Quantum State Created In Largest Object Yet 265
SpuriousLogic writes "A team of researchers have created a 'quantum state' in an object billions of times larger than ever before. From the article: 'Such states, in which an object is effectively in two places at once, have until now only been accomplished with single particles, atoms and molecules. In this experiment, published in the journal Nature, scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests. The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing.'"
so how big is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.
Re:so how big is it? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.
It's the Library of Congress.
It's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.
Librarians are wetting themselves at least as much as physicists.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I guess...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.
Sorry, don't you mean 2 933 football fields under the sea?
Re: (Score:2)
about a trillion atoms
Re:so how big is it? (Score:5, Informative)
"With this experiment, we've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms."
"The "quantum resonator" can be seen with the naked eye."
Re: (Score:2)
I had a thought, if the transporter held an anti-copy and as long as the anti-copy existed, the real person would exist at some distant point. When the anti-copy is destroyed it returns the person to the teleporter.
It seems that from my understanding of the process that this would in fact produce an effective object at the remote point. I suppose it could be considered the inverted object of a lens s
Re:so how big is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You miss the point. It is not human observation or heat perturbation that collapses the system, it's information obtainment.
The point is, if you can "see" the thing, it will not be in a superposition anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still no, sorry. You have a very romanticized view of quantum mechanics. You don't need photons to "see", that's why I used quotation marks.
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, a foundational one, there's only a magnetic field and a silver plate. In the double-slit experiment, only two slits (duh) and photographic paper.
The photons do not go through all possible paths, and the thing is not in two places at once. The point is that there's no information about it's location (or the photon path). Even assuming tha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation [wikipedia.org]
"In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the amplitude of postulate 3 over the space of all possible histories of the system in between the initial and final states, including histories that are absurd by classical standards."
So, for a photon that goes trough one or the other slit, you integrate over both, and you end up with the interference pattern in your
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do integrate through both slits, but that does not mean that every photon has actually gone through them. It's a mathematical technique.
What one proves experimentally is that if the which-path information exists (somewhere), there's no interference pattern. To infer from this that it went through both slits is, at best, non-sequitur, and at worse, philosophy.
Also
But from photon's perspective...
there's no photon's perspective. It makes no sense to try to Lorentz-transform you into a referential that's moving at the speed of light. I u
Re:so how big is it? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the researchers' website the nano-mechanical resonator is a few micrometers in diameter:
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~clelandgroup/research.html [ucsb.edu]
The previous record was a buckyball.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object?
One Big-O-Meter
Re:so how big is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
"barely visible with the naked eye"
Sounds like they must have bought one of those "penis enlargement" pills.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, just what I need. Ads for "CHEEP QUANTUM C1@L1$ and V1@GR@ !"
be the length of a massive Planck (Score:3, Funny)
Collap5e w4veforms with your huge dong!
c1ick here
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part about "cooled the whole apparatus down to a thousandth of a degree above absolute zero" [wikipedia.org] (Note the correct link on the disambiguation page may be NSFW, depending on where you W.)
Re: (Score:2)
"trillions of atoms" and "barely visible with the naked eye"
Well, since Avogadro's number [wikipedia.org] represents 12 grams of carbon-12, it isn't surprising that trillions of atoms would still be invisible.
Re:so how big is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It says right in the article that it's trillions of atoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Trudat. But if we apply a little simple logic, we see that (for silicon at least), 10^27 atoms is about a cubic meter. They probably meant that the volume was increased by that factor which would make it closer to about a micron I'm guessing. Anything else wouldn't make much sense.
Re: (Score:2)
"As far as mechanical objects are concerned, the dividing line was at around 60 atoms," Professor Cleland said. "With this experiment, we've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms."
Re: (Score:2)
And if they are visible, they'd be visible in two places at once! That's the part you are missing.
Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! (Score:4, Funny)
I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me. That would be awesome.
Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! (Score:5, Funny)
What about one that doesn't destroy the original you?
ooh ooh! I just came up with an awesome idea to make money!
Tell people you have a quantum teleporter that will make a copy of them on another planet, but in reality, it doesn't do anything, but they can't prove it because they can't get to the other planet.
we could make a religion out of it or something. Make loads of money. *ca ching!*
Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! (Score:5, Funny)
Who modded that funny? I was being serious!
*Lrons*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong audience. You should take your proposal to a science fiction writer's convention.
That was a L. Ron Hubbard reference (in case that wasn't obvious). Should have gone with the Tom Cruise angle...
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you're serious doesn't mean the comment wasn't hilarious any more than posting an honest opinion makes you a troll.
The comment was visible. Are you a karma whore? Look on the bright side; now you get "the comedian" on your achievements page, and even if you ARE a karma whore nobody will know it!
Re: (Score:2)
You should sue them for making fun of your religion.
Also sue slashdot for publishing your post and revealing the copyrighted secrets of your religion.
Then sue yourself for being the source of the leak.
Re: (Score:2)
It would probably work.
And it wouldn't necessarily be bad.
We could call it the Darwin natural selector.
Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! (Score:5, Funny)
Please stop giving Tom Cruise ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then destroy the 'original' and 'send' their assets to the other planet (or your offshore account). Maybe that's Step 2? People who would actually believe Step 1 would probably believe it all the way...
Re: (Score:2)
The destroying the original part might get you in trouble with the law, but you could probably get away with the "intergalactic money transfer". The fees of which would be um out of this world.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Meanwhile, a new methane planet has just been discovered, but it is covered with dead bodies.
Meanwhile, at the Canazza Teleportation company headquarters, the president was heard saying "But I didn't think it actually did anything" as he was led out of his office in handcuffs.
Re: (Score:2)
we could make a religion out of it or something. Make loads of money. *ca ching!*
Never heard of Scientology, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
we could make a religion out of it or something. Make loads of money. *ca ching!*
L. Ron, is that you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder which makes more money, L. Ron, or the pharmaceutical companies. My money is with the pharmaceutical companies.
That's a sure bet, because L. Ron is dead. Dead people don't make money.
Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newslett..."
Ah, screw that. I want in.
How much for a cut in to the action? I'm good at woodworking, and can probably make the Quantum Duplication Cubicles for you. I also have a background in sales, and a 20+ year career in IT, so I can make the lights go blinkie and help with the marketing fluff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! (Score:4, Informative)
I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me.
Spoiler alert, stop now if you haven't seen it:
The name of the movie is The Prestige - it was on the Sci-Fi or some such channel recently. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6CoVlD5xc [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
ps - sorry, hit submit instead of preview:
I thought the spoiler was the youtube trailer.
Even knowing the "trick" I've warned you of with teleporting - I've not spoiled the prestige, nor The Prestige.
two chicks at the same time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[to the tune of "Home on the Range"]
Oh give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With the Y chromosome changed into X
And when we're alone
Since her mind is my own
She'll be thinking of nothing but sex
Of course when they went to look at the results... (Score:4, Funny)
Once we get into quantum computing, we're going to have to drop the whole binary "yes"-"no" thing for "yes", "no", "maybe", "uninitialized", "42"
Re: (Score:2)
You left out "cowbell". That's when ten or more quibits align together in perfect harmony.
Re: (Score:2)
And live in harmony, harmony, oh love [adultswim.com]?
obligatory Futurama (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, sadly, I altered the outcome by letting her observe me.
Sigh. No 2nd date, apparently.
Could have? (Score:3, Funny)
They think it 'could have' significant implications?
Surely they mean it definitely has significant implications and also hasn't?
Re: (Score:2)
They think it 'could have' significant implications?
Surely they mean it definitely has significant implications and also hasn't?
Nah, that's just wishful thinking. Obviously whether it has significant implications is still in an uncollapsed state, but they're hoping it will collapse into the 'significant implications' state. Hmm, maybe Schrodinger wasn't trying to kill his cat after all...
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that, I want a beer! [angryflower.com]
wow (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My cats are schitzo enough without having any damn quantum superpositions.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, poor kitty! (Score:3, Funny)
Way to go! (Score:3, Funny)
"In this experiment, published in the journal Nature, scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests."
Hmmm, if I count correctly, a cat is still many orders of magnitude heavier. I can only hope that they will make further progress in the decades to come.
The answer, Schrodingers kitten (Score:5, Funny)
Now it can AND cannot has cheezburger at the same time!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear PETA:
We have carefully considered (not) your proposal and have decided to unconditionally release (or not) Schroedinger's cat. Therefore you may (or may not) find this free-range cat at a position which we will disclose (or not) at a later occasion, only under the condition that we cannot disclose the momentum of said cat.
Love,
E. Schroedinger
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, wouldn't that be "cn and !cn hz cheezburger at saym timzorz?"
I iz in yer boks (Score:2)
Super pozishinin!
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when it scales up... (Score:5, Funny)
... to the size of a cat.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not certain they'll be able to do that.
A Bose-Einstein Condensate? (Score:4, Interesting)
From what the article looks like, all they've done is created a BEC (They don't mention that in the article, am I off?) of the largest object yet, which just means they cooled the material to milli-kelvin using some kind of trap, and the material becomes a new state of matter, a Bose Einstein Condensate.
For some reason, I expected some kind of two-slit or uncertainty principle thing with a very large object. This doesn't really seem that impressive to me, but then my quantum is a bit dated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they did something similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator [wikipedia.org]
When you take an oscillator and put tiny amounts of energy into it it will behave in a QM way.
Re: (Score:2)
>This doesn't really seem that impressive to me
Have you made a BEC trillions of atoms in size?
How do they confirm it's in a quantum state? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a question that I assume has a reasonable answer, just one I've never actually gotten confirmation on.
Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?" Do they just measure it and repeat the process several times, and note that it's occasionally at 1 quanta, occasionally at 0, and from that infer that it was in a quantum state up until they measured it?
Second question, while I'm here - am I right in saying that according to the many-worlds interpretation, the universe branches when this object enters a quantum state, and we end up in one of two universes, one where the object has 1 quanta of energy and one where it has 0?
Trying to grok all this "quantum mechanics" stuff :)
Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in an object of this size you could plainly see it with the naked eye. Because the whole object would start to act like one particle. Which in practice means that you can see waves moving over it in a weird fashion, where particles annihilate and amplify each other.
I once saw a video* of it, and it looks really cool. And veery creepy at the same time, when you realize what that means. (Imagine there being two cubes of steel matter in that state. You could not only shove them together to the exact s
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know about this experiment, but in the double-slit experiment, you can confirm that the photons pass the slit unobserved(in wave form) when you get a peculiarly structured hit pattern on the wall with the photoreactive film that can only result from the adding and cancelling of two wave distributions.
According to the Everett interpretation, http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm [hedweb.com], the universe will split at the time of the observation, not at the time of being placed in wave state, at least that is what
Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state? (Score:5, Informative)
Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?"
Interference phenomena. The article is light on detail, but presumably they excite the system into a superposition of (mechanical) normal modes and then observe the motion, or the position of some part of it, at a later time and find that it is in a classically forbidden region.
For example, suppose they excite it into two modes that interfere to produce a node at some point, so there is no motion there, but there would be if there it was in one mode or the other. Then monitoring the motion at that point would allow you to determine if the system was in a superposition of two quantum states rather than one or the other.
With regard to the many-worlds interpretation: it doesn't answer the really important question. Neither does consistent histories or any of the decoherence-based approaches. The really important question is, "Why is there a classical world at all?" That is, these theories purport to show that we can get along just fine without the wavefunction ever undergoing "collapse", so in some sense all possible quantum outcomes of an experiment are permitted. But they never answer (or even ask), "Why is it only via interference phenomena that we are aware of these effects? Why aren't we aware of the other components of the wavefunction all the time? Why is there a classical world at all? Is it a feature of consciousness or the physics that permits beings like us to exist, that we are selected by a basically anthropic process to be able to experience only the narrowest subset of existence? If so, how?"
Apart from that, the article is badly misleading: it seems to suggest that anyone anywhere thinks there is anything interesting about the physical size or number of particles involved the detectability of quantum phenomena. It has been known for decades that this is not the case: the number of available modes is what matters, and any sufficiently cold object can become arbitarily large without exhibiting classical behaviour. Furthermore, phenomena like the Mossbaure Effect told us something similar half a century or so ago. It's probably time for the popular press to stop talking about the quantum equivalent of the luminiferous aether and get with the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it IS and ISN'T in a quantum state. Any more questions?
---
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
But if you look closer... (Score:3, Funny)
It's barely visible to the naked eye, but if you look under light magnification you can read a caption:
"I can has quantum state?"
WHAT "object"? (Score:2)
Why the beating around the bush?
Why piezoelectric material? (Score:2)
I thought they were supposed to do this to a cat?
Link to naturenews story (Score:2, Informative)
Xzibit!! (Score:2)
Been done in superconductors (Score:4, Informative)
Not helpful. (Score:2)
I have enough trouble keeping track of my data now. So my quantum computer will have my data in multiple states? I have to look in how many places?
Sheesh.
Heisenberg (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disproof of Penrose, evidence for MWI (Score:3, Interesting)
If it is true that '"I don't think there is a limit, that there will be a certain size where quantum mechanics starts to break down," Dr Aspelmeyer said,' then that means that even larger objects also go into superpositions of quantum states. That would go all the way up to human sized and larger. This is the fundamental principle of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), that when quantum measurements occur, even though we only see one outcome, actually we go into a superposition of multiple states, each of which sees a different outcome. Each state evolves independently. It is as though the world splits into parallel universes, where every possible outcome occurs in a different universe.
This follows strictly from the principle that QM applies at all sizes. And this new experiment certainly pushes us in that direction.
Some scientists, notably Roger Penrose, had speculated that QM would break down at macroscopic sizes. He specifically proposed that once sizes were large enough for gravitational forces to exceed some threshold, QM would break down. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has this: "Tiny superpositions, e.g. an electron separated from itself, if isolated from environment, would require 10 million years to reach OR threshold. An isolated one kilogram object (e.g. Schrödinger's cat) would reach OR threshold in only 10^-37 seconds." Now here we have a trilliion atom object. That is about 10^13 amu, which is 10^-14 kg. Dividing 10^-37 seconds by 10^-14 we get 10^-23 seconds, which is far shorter than this experiment lasted. This means basically that this experiment disproves Penrose's theory! This is the first time this has happened, and I am (AFAIK) the first person to notice this.
In short it is becoming harder and harder to avoid accepting the reality of parallel worlds. What this should mean for our actions is up to the philosophers, but we should not bury our heads and pretend it isn't true.
Re:This is awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
More likely it'll be "OMFM! Wall hacks, BANNED!!!!!"
OMFM = Oh My Fuckin Me
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and F=ma? Big whoop! Don't even get me started on boring stuff like E=mc^2.
All of this physics stuff is boring, it will never come of anything interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is big, so that doesn't make any sense...
Re: (Score:2)
In a conference call, you're not effectively in two places at once at all. You're effectively communicating with people at multiple disparate locations while remaining in one location.
They just say "effectively" because a superposed state is not really the same as being in two places at once, but that's a reasonable analogy to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are. From Effectively [merriam-webster.com]:
So, I'm "actually" communicating with people at multiple disparate location, while remaining in one location, making me "effectively" in two places at once. My virtual presence can have an actual effect on those actually present, making me ef
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The object is not in two places at once. The quantum wavefunction of the object has non-negligible probability in two places at once. This means that the object is equally likely to be found in two different locations.
The wording of the article is extremely sloppy. Remember that a wavefunction is not the object. The wavefunction is nothing more than a way to calculate the probability of finding the object in a particular place. A better description of where the object is when it is in superposition is "nowh
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the Republican Party. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This reply followed a very weird train of thought.