumed to be distant objects beyond the scope of our simulation [simulation-argument.com]. =)

    There is no spoon...
    • Ah yes, the simulation argument. Rather compelling, but here's one big hole in it:

      It assumes that an "I" can exist within a simulation. That a collection of machine parts pretending to be my psyche (and perfectly so) will actually produce a being experiencing said existence.

      In short, they're assuming one side of the Chinese Room debate.

      • Versus assuming that a collection of flesh and bone pretending to be you is actually a being capable of experiencing existence? Are you sure you really exist?

        • I feel existence. There's nothing I know more directly.

          Yeah, I know, you can argue this for weeks. Very interesting stuff, I'd say.

          However, I still think I have the advantage. The sim argument can't just assume something that is doubtable. You can find many intelligent people who would doubt this component, so it's a flaw in the argument.
    • Would I be foolish in saying that the argument supplied by the parent is particularly over-complex? I though to of it this way.

      If there are human simulations, then we are in one. Why? Because WE sure as hell don't have them =) So our recursives must have them.

      If there are no simulators then... there aren't.

      Perhaps I'm over-simplifying?

      'Education and Religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have the less they want.'
      • If there are human simulations, and we do not have them, it's entirely possible someone else in this non-simulated universe has them. (Fermi paradox set aside for the moment.)
  • When viewing distant objects, 'the expected quantum effect is like a subtle version of the blurring caused by Earth's atmosphere, which makes stars twinkle

    Yeah, that's why they through it up into space. The bulk of atmospheric abberation happens due to the lower atmosphere, not the upper 25%.

    • In english, "like" or "as" is often used to show a similarity between two different concepts. This is sometimes called a "simile". Hard to understand, I know.
      • "In english, 'like' or 'as' is often used to show a similarity between two different concepts. This is sometimes called a 'simile'. Hard to understand, I know."
        In contrast, people seem to grasp the concept of "sarcasm" quite well.

  • Write-up and article not quite right (Score:5, Informative)

    by Iainuki ( 537456 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @10:38AM (#5644515)
    The problems with quantum theory seem to have come with some of the proposed properties of a merger with general relativity. In other words, this isn't going to affect non-relativistic quantum mechanics or even QED, except insofar as those theories are already incomplete or incorrect. Briefly, the scientists looked at Hubble photographs for signs of the quantization of space and time expected by many working on general relativity/quantum theory mergers, and didn't find any evidence of it. Interesting, if true, but not earth-shattering yet.

    • Well-overstated claims in article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @07:43PM (#5649089) Homepage
      In other words, this isn't going to affect non-relativistic quantum mechanics or even QED, except insofar as those theories are already incomplete or incorrect.

      No kidding. My first reservation was reading about how the article "will be published." One of the things to always be leery of is research that is released to the media before published. And they've talked to massive numbers of pseudo-scientific journalists and websites. Second, it's being published in a "letters" journal. Not the highest standards, because they're not publishing a full article. Third, these claims are being put out by groups from places like the University of Alabama at Huntsville. I'm not saying great research CAN'T be done at such places...but combined with the way they've gone about publishing, it smacks of someone trying to drum up their own PR.

      Now, as for the actual claims in the article, they're talking about how blurred these pictures should be, with reference to the Planck time, and invoked a quantum gravity argument. The existence of a quantum gravity has never been proven rigorously, and has been a bane to the efforts of unifying the four major forces for years. So, if anything, they've managed to poke holes in a theory that everyone admits is thoroughly "under construction."

      The next problem is that the entire fundamental point of their study assumes that uncertainties in time propogate over distance, and that the uncertainty in wavelength can be interpreted as a superposition of waves of complete certainty. This is a sketchy and controversial means of implementing this. Had they stopped before they got here, and said that their results imply that maybe this big assumption is dead wrong, they would have made a significant contribution.

      However, they don't stop there. They then go on to discuss potential implications including an infinitely dense universe at the time of the big bang, which assumes that both their results as well as the flawed theories they invoke are correct, but that the collected works on theoretical physics are wrong. It's happened before, but not usually. It's a massive reach, but they include it because doing so is likely to get them more exposure than their more legitimate claims. And have no doubt, this will gather much more attention in the "Scientific American" crowd of science-groupies than it will in academia.

      My problem with this isn't that they didn't do a cool experiment - they did. The problem is that they extended its impact far too wide. When confronted with their evidence that invalidates one of two theories, they choose to interpret it as invalidating the more established theory, as that gets them more press. Their research was fine on its own, but it seems they are more interested in publicity. Reminds me of a group in Utah about 15 years ago...

      • Third, these claims are being put out by groups from places like the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

        Actually, the group on which the article writer focuses works out of the Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri and the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy. I'm not an expert in cosmology, and I don't know about the Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri--but I do know that in general the Max Planck Institute is a pretty respectable name in physics. The article did note that related analyses performed at

        • Yes, it smacks of self-promotion--but we should consider that it may not be entirely the fault of the researchers

          Fair distinction - I will amend what I originally wrote. There are two groups working on this, one from Huntsville, AB, and one from Planck/Italy. Here are two quotes from these guys, the first one from Planck, the second from UAH:

          "You don't see a universe that is blurred," he said. "If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that

        • A little anecdote: a couple of days ago, I was at a seminar for beginning researchers. We had a lady, a head of an association of science journalists. She explained to us that:
          - science journalists, as all journalists, work in a hurry ( 2 hours for most articles in daily papers);
          - consequently, they check facts very fast, maybe calling some researchers or the PR staff at their institute (unsaid: they don't cross-check);
          - they of course don't have the expertise to judge, since their scientific training is ve
    • ...except insofar as those theories are already incomplete or incorrect

      Let me get this straight - you're saying that this article isn't going to make any theory incorrect that isn't already incorrect? That's a relief. I'm glad that correct theory won't be invalidated by these observations. ;)

      (I know, I know, I'm just a nitpicker.)

      • Well, there are two reasons I chose that phrasing. First, there's some disagreement about whether non-relativistic quantum theory is complete, because of the question of what constitutes an observation and surrounding issues. Second, QED, as far as we know, is right. It, and the rest of the Standard Model, have passed every experimental test we've put them to. There are good reasons for thinking the Standard model isn't correct, but we don't have any evidence that it is yet. Also, of course, the Standa
  • Current interpretations of quantum theory says that X will happen.

    Y happens.

    Answer? Current interpretations of quantum theory are incorrect.

    Heck, even I can figure this one out, and I'm a cs major!

    • Re:Alright! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Except that the effect thats missing is one due to interpreting space-time as a "quantum foam", not a direct interpretation of quantum theory itself.

      • Re:Alright! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MarvinMouse ( 323641 )
        Okay...

        1. A := modern interpretation of quantum theory, with time and space quantized.

        2. A -> C, where c := space-time is quantum foam

        3. C -> B, where B := Hubble telescope images should be blurry due to quantum foam.

        4. O := Observations

        O != B.

        Therefore step 1,2,3 or 4 is incorrect. 4 is assumes to be correct, 3 is mathematically accurate from modern interpretations, 2 may be incorrect, but likely is not, since it follows very naturally from 1. Therefore, it is likely our initial assumption, A,
        • 1. A := modern interpretation of quantum theory, with time and space quantized.

          As I understand it, quantum theory does not call for time and space to be quantized. It allows for it, but the two ideas (quantum theory and quantized space-time) are distinguishable.

          I just read a "Spacedaily" article that seems clear enough on the point:

          "Using two HST images, astronomers from Italy and Germany looked for but did not find evidence supporting a prevailing scientific theory that says time, space and gravit

    • Re:Alright! (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by cmdr_beeftaco ( 562067 )
      Heck, even I can figure this one out, and I'm a cs major!
      Gosh they sure make you smart up there at the Devry School Of Computer Science and Refrigeration Repair. My advice to you is sick with the counter-strike major and don't dabble in physics.

  • proof positive (Score:3, Funny)

    by gonar ( 78767 ) <sparkalicious@ve ... minus herbivore> on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @12:08PM (#5645157) Homepage
    that the universe is just a painted backdrop, and the NASA "moon missions" _were_ a hoax!

  • Wouldn't the distance be too short then?

  • Shucks (Score:3, Funny)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @12:19PM (#5645239) Homepage Journal
    "If time doesn't become 'fuzzy' beneath a Planck interval, this discovery will present problems to several astrophysical and cosmological models, including the Big Bang model of the universe," Lieu says.

    I can already hear the "I told you so"s from the creationists.

    • "If time doesn't become 'fuzzy' beneath a Planck interval, this discovery will present problems to several astrophysical and cosmological models, including the Big Bang model of the universe," Lieu says.
      I can already hear the "I told you so"s from the creationists.

      What? So when God made the Universe, it made no sound? Not even a 'fzzzzt'?
      Oh wait, that's at the end.

  • Sensitivity please (Score:3, Funny)

    by mike_mgo ( 589966 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @12:27PM (#5645306)
    Ragazzoni explained, some parts of the light's wave should be retarded with respect to others

    Don't be cruel, some parts of the light have special needs.

  • Did they remember to look at Hubble's raw images and not the 'enhanced' ones the public usually sees?

  • Links to preprints (Score:5, Informative)

    by bwallace ( 152576 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @12:27PM (#5645314)
    If you are interested in actually reading the papers, they can be found on the arXiv.org e-Print archive [arxiv.org], and directly here [harvard.edu] and here [harvard.edu]. I would suggest the first article - the math doesn't look so hairy.
  • The universe is pretty amazing. Its design is something that we still struggle with and, IMHO we will always struggle with it. It seems that the more we discover, the more questions we have.

  • Now I trust that ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Snork Asaurus ( 595692 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @12:57PM (#5645554) Journal
    they checked with the Hubble folks to make sure that they hadn't applied some sort of (pseudo)sharpening techniques along with all the other processing (like false-coloring, et al) that they do. The article didn't say that they analyzed raw data.
  • Hubble space telescope's pictures are too sharp

    Isn't that a bit like complaining that a programmers code is too efficient?

    Hubble pictures are crisp and clear, no matter the distance to the object. And that, say two separate teams of researchers, might mean there are flaws in quantum theory.

    Now I'm confused. Are there actually people who believe our understanding is that good that there wouldn't be flaws in such theories?

    It's like someone once told me that the laws of physics break down as we app
    • There was a Discover article a couple months back that talked about a theory of black holes suggesting they are not really holes at all, nor are they singularities. The theory roughly states that black holes may really be a large spherical area inside of which time comes to a halt. It's still a massive body so there is gravity, but the reason light doesn't escape is because it stops moving.

      It was a very interesting article and a very interesting theory...riding on the tails of an issue a couple months pr

  • "If time doesn't become 'fuzzy' beneath a Planck interval, this discovery will present problems to several astrophysical and cosmological models, including the Big Bang model of the universe,"

    Hubble HAS to be wrong! Or we'll have to re-work them quantum physics theories over!

    I dunno about you, but this smells a bit of blaming the data when the hypothesis doesn't hold up, back during the days of high-school science lab classes.
  • They are working on a new space scope that is supposed to be even sharper than Hubble. What if by chance Hubble is close to (but not at) the threshold where this quantum blurring shows up. If so, then the next generation scope may be over-engineered and not much of an improvement over Hubble. We could be wasting billions building a scope to specifications that cannot contribute to better views. It seems no longer just an academic problem/issue, but a financial one as well.
    • On the other hand, they would have shown that the threshold exists - so the money wouldn't have been wasted.
      • On the other hand, they would have shown that the threshold exists - so the money wouldn't have been wasted.

        It would still be dissapointing to many who hoped for sharp pictures of say baby galaxies.

        I wonder if there is not a way to find out the limit without making a fat scope.

        Also, perhaps it only affects things that are many billions of lightyears away. Thus, we could still get sharp pictures of more "local" stuff perhaps.
  • void CompensateForQuantumErrors( BYTE* pRawData );

  • If you want more than the Space.com article, read the PDF preprint [lanl.gov] entitled "Lack of observational evidence for quantum structure of space-time at Planck scales".

    Just so people understand what's going on here, this work affects the many (untested) theories that posit some kind of "quantum of distance". There are two basic reasons that people are considering these types of theories:

    • At very short distance scales, the two great physical theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics (the Standard Mo
    • At very short distance scales, the two great physical theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics (the Standard Model) are incompatible. Something interesting must occur on the scale of the Planck length = 10^-35 meters.

      Kindof. It's definitely not true that quantum field theory and general relativity are incompatible. Quantum field theory spans ridiculous orders of magnitude in what it's been verified over - from several hundred GeV (in position space, a tiny fraction of the width of a proton) to

  • What does it mean (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Muhammar ( 659468 )
    It just means that some current extensions of Standart model and/or some of its interpretations may not hold. Maybe there is no quantum foam at all - and everything is made of rubber (strings).

    Standart model of quantum physics is known to be incomplete - there is no satisfying Grand unification with relativistic theory of gravity and while there are many modifications possible in quantum physics, we do not know which theory (if any) from the current extensions - or complete overhauls like String theory - a

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close