Leaky-wave metasurfaces: A perfect interface between free-space … – Science Daily

Researchers at Columbia Engineering have developed a new class of integrated photonic devices -- "leaky-wave metasurfaces" -- that can convert light initially confined in an optical waveguide to an arbitrary optical pattern in free space. These devices are the first to demonstrate simultaneous control of all four optical degrees of freedom, namely, amplitude, phase, polarization ellipticity, and polarization orientation -- a world record. Because the devices are so thin, transparent, and compatible with photonic integrated circuits (PICs), they can be used to improve optical displays, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), optical communications, and quantum optics.

"We are excited to find an elegant solution for interfacing free-space optics and integrated photonics -- these two platforms have traditionally been studied by investigators from different subfields of optics and have led to commercial products addressing completely different needs," said Nanfang Yu, associate professor of applied physics and applied mathematics who is a leader in research on nanophotonic devices. "Our work points to new ways to create hybrid systems that utilize the best of both worlds -- free-space optics for shaping the wavefront of light and integrated photonics for optical data processing -- to address many emerging applications such as quantum optics, optogenetics, sensor networks, inter-chip communications, and holographic displays."

Bridging free-space optics and integrated photonics

The key challenge of interfacing PICs and free-space optics is to transform a simple waveguide mode confined within a waveguide -- athin ridge defined on a chip -- into a broad free-space wave with a complex wavefront, and vice versa. Yu's team tackled this challenge by building on their invention last fall of "nonlocal metasurfaces" and extended the devices' functionality from controlling free-space light waves to controlling guided waves.

Specifically, they expanded the input waveguide mode by using a waveguide taper into a slab waveguide mode -- a sheet of light propagating along the chip. "We realized that the slab waveguide mode can be decomposed into two orthogonal standing waves -- waves reminiscent of those produced by plucking a string," said Heqing Huang, a PhD student in Yu's lab and co-first author of the study, published today in Nature Nanotechnology. "Therefore, we designed a 'leaky-wave metasurface' composed of two sets of rectangular apertures that have a subwavelength offset from each other to independently control these two standing waves. The result is that each standing wave is converted into a surface emission with independent amplitude and polarization; together, the two surface emission components merge into a single free-space wave with completely controllable amplitude, phase, and polarization at each point over its wavefront."

From quantum optics to optical communications to holographic 3D displays

Yu's team experimentally demonstrated multiple leaky-wave metasurfaces that can convert a waveguide mode propagating along a waveguide with a cross-section on the order of one wavelength into free-space emission with a designer wavefront over an area about 300 times the wavelength at the telecom wavelength of 1.55 microns. These include:

A leaky-wave metalens that produces a focal spot in free space. Such a device will be ideal for forming a low-loss, high-capacity free-space optical link between PIC chips; it will also be useful for an integrated optogenetic probe that produces focused beams to optically stimulate neurons located far away from the probe.

Aleaky-wave optical-lattice generator that can produce hundreds of focal spots forming a Kagome lattice pattern in free space. In general, the leaky-wave metasurface can produce complex aperiodic and three-dimensional optical lattices to trap cold atoms and molecules. This capability will enable researchers to study exotic quantum optical phenomena or conduct quantum simulations hitherto not easily attainable with other platforms, and enable them to substantially reduce the complexity, volume, and cost of atomic-array-based quantum devices. For example, the leaky-wave metasurface could be directly integrated into the vacuum chamber to simplify the optical system, making portable quantum optics applications, such as atomic clocks, a possibility.

A leaky-wave vortex-beam generator that produces a beam with a corkscrew-shaped wavefront. This could lead to a free-space optical link between buildings that relies on PICs to process information carried by light, while also using light waves with shaped wavefronts for high-capacity intercommunication.

A leaky-wave hologram that can displace four distinct images simultaneously: two at the device plane (at two orthogonal polarization states) and another two at a distance in the free space (also at two orthogonal polarization states). This function could be used to make lighter, more comfortable augmented reality goggles and more realistic holographic 3D displays.

Device fabrication

Device fabrication was carried out at the Columbia Nano Initiative cleanroom, and at the Advanced Science Research Center NanoFabrication Facility at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

Next steps

Yu's current demonstration is based on a simple polymer-silicon nitride materials platform at near-infrared wavelengths. His team plans next to demonstrate devices based on the more robust silicon nitride platform, which is compatible with foundry fabrication protocols and tolerant to high optical power operation. They also plan to demonstrate designs for high output efficiency and operation at visible wavelengths, which is more suitable for applications such as quantum optics and holographic displays.

The study was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant no. QII-TAQS-1936359 (H.H., Y.X., and N.Y.) and no. ECCS-2004685 (S.C.M., C.-C.T., and N.Y.)), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (no. FA9550-16-1-0322 (N.Y.)), and the Simons Foundation (A.C.O. and A.A). S.C.M. acknowledges support from the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (grant no. DGE-1644869).

Read more here:

Leaky-wave metasurfaces: A perfect interface between free-space ... - Science Daily

New Way to Investigate the Expansion of the Early Universe – AZoQuantum

Scientists have found a new generic production mechanism of gravitational waves produced by a phenomenon called oscillons. Several theories propose that these phenomena arisefrom the fragmentation into solitonic lumps of the inflaton field that directed the rapid expansion of the early Universe. This study was reported in a new study published in Physical Review Letters.

The outcomes have paved the way for showing exciting new understanding regarding the earliest moments of the Universe.

The inflationary period is the moment that occurred following the Big Bang. The exponential expansion of the Universe is believed to be due to this inflationary period. In several theories of cosmology, the formation of oscillons occurs right after the quick expansion period.

Oscillons, a kind of localized non-linear massive structure, can develop from fields, like the inflaton field that are oscillating at high frequencies. Such structures can persist for long periods, and as scientists found, their ultimate decay can produce a considerable quantity of gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time.

In their research, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (Kavli IPMU) Project Researcher Kaloian D. Lozanov, and Kavli IPMU Visiting Associate Scientist, International Center for Quantum-field Measurement Systems for Studies of the Universe and Particles (QUP) Senior Scientist, and High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) Theory Center Assistant Professor Volodymyr Takhistov, replicated the inflaton field evolution at the time of the early Universe and discovered that oscillons were present. Then, they found that oscillon decay could produce gravitational waves that would be detectable by forthcoming gravitational wave observatories.

The results offer a new test of the dynamics of the early Universe independent of the traditionally studied cosmic microwave background radiation. These gravitational waves discovery would demonstrate a new window into the earliest moments of the Universe and could aid in shedding light on a few of the pressing essential questions in cosmology.

With the continuing development of supercomputing resources and gravitational wave detectors, even more insight into the early moments of the Universe can be gained in the future. Altogether, the new research establishes the power of integrating theoretical models with cutting-edge computational observations and techniques to unleash new insights into the evolution of the Universe.

Lozanov, K. D., & Takhistov, V. (2023). Enhanced Gravitational Waves from Inflaton Oscillons. Physical Review Letters. doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.130.181002.

Source: https://www.ipmu.jp/en

Excerpt from:

New Way to Investigate the Expansion of the Early Universe - AZoQuantum

Quantum – Wikipedia

In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. The fundamental notion that a physical property can be "quantized" is referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude of the physical property can take on only discrete values consisting of integer multiples of one quantum.

For example, a photon is a single quantum of light (or of any other form of electromagnetic radiation). Similarly, the energy of an electron bound within an atom is quantized and can exist only in certain discrete values. (Atoms and matter in general are stable because electrons can exist only at discrete energy levels within an atom.) Quantization is one of the foundations of the much broader physics of quantum mechanics. Quantization of energy and its influence on how energy and matter interact (quantum electrodynamics) is part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature.

The word quantum is the neuter singular of the Latin interrogative adjective quantus, meaning "how much". "Quanta", the neuter plural, short for "quanta of electricity" (electrons), was used in a 1902 article on the photoelectric effect by Philipp Lenard, who credited Hermann von Helmholtz for using the word in the area of electricity. However, the word quantum in general was well known before 1900,[2] e.g. quantum was used in E.A. Poe's Loss of Breath. It was often used by physicians, such as in the term quantum satis, "the amount which is enough". Both Helmholtz and Julius von Mayer were physicians as well as physicists. Helmholtz used quantum with reference to heat in his article[3] on Mayer's work, and the word quantum can be found in the formulation of the first law of thermodynamics by Mayer in his letter[4] dated July 24, 1841.

In 1901, Max Planck used quanta to mean "quanta of matter and electricity",[5] gas, and heat.[6] In 1905, in response to Planck's work and the experimental work of Lenard (who explained his results by using the term quanta of electricity), Albert Einstein suggested that radiation existed in spatially localized packets which he called "quanta of light" ("Lichtquanta").[7]

The concept of quantization of radiation was discovered in 1900 by Max Planck, who had been trying to understand the emission of radiation from heated objects, known as black-body radiation. By assuming that energy can be absorbed or released only in tiny, differential, discrete packets (which he called "bundles", or "energy elements"),[8] Planck accounted for certain objects changing color when heated.[9] On December 14, 1900, Planck reported his findings to the German Physical Society, and introduced the idea of quantization for the first time as a part of his research on black-body radiation.[10] As a result of his experiments, Planck deduced the numerical value of h, known as the Planck constant, and reported more precise values for the unit of electrical charge and the AvogadroLoschmidt number, the number of real molecules in a mole, to the German Physical Society. After his theory was validated, Planck was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery in 1918.

The rest is here:

Quantum - Wikipedia

10 mind-boggling things you should know about quantum physics

1. The quantum world is lumpy

The quantum world (opens in new tab) has a lot in common with shoes. You cant just go to a shop and pick out sneakers that are an exact match for your feet. Instead, youre forced to choose between pairs that come in predetermined sizes.

The subatomic world is similar. Albert Einstein (opens in new tab) won a Nobel Prize for proving that energy is quantized. Just as you can only buy shoes in multiples of half a size, so energy only comes in multiples of the same "quanta" hence the name quantum physics.

The quanta here is the Planck constant (opens in new tab), named after Max Planck, the godfather of quantum physics. He was trying to solve a problem with our understanding of hot objects like the sun. Our best theories couldnt match the observations of the energy they kick out. By proposing that energy is quantized, he was able to bring theory neatly into line with experiment.

J. J. Thomson won the Nobel Prize in 1906 for his discovery that electrons are particles. Yet his son George won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for showing that electrons are waves. Who was right? The answer is both of them. This so-called wave-particle duality (opens in new tab) is a cornerstone of quantum physics. It applies to light as well as electrons. Sometimes it pays to think about light as an electromagnetic wave, but at other times its more useful to picture it in the form of particles called photons.

A telescope (opens in new tab) can focus light waves from distant stars, and also acts as a giant light bucket for collecting photons. It also means that light can exert pressure as photons slam into an object. This is something we already use to propel spacecraft with solar sails, and it may be possible to exploit it in order to maneuver a dangerous asteroid off a collision course with Earth (opens in new tab), according to Rusty Schweickart, chairman of the B612 Foundation.

Wave-particle duality is an example of superposition (opens in new tab). That is, a quantum object existing in multiple states at once. An electron, for example, is both here and there simultaneously. Its only once we do an experiment to find out where it is that it settles down into one or the other.

This makes quantum physics all about probabilities. We can only say which state an object is most likely to be in once we look. These odds are encapsulated into a mathematical entity called the wave function. Making an observation is said to collapse the wave function, destroying the superposition and forcing the object into just one of its many possible states.

This idea is behind the famous Schrdingers cat (opens in new tab) thought experiment. A cat in a sealed box has its fate linked to a quantum device. As the device exists in both states until a measurement is made, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead until we look.

The idea that observation collapses the wave function and forces a quantum choice is known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. However, its not the only option on the table. Advocates of the many worlds interpretation argue that there is no choice involved at all. Instead, at the moment the measurement is made, reality fractures into two copies of itself: one in which we experience outcome A, and another where we see outcome B unfold. It gets around the thorny issue of needing an observer to make stuff happen does a dog count as an observer, or a robot?

Instead, as far as a quantum particle is concerned, theres just one very weird reality consisting of many tangled-up layers. As we zoom out towards the larger scales that we experience day to day, those layers untangle into the worlds of the many worlds theory. (opens in new tab) Physicists call this process decoherence.

Danish physicist Niels Bohr showed us that the orbits of electrons inside atoms are also quantized. They come in predetermined sizes called energy levels. When an electron drops from a higher energy level to a lower energy level, it spits out a photon with an energy equal to the size of the gap. Equally, an electron can absorb a particle of light and use its energy to leap up to a higher energy level.

Astronomers use this effect all the time. We know what stars are made of because when we break up their light into a rainbow-like spectrum, we see colors that are missing. Different chemical elements have different energy level spacings, so we can work out the constituents of the sun and other stars from the precise colors that are absent.

The sun makes its energy through a process called nuclear fusion. It involves two protons the positively charged particles in an atom sticking together. However, their identical charges make them repel each other, just like two north poles of a magnet. Physicists call this the Coulomb barrier, and its like a wall between the two protons.

Think of protons as particles and they just collide with the wall and move apart: No fusion, no sunlight. Yet think of them as waves, and its a different story. When the waves crest reaches the wall, the leading edge has already made it through. The waves height represents where the proton is most likely to be. So although it is unlikely to be where the leading edge is, it is there sometimes. Its as if the proton has burrowed through the barrier, and fusion occurs. Physicists call this effect "quantum tunneling".

Eventually fusion in the sun will stop and our star will die. Gravity will win and the sun will collapse, but not indefinitely. The smaller it gets, the more material is crammed together. Eventually a rule of quantum physics called the Pauli exclusion principle comes into play. This says that it is forbidden for certain kinds of particles such as electrons to exist in the same quantum state. As gravity tries to do just that, it encounters a resistance that astronomers call degeneracy pressure. The collapse stops, and a new Earth-sized object called a white dwarf forms.

Degeneracy pressure can only put up so much resistance, however. If a white dwarf grows and approaches a mass equal to 1.4 suns, it triggers a wave of fusion that blasts it to bits. Astronomers call this explosion a Type Ia supernova (opens in new tab), and its bright enough to outshine an entire galaxy.

A quantum rule called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (opens in new tab) says that its impossible to perfectly know two properties of a system simultaneously. The more accurately you know one, the less precisely you know the other. This applies to momentum and position, and separately to energy and time.

Its a bit like taking out a loan. You can borrow a lot of money for a short amount of time, or a little cash for longer. This leads us to virtual particles. If enough energy is borrowed from nature then a pair of particles can fleetingly pop into existence, before rapidly disappearing so as not to default on the loan.

Stephen Hawking (opens in new tab) imagined this process occurring at the boundary of a black hole, where one particle escapes (as Hawking radiation), but the other is swallowed. Over time the black hole slowly evaporates, as its not paying back the full amount it has borrowed.

Our best theory of the universes origin is the Big Bang (opens in new tab). Yet it was modified in the 1980s to include another theory called inflation (opens in new tab). In the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, the cosmos ballooned from smaller than an atom to about the size of a grapefruit. Thats a whopping 10^78 times bigger. Inflating a red blood cell by the same amount would make it larger than the entire observable universe today.

As it was initially smaller than an atom, the infant universe would have been dominated by quantum fluctuations linked to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Inflation caused the universe to grow rapidly before these fluctuations had a chance to fade away. This concentrated energy into some areas rather than others something astronomers believe acted as seeds around which material could gather to form the clusters of galaxies we observe now.

As well as helping to prove that light is quantum, Einstein argued in favor of another effect that he dubbed spooky action at distance. Today we know that this quantum entanglement is real, but we still dont fully understand whats going on. Lets say that we bring two particles together in such a way that their quantum states are inexorably bound, or entangled. One is in state A, and the other in state B.

The Pauli exclusion principle says that they cant both be in the same state. If we change one, the other instantly changes to compensate. This happens even if we separate the two particles from each other on opposite sides of the universe. Its as if information about the change weve made has traveled between them faster than the speed of light, something Einstein said was impossible.

Join our Space Forums (opens in new tab)to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at:community@space.com. (opens in new tab)

View original post here:

10 mind-boggling things you should know about quantum physics

What is quantum in physics and computing? – TechTarget

What is a quantum?

A quantum (plural: quanta) is the smallest discrete unit of a phenomenon. For example, a quantum of light is a photon, and a quantum of electricity is an electron. Quantum comes from Latin, meaning "an amount" or "how much?" If something is quantifiable, then it can be measured.

The modern use of quantum in physics was coined by Max Planck in 1901. He was trying to explain black-body radiation and how objects changed color after being heated. Instead of assuming that the energy was emitted in a constant wave, he posed that the energy was emitted in discrete packets, or bundles. These were termed quanta of energy. This led to him discovering Planck's constant, which is a fundamental universal value.

Planck's constant is symbolized as h and relates the energy in one photon to the frequency of the photon. Further units were derived from Planck's constant: Planck's distance and Planck's time, which describe the shortest meaningful unit of distance and the shortest meaningful unit of time. For anything smaller, Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle renders the measurements meaningless.

The discovery of quanta and the quantum nature of subatomic particles led to a revolution in physics. This became quantum theory, or quantum mechanics. Quantum theory describes the behavior of microscopic particles; Albert Einstein's theory of relativity describes the behavior of macroscopic things. These two theories are the underpinning of modern physics. Unfortunately, they deal with different domains, leaving physicists to seek a so-called unified theory of everything.

Subatomic particles behave in ways that are counterintuitive. A single photon quantum of light can simultaneously go through two slits in a piece of material, as shown in the double-slit experiment. Schrdinger's cat is a famous thought experiment that describes a quantum particle in superposition, or the state where the probability waveform has not collapsed. Particles can also become quantumly entangled, causing them to interact instantly over a distance.

Quantum computing uses the nature of subatomic particles to perform calculations instead of using electrical signals as in classical computing. Quantum computers use qubits instead of binary bits. By programming the initial conditions of the qubit, quantum computing can solve a problem when the superposition state collapses. The forefront of quantum computer research is in linking greater numbers of qubits together to be able to solve larger and more complex problems.

Quantum computers can perform certain calculations much faster than classical computers. To find an answer to a problem, classical computers need to go through each option one at a time. It can take a long time to go through all the options for some types of problems. Quantum computers do not need to try each option; instead, they resolve the answer almost instantly.

Some problems that quantum computers can solve quicker than classical computers are factoring for prime numbers and the traveling salesman problem. Once quantum computers demonstrate the ability to solve these problems faster than classical computers, quantum supremacy will be achieved.

Prime factorization is an important function for the modern cryptography systems that secure digital communication. Experts currently expect that quantum computers will render existing cryptographic systems insecure and obsolete.

Efforts to develop post-quantum cryptography are underway to create algorithms that are resistant to quantum attacks, but can still be used by classical computers. Eventually, fully quantum cryptography will be available for quantum computers.

See also: Table of Physical Units and Table of Physical Constants

Visit link:

What is quantum in physics and computing? - TechTarget

The Primacy of Doubt: From Quantum Physics to Climate Change, How the Science of Uncertainty Can Help Us Understand Our Chaotic World – Next Big Idea…

The Primacy of Doubt: From Quantum Physics to Climate Change, How the Science of Uncertainty Can Help Us Understand Our Chaotic World  Next Big Idea Club Magazine

Read the original post:

The Primacy of Doubt: From Quantum Physics to Climate Change, How the Science of Uncertainty Can Help Us Understand Our Chaotic World - Next Big Idea...

This Curvy Quantum Physics Discovery Could Revolutionize Our Understanding of Reality – The Debrief

A recent discovery in the field of quantum physics by researchers at Purdue University has opened the doorway to a whole new way of looking at our physical reality.

According to the researchers involved, an all-new technique that can allow the creation of curved surfaces that behave like flat ones may completely revolutionize our understanding of curvature and distance, as well as our knowledge of quantum physics.

As a fundamental principle, if one wants to create a curved surface even at the microscopic level, one must start with a flat surface and bend it. Although this may seem self-evident, suchprinciples are critical guidelines for researchers who work in quantum mechanics, information processing, astrophysics, and a whole host of scientific disciplines.

However, according to the Purdue research team behind this latest discovery, they have discovered a way to break that law, resulting in a curved space that behaves at a quantum level like a flat one. Thediscovery is, in short, something that appears to break the sorts of fundamental rules many physicists take for granted.

Our work may revolutionize the general publics understanding of curvatures and distance, said Qi Zhou, a Professor of Physics and Astronomy who is also a co-author of the paper announcing the research teams potentially groundbreaking results. It has also answered long-standing questions in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics by bridging non-Hermitian physics and curved spaces.

Published in the journal Nature Communications, the paper and its authors explain that the discovery involves the construction of curved surfaces that behave like flat ones, particularly at the quantum level, resulting in a system they describe as non-Hermitian.

For example, quantum particles on a theoretical lattice can hop from one location to another instantaneously. If the chances of that particle hopping either left or right is equal, then that system is referred to as Hermitian. However, if the odds are unequal, then the system is non-Hermitian.

Typical textbooks of quantum mechanics mainly focus on systems governed by Hamiltonians that are Hermitian, said graduate student Chenwei Lv, who is also the lead author of the paper. As a result, the team notes that there is very little literature about their discovery.

A quantum particle moving in a lattice needs to have an equal probability to tunnel along the left and right directions, Lv explains before offering examples where certain systems lose this equal probability. In such non-Hermitian systems, familiar textbook results no longer apply, and some may even look completely opposite to that of Hermitian systems.

Lv and the Purdue team found that a non-Hermitian system actually curved the space where a quantum particle resides. In that case, they explain, a quantum particle in a lattice with nonreciprocal tunneling is actually moving on a curved surface. Lv notes that these types of non-Hermitian systems are in sharp contrast to what first-year undergraduate quantum physics students are taught from day one of their education.

These extraordinary behaviors of non-Hermitian systems have been intriguing physicists for decades, Lv adds, but many outstanding questions remain open.

Professor Ren Zhang from Xian Jiaotong University, who was a co-author of the study, says that their research and its unexpected results have implications in two distinct areas.

On the one hand, it establishes non-Hermiticity as a unique tool to simulate intriguing quantum systems in curved spaces, he explained. Most quantum systems available in laboratories are flat, and it often requires significant efforts to access quantum systems in curved spaces.That non-Hermiticity, adds Zhang, offers experimentalists an extra knob to access and manipulate curved spaces.

On the other hand, says Zhang, the duality allows experimentalists to use curved spaces to explore non-Hermitian physics. For instance, our results provide experimentalists a new approach to access exceptional points using curved spaces and improve the precision of quantum sensors without resorting to dissipations.

The research team notes that their discovery could assist researchers across a wide array of disciplines, with future research spinning off in multiple directions.

First, those who study curved spaces could implement the Purdue teams apparatuses, while physicists working on non-Hermitian systems could tailor dissipations to access non-trivial curved spaces that cannot be easily obtained by conventional means.

In the end, Lv points to the broader implications of their discovery and its place in the world of quantum physics.

The extraordinary behaviors of non-Hermitian systems, which have puzzled physicists for decades, become no longer mysterious if we recognize that the space has been curved, said Lv.

In other words, non-Hermiticity and curved spaces are dual to each other, being the two sides of the same coin.

Connect with Author Christopher Plain on Twitter @plain_fiction

Read more here:

This Curvy Quantum Physics Discovery Could Revolutionize Our Understanding of Reality - The Debrief

Quantum trailblazer – News Center – The University of Texas at Arlington – uta.edu

Wednesday, Aug 03, 2022 Linsey Retcofsky : Contact

Weeks into summer break, a classroom door opened onto a quiet hallway at Martin High School in Arlington, where a crowd of students waited.

What is something that has confused you this week? asked Victor Cervantes, an alumnus of the UTeach program at The University of Texas at Arlington and an AP physics teacher. Students wrote their answers on sticky notes and stuck them to butcher paper hanging from the wall. Many of the colorful papers read wave-particle duality.

A group of more than 50 high school students and teachers was meeting to attend workshops in quantum information science (QIS) led by Karen Jo Matsler, assistant professor in practice at UTA. Many of the weeks lessons were guiding them through uncharted territory.

In 2021, the National Science Foundation awarded Matsler and collaborators a nearly $1 million grant to launch Quantum for All, a three-year QIS program for high school teachers. Key to workforce preparation, quantum principles intersect with numerous industries, impacting global communication methods, technology, innovation, health care, issues of national security and more. As an emerging field, QIS is excluded from many high school courses.

Quantum skills are integral to the development of a globally competitive workforce, Matsler said. If students have never heard of these concepts before they enter college, they likely wont choose to study them at advanced levels.

Jonathan Lewis

Open to high school teachers from across the country, the program capitalizes on familiar content areas in instructors existing curricula and teaches them how to incorporate quantum principles into lesson plans. During summer breaks, participants gather for intensive workshops where they practice teaching the new subject.

At the beginning of the day, Matthew Quiroz, a physics and astronomy teacher at Ysleta High School in El Paso, Texas, gathered materials from a 3D printer. The day before, the students were given parameters for an experiment and told to design and 3D-print the tools they lacked.

Jonathan Lewis, a junior in Martin High Schools STEM academy, paired with a friend to lead his cohorts design.

We needed to design a rotating stand to hold a small polarizer, Lewis said. Our group brainstormed ideas and then designed the 3D model in Tinkercad, a software I had never used. Going through the stages of this project has been a lot of fun.

Using the student-made tools, Quiroz guided the class through an experiment testing how varying polarizer angles affect the brightness of light. As students examined the polarization of photons, he introduced them to the quantum concepts of superposition, states and probability.

Matsler, a clear-eyed veteran with infectious enthusiasm, is the science teacher everyone wishes they had in high school. Throughout the morning she bounced between classrooms, cheering her pupils through lessons in physics, cryptography and coding.

Students on computers used the modeling software Glowscript to code a physics simulation, where two balls, one constant and one accelerating, traveled through space. Although both were released at the same time, the accelerating ball traveled farther and faster.

Are we having fun, yall? she said.

Among students and teachers, the enthusiasm was palpable. Many instructors had traveled from across Texas and the southern United States to attend Matslers workshops. Jacqueline Edwards, a science teacher at McAdory High School in McCalla, Alabama, said studying quantum concepts reminded her that she and her colleagues are lifelong learners.

We are all learning about the process of trial and error, she said. Thats the essence of scientific inquiry. We dont fail, we just try again.

Cori Davis, a biomedical science teacher in Martin High Schools STEM academy, discovered how to incorporate quantum information into her forensics curriculum.

Quantum principles have broad applications, Davis said. In our unit on forensic science, I can apply these lessons to how we understand projectile motion when examining bullet wounds and blood splatter.

Matsler argues that small modifications to lesson plans in math, chemistry, technology and other science and engineering courses enable teachers to easily integrate quantum theory into their syllabi.

Make no mistake, she said, quantum principles arent only important for physics teachers.

Most K-12 educators are not prepared to teach QIS because they didnt study advanced physics in college, Matsler said. These workshops democratize quantum principles, making them accessible to teachers of a variety of science, technology, mathematics and engineering courses.

The rest is here:

Quantum trailblazer - News Center - The University of Texas at Arlington - uta.edu

Physics Ph.D. student wins Best Speaker Award at international conference in Spain – Ohio University

Physics doctoral student Eva Yazmin Santiago Santos received a prestigious Best Speaker Award at a large international conference in Spain for her talk describing hot-electron generation of nanoparticles.

"I had presented a poster and given a virtual talk at other international conferences before. However, this was my first in-person oral presentation at an international conference. This was also my first invited talk, so it made it even more special," Santiago Santos said.

More than 600 physicists attended META 2022, the 12th International Conference on Metamaterials, Photonic Crystals and Plasmonics held July 19 - 22 in Torremolinos, Spain. META is the worlds leading conference on nanophotonics and metamaterials, reporting on various current hot topics such as metasurfaces and metadevices, topological effects in photonics, two-dimensional quantum materials, light-matter interaction, plasmonic nanodevices, heat engineering, and quantum-information systems.

"The highlight of the conference was meeting people that work in a similar field as ours in different parts of the world," Santiago Santos said. "In particular, I really enjoyed interacting with some of the people we have collaborated with in previous projects but had never met in person before."

Her faculty mentor is Alexander Govorov, Distinguished Professor of Physics & Astronomy in the College of Arts and Sciences. The additional colleagues she's collaborating with on her work include Lucas V. Besteiro from the Universidade de Vigo in Spain, Xiang-Tian Kong from Nankai University in China, Miguel A. Correa-Duarte from the Universidade de Vigo in Spain, and Prof. Zhiming Wang from the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.

Santiago Santos'sresearch is in computational physics of nanostructures for optical, energy, and sensor applications, and the title of her talk was "Generation of hot electrons in plasmonic nanoparticles with complex shapes."

"The generation of hot electrons in plasmonic nanoparticles is an intrinsic response to light, which strongly depends on the nanoparticle shape, material, and excitation wavelength," she said. "In this study, we present a formalism that describes the hot-electron generation for gold nanospheres, nanorods and nanostars. Among them, the nanostars are the most efficient, with an internal energy efficiency of approximately 25 percent, owing to multiple factors, including the presence of hot spots," Santiago Santos said.

Read more:

Physics Ph.D. student wins Best Speaker Award at international conference in Spain - Ohio University

Schrdinger Believed That There Was Only One Mind in the Universe – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Consciousness researcher Robert Prentner and cognitive psychologist will tell a prestigious music and philosophy festival in London next month that great physicist Donald Hoffman, quantum physicist Erwin Schrdinger (18871961) believed that The total number of minds in the universe is one. That is, a universal Mind accounts for everything.

In a world where many scientists strive mightily to explain how the human mind can arise from non-living matter, Prentner and Hoffman will tell the HowtheLightGetsIn festival in London (September 1718, 2022) that the author of the famous Cat paradox was hardly a materialist:

In 1925, just a few months before Schrdinger discovered the most basic equation of quantum mechanics, he wrote down the first sketches of the ideas that he would later develop more thoroughly in Mind and Matter. Already then, his thoughts on technical matters were inspired by what he took to be greater metaphysical (religious) questions. Early on, Schrdinger expressed the conviction that metaphysics does not come after physics, but inevitably precedes it. Metaphysics is not a deductive affair but a speculative one.

Inspired by Indian philosophy, Schrdinger had a mind-first, not matter-first, view of the universe. But he was a non-materialist of a rather special kind. He believed that there is only one mind in the universe; our individual minds are like the scattered light from prisms:

A metaphor that Schrdinger liked to invoke to illustrate this idea is the one of a crystal that creates a multitude of colors (individual selves) by refracting light (standing for the cosmic self that is equal to the essence of the universe). We are all but aspects of one single mind that forms the essence of reality. He also referred to this as the doctrine of identity. Accordingly, a non-dual form of consciousness, which must not be conflated with any of its single aspects, grounds the refutation of the (merely apparent) distinction into separate selves that inhabit a single world.

But in Mind and Matter (1958), Schrdinger, we are told, took this view one step further:

Schrdinger drew remarkable consequences from this. For example, he believed that any man is the same as any other man that lived before him. In his early essay Seek for the Road, he writes about looking into the mountains before him. Thousands of years ago, other men similarly enjoyed this view. But why should one assume that oneself is distinct from these previous men? Is there any scientific fact that could distinguish your experience from another mans? What makes you you and not someone else? Similarly as John Wheeler once assumed that there is really only one electron in the universe, Schrdinger assumed that there really is only one mind. Schrdinger thought this is supported by the empirical fact that consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world.

Most non-materialists will wish they had gotten off two stops ago. We started with Mind first, which when accounting for why there is something rather than nothing has been considered a reasonable assumption throughout history across the world (except among materialists). But the assumption that no finite mind could experience or act independently of the Mind behind the universe is a limitation on the power of that Mind. Why so?

Its not logically clear and logic is our only available instrument here why the original Mind could not grant to dogs, chimpanzees, and humans the power to apprehend and act as minds in their own right in their natural spheres not simply as seamless extensions of the universal Mind.

With humans, the underlying assumptions of Schrdingers view are especially problematic. Humans address issues of good and evil. If Schrdinger is right, for example, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Comrade Josef Stalin are really only one mind because each experienced only his own consciousness. But wait. As a coherent human being, each could only have experienced his own consciousness and not the other mans.

However, that doesnt mean that they were mere prisms displaying different parts of the spectrum of broken light. The prism analogy fails to take into account that humans can act for good or ill. Alternatively, it is saying that good and evil, as we perceive them, are merely different colors in a spectrum. As noted earlier, many of us should have got off two stops ago

In any event, Schrdingers views are certain to be an interesting discussion at HowLightGetsIn.

Schrdinger was hardly the only modern physicist or mathematician to dissent from materialism. Mathematician Kurt Gdel (19061978), to take one example, destroyed a popular form of atheism (logical positivism) via his Incompleteness Theorems.

The two thinkers held very different views, of course. But both saw the fatal limitations of materialism (naturalism) and they addressed these limitations quite differently. In an age when Stephen Hawkings disdain for philosophy is taken to be representative of great scientists, its a good thing if festivals like HowLightGetsIn offer a broader perspective and corrective.

You may also wish to read: Why panpsychism is starting to push out naturalism. A key goal of naturalism/materialism has been to explain human consciousness away as nothing but a pack of neurons. That cant work. Panpsychism is not a form of dualism. But, by including consciousness especially human consciousness as a bedrock fact of nature, it avoids naturalisms dead end.

Original post:

Schrdinger Believed That There Was Only One Mind in the Universe - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Quantum mechanics – Wikipedia

Branch of physics describing nature on an atomic scale

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]:1.1 It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3]

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization), objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave-particle duality), and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Quantum mechanics arose gradually from theories to explain observations which could not be reconciled with classical physics, such as Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem, and the correspondence between energy and frequency in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which explained the photoelectric effect. These early attempts to understand microscopic phenomena, now known as the "old quantum theory", led to the full development of quantum mechanics in the mid-1920s by Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrdinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and others. The modern theory is formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms. In one of them, a mathematical entity called the wave function provides information, in the form of probability amplitudes, about what measurements of a particle's energy, momentum, and other physical properties may yield.

Quantum mechanics allows the calculation of properties and behaviour of physical systems. It is typically applied to microscopic systems: molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles. It has been demonstrated to hold for complex molecules with thousands of atoms,[4] but its application to human beings raises philosophical problems, such as Wigner's friend, and its application to the universe as a whole remains speculative.[5] Predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to an extremely high degree of accuracy.[note 1]

A fundamental feature of the theory is that it usually cannot predict with certainty what will happen, but only give probabilities. Mathematically, a probability is found by taking the square of the absolute value of a complex number, known as a probability amplitude. This is known as the Born rule, named after physicist Max Born. For example, a quantum particle like an electron can be described by a wave function, which associates to each point in space a probability amplitude. Applying the Born rule to these amplitudes gives a probability density function for the position that the electron will be found to have when an experiment is performed to measure it. This is the best the theory can do; it cannot say for certain where the electron will be found. The Schrdinger equation relates the collection of probability amplitudes that pertain to one moment of time to the collection of probability amplitudes that pertain to another.

One consequence of the mathematical rules of quantum mechanics is a tradeoff in predictability between different measurable quantities. The most famous form of this uncertainty principle says that no matter how a quantum particle is prepared or how carefully experiments upon it are arranged, it is impossible to have a precise prediction for a measurement of its position and also at the same time for a measurement of its momentum.

Another consequence of the mathematical rules of quantum mechanics is the phenomenon of quantum interference, which is often illustrated with the double-slit experiment. In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[6]:102111[2]:1.11.8 The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles.[6] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles rather than waves; the interference pattern appears via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).[6]:109[7][8] However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit.[2] This behavior is known as wave-particle duality.

Another counter-intuitive phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics is quantum tunnelling: a particle that goes up against a potential barrier can cross it, even if its kinetic energy is smaller than the maximum of the potential.[9] In classical mechanics this particle would be trapped. Quantum tunnelling has several important consequences, enabling radioactive decay, nuclear fusion in stars, and applications such as scanning tunnelling microscopy and the tunnel diode.[10]

When quantum systems interact, the result can be the creation of quantum entanglement: their properties become so intertwined that a description of the whole solely in terms of the individual parts is no longer possible. Erwin Schrdinger called entanglement "...the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought".[11] Quantum entanglement enables the counter-intuitive properties of quantum pseudo-telepathy, and can be a valuable resource in communication protocols, such as quantum key distribution and superdense coding.[12] Contrary to popular misconception, entanglement does not allow sending signals faster than light, as demonstrated by the no-communication theorem.[12]

Another possibility opened by entanglement is testing for "hidden variables", hypothetical properties more fundamental than the quantities addressed in quantum theory itself, knowledge of which would allow more exact predictions than quantum theory can provide. A collection of results, most significantly Bell's theorem, have demonstrated that broad classes of such hidden-variable theories are in fact incompatible with quantum physics. According to Bell's theorem, if nature actually operates in accord with any theory of local hidden variables, then the results of a Bell test will be constrained in a particular, quantifiable way. Many Bell tests have been performed, using entangled particles, and they have shown results incompatible with the constraints imposed by local hidden variables.[13][14]

It is not possible to present these concepts in more than a superficial way without introducing the actual mathematics involved; understanding quantum mechanics requires not only manipulating complex numbers, but also linear algebra, differential equations, group theory, and other more advanced subjects.[note 2] Accordingly, this article will present a mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics and survey its application to some useful and oft-studied examples.

In the mathematically rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics, the state of a quantum mechanical system is a vector {displaystyle psi } belonging to a (separable) complex Hilbert space H {displaystyle {mathcal {H}}} . This vector is postulated to be normalized under the Hilbert space inner product, that is, it obeys , = 1 {displaystyle langle psi ,psi rangle =1} , and it is well-defined up to a complex number of modulus 1 (the global phase), that is, {displaystyle psi } and e i {displaystyle e^{ialpha }psi } represent the same physical system. In other words, the possible states are points in the projective space of a Hilbert space, usually called the complex projective space. The exact nature of this Hilbert space is dependent on the system for example, for describing position and momentum the Hilbert space is the space of complex square-integrable functions L 2 ( C ) {displaystyle L^{2}(mathbb {C} )} , while the Hilbert space for the spin of a single proton is simply the space of two-dimensional complex vectors C 2 {displaystyle mathbb {C} ^{2}} with the usual inner product.

Physical quantities of interest position, momentum, energy, spin are represented by observables, which are Hermitian (more precisely, self-adjoint) linear operators acting on the Hilbert space. A quantum state can be an eigenvector of an observable, in which case it is called an eigenstate, and the associated eigenvalue corresponds to the value of the observable in that eigenstate. More generally, a quantum state will be a linear combination of the eigenstates, known as a quantum superposition. When an observable is measured, the result will be one of its eigenvalues with probability given by the Born rule: in the simplest case the eigenvalue {displaystyle lambda } is non-degenerate and the probability is given by | , | 2 {displaystyle |langle {vec {lambda }},psi rangle |^{2}} , where {displaystyle {vec {lambda }}} is its associated eigenvector. More generally, the eigenvalue is degenerate and the probability is given by , P {displaystyle langle psi ,P_{lambda }psi rangle } , where P {displaystyle P_{lambda }} is the projector onto its associated eigenspace. In the continuous case, these formulas give instead the probability density.

After the measurement, if result {displaystyle lambda } was obtained, the quantum state is postulated to collapse to {displaystyle {vec {lambda }}} , in the non-degenerate case, or to P / , P {displaystyle P_{lambda }psi /{sqrt {langle psi ,P_{lambda }psi rangle }}} , in the general case. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics thus stems from the act of measurement. This is one of the most difficult aspects of quantum systems to understand. It was the central topic in the famous BohrEinstein debates, in which the two scientists attempted to clarify these fundamental principles by way of thought experiments. In the decades after the formulation of quantum mechanics, the question of what constitutes a "measurement" has been extensively studied. Newer interpretations of quantum mechanics have been formulated that do away with the concept of "wave function collapse" (see, for example, the many-worlds interpretation). The basic idea is that when a quantum system interacts with a measuring apparatus, their respective wave functions become entangled so that the original quantum system ceases to exist as an independent entity. For details, see the article on measurement in quantum mechanics.[17]

The time evolution of a quantum state is described by the Schrdinger equation:

Here H {displaystyle H} denotes the Hamiltonian, the observable corresponding to the total energy of the system, and {displaystyle hbar } is the reduced Planck constant. The constant i {displaystyle ihbar } is introduced so that the Hamiltonian is reduced to the classical Hamiltonian in cases where the quantum system can be approximated by a classical system; the ability to make such an approximation in certain limits is called the correspondence principle.

The solution of this differential equation is given by

The operator U ( t ) = e i H t / {displaystyle U(t)=e^{-iHt/hbar }} is known as the time-evolution operator, and has the crucial property that it is unitary. This time evolution is deterministic in the sense that given an initial quantum state ( 0 ) {displaystyle psi (0)} it makes a definite prediction of what the quantum state ( t ) {displaystyle psi (t)} will be at any later time.[18]

Some wave functions produce probability distributions that are independent of time, such as eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. Many systems that are treated dynamically in classical mechanics are described by such "static" wave functions. For example, a single electron in an unexcited atom is pictured classically as a particle moving in a circular trajectory around the atomic nucleus, whereas in quantum mechanics, it is described by a static wave function surrounding the nucleus. For example, the electron wave function for an unexcited hydrogen atom is a spherically symmetric function known as an s orbital (Fig. 1).

Analytic solutions of the Schrdinger equation are known for very few relatively simple model Hamiltonians including the quantum harmonic oscillator, the particle in a box, the dihydrogen cation, and the hydrogen atom. Even the helium atom which contains just two electrons has defied all attempts at a fully analytic treatment.

However, there are techniques for finding approximate solutions. One method, called perturbation theory, uses the analytic result for a simple quantum mechanical model to create a result for a related but more complicated model by (for example) the addition of a weak potential energy. Another method is called "semi-classical equation of motion", which applies to systems for which quantum mechanics produces only small deviations from classical behavior. These deviations can then be computed based on the classical motion. This approach is particularly important in the field of quantum chaos.

One consequence of the basic quantum formalism is the uncertainty principle. In its most familiar form, this states that no preparation of a quantum particle can imply simultaneously precise predictions both for a measurement of its position and for a measurement of its momentum.[19][20] Both position and momentum are observables, meaning that they are represented by Hermitian operators. The position operator X ^ {displaystyle {hat {X}}} and momentum operator P ^ {displaystyle {hat {P}}} do not commute, but rather satisfy the canonical commutation relation:

Given a quantum state, the Born rule lets us compute expectation values for both X {displaystyle X} and P {displaystyle P} , and moreover for powers of them. Defining the uncertainty for an observable by a standard deviation, we have

and likewise for the momentum:

The uncertainty principle states that

Either standard deviation can in principle be made arbitrarily small, but not both simultaneously.[21] This inequality generalizes to arbitrary pairs of self-adjoint operators A {displaystyle A} and B {displaystyle B} . The commutator of these two operators is

and this provides the lower bound on the product of standard deviations:

Another consequence of the canonical commutation relation is that the position and momentum operators are Fourier transforms of each other, so that a description of an object according to its momentum is the Fourier transform of its description according to its position. The fact that dependence in momentum is the Fourier transform of the dependence in position means that the momentum operator is equivalent (up to an i / {displaystyle i/hbar } factor) to taking the derivative according to the position, since in Fourier analysis differentiation corresponds to multiplication in the dual space. This is why in quantum equations in position space, the momentum p i {displaystyle p_{i}} is replaced by i x {displaystyle -ihbar {frac {partial }{partial x}}} , and in particular in the non-relativistic Schrdinger equation in position space the momentum-squared term is replaced with a Laplacian times 2 {displaystyle -hbar ^{2}} .[19]

When two different quantum systems are considered together, the Hilbert space of the combined system is the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of the two components. For example, let A and B be two quantum systems, with Hilbert spaces H A {displaystyle {mathcal {H}}_{A}} and H B {displaystyle {mathcal {H}}_{B}} , respectively. The Hilbert space of the composite system is then

If the state for the first system is the vector A {displaystyle psi _{A}} and the state for the second system is B {displaystyle psi _{B}} , then the state of the composite system is

Not all states in the joint Hilbert space H A B {displaystyle {mathcal {H}}_{AB}} can be written in this form, however, because the superposition principle implies that linear combinations of these "separable" or "product states" are also valid. For example, if A {displaystyle psi _{A}} and A {displaystyle phi _{A}} are both possible states for system A {displaystyle A} , and likewise B {displaystyle psi _{B}} and B {displaystyle phi _{B}} are both possible states for system B {displaystyle B} , then

is a valid joint state that is not separable. States that are not separable are called entangled.[22][23]

If the state for a composite system is entangled, it is impossible to describe either component system A or system B by a state vector. One can instead define reduced density matrices that describe the statistics that can be obtained by making measurements on either component system alone. This necessarily causes a loss of information, though: knowing the reduced density matrices of the individual systems is not enough to reconstruct the state of the composite system.[22][23] Just as density matrices specify the state of a subsystem of a larger system, analogously, positive operator-valued measures (POVMs) describe the effect on a subsystem of a measurement performed on a larger system. POVMs are extensively used in quantum information theory.[22][24]

As described above, entanglement is a key feature of models of measurement processes in which an apparatus becomes entangled with the system being measured. Systems interacting with the environment in which they reside generally become entangled with that environment, a phenomenon known as quantum decoherence. This can explain why, in practice, quantum effects are difficult to observe in systems larger than microscopic.[25]

There are many mathematically equivalent formulations of quantum mechanics. One of the oldest and most common is the "transformation theory" proposed by Paul Dirac, which unifies and generalizes the two earliest formulations of quantum mechanics matrix mechanics (invented by Werner Heisenberg) and wave mechanics (invented by Erwin Schrdinger).[26] An alternative formulation of quantum mechanics is Feynman's path integral formulation, in which a quantum-mechanical amplitude is considered as a sum over all possible classical and non-classical paths between the initial and final states. This is the quantum-mechanical counterpart of the action principle in classical mechanics.

The Hamiltonian H {displaystyle H} is known as the generator of time evolution, since it defines a unitary time-evolution operator U ( t ) = e i H t / {displaystyle U(t)=e^{-iHt/hbar }} for each value of t {displaystyle t} . From this relation between U ( t ) {displaystyle U(t)} and H {displaystyle H} , it follows that any observable A {displaystyle A} that commutes with H {displaystyle H} will be conserved: its expectation value will not change over time. This statement generalizes, as mathematically, any Hermitian operator A {displaystyle A} can generate a family of unitary operators parameterized by a variable t {displaystyle t} . Under the evolution generated by A {displaystyle A} , any observable B {displaystyle B} that commutes with A {displaystyle A} will be conserved. Moreover, if B {displaystyle B} is conserved by evolution under A {displaystyle A} , then A {displaystyle A} is conserved under the evolution generated by B {displaystyle B} . This implies a quantum version of the result proven by Emmy Noether in classical (Lagrangian) mechanics: for every differentiable symmetry of a Hamiltonian, there exists a corresponding conservation law.

The simplest example of quantum system with a position degree of freedom is a free particle in a single spatial dimension. A free particle is one which is not subject to external influences, so that its Hamiltonian consists only of its kinetic energy:

The general solution of the Schrdinger equation is given by

which is a superposition of all possible plane waves e i ( k x k 2 2 m t ) {displaystyle e^{i(kx-{frac {hbar k^{2}}{2m}}t)}} , which are eigenstates of the momentum operator with momentum p = k {displaystyle p=hbar k} . The coefficients of the superposition are ^ ( k , 0 ) {displaystyle {hat {psi }}(k,0)} , which is the Fourier transform of the initial quantum state ( x , 0 ) {displaystyle psi (x,0)} .

It is not possible for the solution to be a single momentum eigenstate, or a single position eigenstate, as these are not normalizable quantum states.[note 3] Instead, we can consider a Gaussian wave packet:

which has Fourier transform, and therefore momentum distribution

We see that as we make a {displaystyle a} smaller the spread in position gets smaller, but the spread in momentum gets larger. Conversely, by making a {displaystyle a} larger we make the spread in momentum smaller, but the spread in position gets larger. This illustrates the uncertainty principle.

As we let the Gaussian wave packet evolve in time, we see that its center moves through space at a constant velocity (like a classical particle with no forces acting on it). However, the wave packet will also spread out as time progresses, which means that the position becomes more and more uncertain. The uncertainty in momentum, however, stays constant.[27]

The particle in a one-dimensional potential energy box is the most mathematically simple example where restraints lead to the quantization of energy levels. The box is defined as having zero potential energy everywhere inside a certain region, and therefore infinite potential energy everywhere outside that region.[19]:7778 For the one-dimensional case in the x {displaystyle x} direction, the time-independent Schrdinger equation may be written

With the differential operator defined by

the previous equation is evocative of the classic kinetic energy analogue,

with state {displaystyle psi } in this case having energy E {displaystyle E} coincident with the kinetic energy of the particle.

The general solutions of the Schrdinger equation for the particle in a box are

or, from Euler's formula,

The infinite potential walls of the box determine the values of C , D , {displaystyle C,D,} and k {displaystyle k} at x = 0 {displaystyle x=0} and x = L {displaystyle x=L} where {displaystyle psi } must be zero. Thus, at x = 0 {displaystyle x=0} ,

and D = 0 {displaystyle D=0} . At x = L {displaystyle x=L} ,

in which C {displaystyle C} cannot be zero as this would conflict with the postulate that {displaystyle psi } has norm 1. Therefore, since sin ( k L ) = 0 {displaystyle sin(kL)=0} , k L {displaystyle kL} must be an integer multiple of {displaystyle pi } ,

This constraint on k {displaystyle k} implies a constraint on the energy levels, yielding

E n = 2 2 n 2 2 m L 2 = n 2 h 2 8 m L 2 . {displaystyle E_{n}={frac {hbar ^{2}pi ^{2}n^{2}}{2mL^{2}}}={frac {n^{2}h^{2}}{8mL^{2}}}.}

A finite potential well is the generalization of the infinite potential well problem to potential wells having finite depth. The finite potential well problem is mathematically more complicated than the infinite particle-in-a-box problem as the wave function is not pinned to zero at the walls of the well. Instead, the wave function must satisfy more complicated mathematical boundary conditions as it is nonzero in regions outside the well. Another related problem is that of the rectangular potential barrier, which furnishes a model for the quantum tunneling effect that plays an important role in the performance of modern technologies such as flash memory and scanning tunneling microscopy.

As in the classical case, the potential for the quantum harmonic oscillator is given by

This problem can either be treated by directly solving the Schrdinger equation, which is not trivial, or by using the more elegant "ladder method" first proposed by Paul Dirac. The eigenstates are given by

where Hn are the Hermite polynomials

and the corresponding energy levels are

This is another example illustrating the discretization of energy for bound states.

The MachZehnder interferometer (MZI) illustrates the concepts of superposition and interference with linear algebra in dimension 2, rather than differential equations. It can be seen as a simplified version of the double-slit experiment, but it is of interest in its own right, for example in the delayed choice quantum eraser, the ElitzurVaidman bomb tester, and in studies of quantum entanglement.[28][29]

We can model a photon going through the interferometer by considering that at each point it can be in a superposition of only two paths: the "lower" path which starts from the left, goes straight through both beam splitters, and ends at the top, and the "upper" path which starts from the bottom, goes straight through both beam splitters, and ends at the right. The quantum state of the photon is therefore a vector C 2 {displaystyle psi in mathbb {C} ^{2}} that is a superposition of the "lower" path l = ( 1 0 ) {displaystyle psi _{l}={begin{pmatrix}1\0end{pmatrix}}} and the "upper" path u = ( 0 1 ) {displaystyle psi _{u}={begin{pmatrix}0\1end{pmatrix}}} , that is, = l + u {displaystyle psi =alpha psi _{l}+beta psi _{u}} for complex , {displaystyle alpha ,beta } . In order to respect the postulate that , = 1 {displaystyle langle psi ,psi rangle =1} we require that | | 2 + | | 2 = 1 {displaystyle |alpha |^{2}+|beta |^{2}=1} .

Both beam splitters are modelled as the unitary matrix B = 1 2 ( 1 i i 1 ) {displaystyle B={frac {1}{sqrt {2}}}{begin{pmatrix}1&i\i&1end{pmatrix}}} , which means that when a photon meets the beam splitter it will either stay on the same path with a probability amplitude of 1 / 2 {displaystyle 1/{sqrt {2}}} , or be reflected to the other path with a probability amplitude of i / 2 {displaystyle i/{sqrt {2}}} . The phase shifter on the upper arm is modelled as the unitary matrix P = ( 1 0 0 e i ) {displaystyle P={begin{pmatrix}1&0\0&e^{iDelta Phi }end{pmatrix}}} , which means that if the photon is on the "upper" path it will gain a relative phase of {displaystyle Delta Phi } , and it will stay unchanged if it is in the lower path.

A photon that enters the interferometer from the left will then be acted upon with a beam splitter B {displaystyle B} , a phase shifter P {displaystyle P} , and another beam splitter B {displaystyle B} , and so end up in the state

and the probabilities that it will be detected at the right or at the top are given respectively by

One can therefore use the MachZehnder interferometer to estimate the phase shift by estimating these probabilities.

It is interesting to consider what would happen if the photon were definitely in either the "lower" or "upper" paths between the beam splitters. This can be accomplished by blocking one of the paths, or equivalently by removing the first beam splitter (and feeding the photon from the left or the bottom, as desired). In both cases there will be no interference between the paths anymore, and the probabilities are given by p ( u ) = p ( l ) = 1 / 2 {displaystyle p(u)=p(l)=1/2} , independently of the phase {displaystyle Delta Phi } . From this we can conclude that the photon does not take one path or another after the first beam splitter, but rather that it is in a genuine quantum superposition of the two paths.[30]

Quantum mechanics has had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our universe, with regards to small-scale and discrete quantities and interactions which cannot be explained by classical methods.[note 4] Quantum mechanics is often the only theory that can reveal the individual behaviors of the subatomic particles that make up all forms of matter (electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and others). Solid-state physics and materials science are dependent upon quantum mechanics.[31]

In many aspects modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Important applications of quantum theory include quantum chemistry, quantum optics, quantum computing, superconducting magnets, light-emitting diodes, the optical amplifier and the laser, the transistor and semiconductors such as the microprocessor, medical and research imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and electron microscopy.[32] Explanations for many biological and physical phenomena are rooted in the nature of the chemical bond, most notably the macro-molecule DNA.

The rules of quantum mechanics assert that the state space of a system is a Hilbert space and that observables of the system are Hermitian operators acting on vectors in that space although they do not tell us which Hilbert space or which operators. These can be chosen appropriately in order to obtain a quantitative description of a quantum system, a necessary step in making physical predictions. An important guide for making these choices is the correspondence principle, a heuristic which states that the predictions of quantum mechanics reduce to those of classical mechanics in the regime of large quantum numbers.[33] One can also start from an established classical model of a particular system, and then try to guess the underlying quantum model that would give rise to the classical model in the correspondence limit. This approach is known as quantization.

When quantum mechanics was originally formulated, it was applied to models whose correspondence limit was non-relativistic classical mechanics. For instance, the well-known model of the quantum harmonic oscillator uses an explicitly non-relativistic expression for the kinetic energy of the oscillator, and is thus a quantum version of the classical harmonic oscillator.

Complications arise with chaotic systems, which do not have good quantum numbers, and quantum chaos studies the relationship between classical and quantum descriptions in these systems.

Quantum decoherence is a mechanism through which quantum systems lose coherence, and thus become incapable of displaying many typically quantum effects: quantum superpositions become simply probabilistic mixtures, and quantum entanglement becomes simply classical correlations. Quantum coherence is not typically evident at macroscopic scales, except maybe at temperatures approaching absolute zero at which quantum behavior may manifest macroscopically.[note 5]

Many macroscopic properties of a classical system are a direct consequence of the quantum behavior of its parts. For example, the stability of bulk matter (consisting of atoms and molecules which would quickly collapse under electric forces alone), the rigidity of solids, and the mechanical, thermal, chemical, optical and magnetic properties of matter are all results of the interaction of electric charges under the rules of quantum mechanics.[34]

Early attempts to merge quantum mechanics with special relativity involved the replacement of the Schrdinger equation with a covariant equation such as the KleinGordon equation or the Dirac equation. While these theories were successful in explaining many experimental results, they had certain unsatisfactory qualities stemming from their neglect of the relativistic creation and annihilation of particles. A fully relativistic quantum theory required the development of quantum field theory, which applies quantization to a field (rather than a fixed set of particles). The first complete quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, provides a fully quantum description of the electromagnetic interaction. Quantum electrodynamics is, along with general relativity, one of the most accurate physical theories ever devised.[35][36]

The full apparatus of quantum field theory is often unnecessary for describing electrodynamic systems. A simpler approach, one that has been used since the inception of quantum mechanics, is to treat charged particles as quantum mechanical objects being acted on by a classical electromagnetic field. For example, the elementary quantum model of the hydrogen atom describes the electric field of the hydrogen atom using a classical e 2 / ( 4 0 r ) {displaystyle textstyle -e^{2}/(4pi epsilon _{_{0}}r)} Coulomb potential. This "semi-classical" approach fails if quantum fluctuations in the electromagnetic field play an important role, such as in the emission of photons by charged particles.

Quantum field theories for the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force have also been developed. The quantum field theory of the strong nuclear force is called quantum chromodynamics, and describes the interactions of subnuclear particles such as quarks and gluons. The weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force were unified, in their quantized forms, into a single quantum field theory (known as electroweak theory), by the physicists Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg.[37]

Even though the predictions of both quantum theory and general relativity have been supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidence, their abstract formalisms contradict each other and they have proven extremely difficult to incorporate into one consistent, cohesive model. Gravity is negligible in many areas of particle physics, so that unification between general relativity and quantum mechanics is not an urgent issue in those particular applications. However, the lack of a correct theory of quantum gravity is an important issue in physical cosmology and the search by physicists for an elegant "Theory of Everything" (TOE). Consequently, resolving the inconsistencies between both theories has been a major goal of 20th- and 21st-century physics. This TOE would combine not only the models of subatomic physics but also derive the four fundamental forces of nature from a single force or phenomenon.

One proposal for doing so is string theory, which posits that the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string. In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force.[38][39]

Another popular theory is loop quantum gravity (LQG), which describes quantum properties of gravity and is thus a theory of quantum spacetime. LQG is an attempt to merge and adapt standard quantum mechanics and standard general relativity. This theory describes space as an extremely fine fabric "woven" of finite loops called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network over time is called a spin foam. The characteristic length scale of a spin foam is the Planck length, approximately 1.6161035 m, and so lengths shorter than the Planck length are not physically meaningful in LQG.[40]

Unsolved problem in physics:

Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the "superposition of states" and "wave function collapse", give rise to the reality we perceive?

Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. The arguments centre on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the difficulties with wavefunction collapse and the related measurement problem, and quantum nonlocality. Perhaps the only consensus that exists about these issues is that there is no consensus. Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."[41] According to Steven Weinberg, "There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics."[42]

The views of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and other physicists are often grouped together as the "Copenhagen interpretation".[43][44] According to these views, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but is instead a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality". Bohr in particular emphasized that any well-defined application of the quantum mechanical formalism must always make reference to the experimental arrangement, due to the complementary nature of evidence obtained under different experimental situations. Copenhagen-type interpretations remain popular in the 21st century.[45]

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, was troubled by its apparent failure to respect some cherished metaphysical principles, such as determinism and locality. Einstein's long-running exchanges with Bohr about the meaning and status of quantum mechanics are now known as the BohrEinstein debates. Einstein believed that underlying quantum mechanics must be a theory that explicitly forbids action at a distance. He argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete, a theory that was valid but not fundamental, analogous to how thermodynamics is valid, but the fundamental theory behind it is statistical mechanics. In 1935, Einstein and his collaborators Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published an argument that the principle of locality implies the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, a thought experiment later termed the EinsteinPodolskyRosen paradox.[note 6] In 1964, John Bell showed that EPR's principle of locality, together with determinism, was actually incompatible with quantum mechanics: they implied constraints on the correlations produced by distance systems, now known as Bell inequalities, that can be violated by entangled particles.[50] Since then several experiments have been performed to obtain these correlations, with the result that they do in fact violate Bell inequalities, and thus falsify the conjunction of locality with determinism.[13][14]

Bohmian mechanics shows that it is possible to reformulate quantum mechanics to make it deterministic, at the price of making it explicitly nonlocal. It attributes not only a wave function to a physical system, but in addition a real position, that evolves deterministically under a nonlocal guiding equation. The evolution of a physical system is given at all times by the Schrdinger equation together with the guiding equation; there is never a collapse of the wave function. This solves the measurement problem.[51]

Everett's many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[52] This is a consequence of removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet. All possible states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus, together with the observer, are present in a real physical quantum superposition. While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we don't observe the multiverse as a whole, but only one parallel universe at a time. Exactly how this is supposed to work has been the subject of much debate. Several attempts have been made to make sense of this and derive the Born rule,[53][54] with no consensus on whether they have been successful.[55][56][57]

Relational quantum mechanics appeared in the late 1990s as a modern derivative of Copenhagen-type ideas,[58] and QBism was developed some years later.[59]

Quantum mechanics was developed in the early decades of the 20th century, driven by the need to explain phenomena that, in some cases, had been observed in earlier times. Scientific inquiry into the wave nature of light began in the 17th and 18th centuries, when scientists such as Robert Hooke, Christiaan Huygens and Leonhard Euler proposed a wave theory of light based on experimental observations.[60] In 1803 English polymath Thomas Young described the famous double-slit experiment.[61] This experiment played a major role in the general acceptance of the wave theory of light.

During the early 19th century, chemical research by John Dalton and Amedeo Avogadro lent weight to the atomic theory of matter, an idea that James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann and others built upon to establish the kinetic theory of gases. The successes of kinetic theory gave further credence to the idea that matter is composed of atoms, yet the theory also had shortcomings that would only be resolved by the development of quantum mechanics.[62] While the early conception of atoms from Greek philosophy had been that they were indivisible units the word "atom" deriving from the Greek for "uncuttable" the 19th century saw the formulation of hypotheses about subatomic structure. One important discovery in that regard was Michael Faraday's 1838 observation of a glow caused by an electrical discharge inside a glass tube containing gas at low pressure. Julius Plcker, Johann Wilhelm Hittorf and Eugen Goldstein carried on and improved upon Faraday's work, leading to the identification of cathode rays, which J. J. Thomson found to consist of subatomic particles that would be called electrons.[63][64]

The black-body radiation problem was discovered by Gustav Kirchhoff in 1859. In 1900, Max Planck proposed the hypothesis that energy is radiated and absorbed in discrete "quanta" (or energy packets), yielding a calculation that precisely matched the observed patterns of black-body radiation.[65] The word quantum derives from the Latin, meaning "how great" or "how much".[66] According to Planck, quantities of energy could be thought of as divided into "elements" whose size (E) would be proportional to their frequency ():

where h is Planck's constant. Planck cautiously insisted that this was only an aspect of the processes of absorption and emission of radiation and was not the physical reality of the radiation.[67] In fact, he considered his quantum hypothesis a mathematical trick to get the right answer rather than a sizable discovery.[68] However, in 1905 Albert Einstein interpreted Planck's quantum hypothesis realistically and used it to explain the photoelectric effect, in which shining light on certain materials can eject electrons from the material. Niels Bohr then developed Planck's ideas about radiation into a model of the hydrogen atom that successfully predicted the spectral lines of hydrogen.[69] Einstein further developed this idea to show that an electromagnetic wave such as light could also be described as a particle (later called the photon), with a discrete amount of energy that depends on its frequency.[70] In his paper "On the Quantum Theory of Radiation," Einstein expanded on the interaction between energy and matter to explain the absorption and emission of energy by atoms. Although overshadowed at the time by his general theory of relativity, this paper articulated the mechanism underlying the stimulated emission of radiation,[71] which became the basis of the laser.

This phase is known as the old quantum theory. Never complete or self-consistent, the old quantum theory was rather a set of heuristic corrections to classical mechanics.[72] The theory is now understood as a semi-classical approximation[73] to modern quantum mechanics.[74] Notable results from this period include, in addition to the work of Planck, Einstein and Bohr mentioned above, Einstein and Peter Debye's work on the specific heat of solids, Bohr and Hendrika Johanna van Leeuwen's proof that classical physics cannot account for diamagnetism, and Arnold Sommerfeld's extension of the Bohr model to include special-relativistic effects.

In the mid-1920s quantum mechanics was developed to become the standard formulation for atomic physics. In 1923, the French physicist Louis de Broglie put forward his theory of matter waves by stating that particles can exhibit wave characteristics and vice versa. Building on de Broglie's approach, modern quantum mechanics was born in 1925, when the German physicists Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan[75][76] developed matrix mechanics and the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrdinger invented wave mechanics. Born introduced the probabilistic interpretation of Schrdinger's wave function in July 1926.[77] Thus, the entire field of quantum physics emerged, leading to its wider acceptance at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927.[78]

By 1930 quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by David Hilbert, Paul Dirac and John von Neumann[79] with greater emphasis on measurement, the statistical nature of our knowledge of reality, and philosophical speculation about the 'observer'. It has since permeated many disciplines, including quantum chemistry, quantum electronics, quantum optics, and quantum information science. It also provides a useful framework for many features of the modern periodic table of elements, and describes the behaviors of atoms during chemical bonding and the flow of electrons in computer semiconductors, and therefore plays a crucial role in many modern technologies. While quantum mechanics was constructed to describe the world of the very small, it is also needed to explain some macroscopic phenomena such as superconductors[80] and superfluids.[81]

The following titles, all by working physicists, attempt to communicate quantum theory to lay people, using a minimum of technical apparatus.

More technical:

On Wikibooks

Read more:

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Einsteins notes on theory of relativity fetch record 11.6m at auction – The Guardian

Albert Einsteins handwritten notes on the theory of relativity fetched a record 11.6m (9.7m) at an auction in Paris on Tuesday.

The manuscript had been valued at about a quarter of the final sum, which is by far the highest ever paid for anything written by the genius scientist.

It contains preparatory work for the physicists signature achievement, the theory of general relativity, which he published in 1915.

Calling the notes without a doubt the most valuable Einstein manuscript ever to come to auction, Christies which handled the sale on behalf of the Aguttes auction house had estimated prior to the auction that it would fetch between 2m and 3m.

Previous records for Einsteins works were $2.8m for the so-called God letter in 2018, and $1.56m in 2017 for a letter about the secret to happiness.

The 54-page document was handwritten in 1913 and 1914 in Zurich, Switzerland, by Einstein and his colleague and confidant Michele Besso, a Swiss engineer.

Christies said it was thanks to Besso that the manuscript was preserved for posterity. This was almost like a miracle, it said, since Einstein would have been unlikely to hold on to what he considered to be a simple working document.

Today the paper offered a fascinating plunge into the mind of the 20th centurys greatest scientist, Christies said. It discusses his theory of general relativity, building on his theory of special relativity from 1905 that was encapsulated in the equation E=mc2.

Einstein died in 1955 aged 76, lauded as one of the greatest theoretical physicists of all time. His theories of relativity revolutionised his field by introducing new ways of looking at the movement of objects in space and time.

In 1913 Besso and Einstein attacked one of the problems that had been troubling the scientific community for decades: the anomaly of the planet Mercurys orbit, Christies said.

This initial manuscript contains a certain number of unnoticed errors, it added. Once Einstein spotted them, he let the paper drop, and it was taken away by Besso.

Scientific documents by Einstein in this period, and before 1919 generally, are extremely rare, Christies said. Being one of only two working manuscripts documenting the genesis of the theory of general relativity that we know about, it is an extraordinary witness to Einsteins work.

Einstein also made major contributions to quantum mechanics theory and won the Nobel physics prize in 1921. He became a pop culture icon thanks to his dry witticisms and trademark unruly hair, moustache and bushy eyebrows.

Original post:

Einsteins notes on theory of relativity fetch record 11.6m at auction - The Guardian

What We Will Never Know – Gizmodo

There is a realm the laws of physics forbid us from accessing, below the resolving power of our most powerful microscopes and beyond the reach of our most sensitive telescopes. Theres no telling what might exist thereperhaps entire universes.

Since the beginning of human inquiry, there have been limits to our observing abilities. Worldviews were restricted by the availability of tools and our own creativity. Over time, the size of our observable universe grew as our knowledge grewwe saw planets beyond Earth, stars beyond the Sun, and galaxies beyond our own, while we peered deeper into cells and atoms. And then, during the 20th century, mathematics emerged that can explain, shockingly welland, to a point, predictthe world we live in. The theories of special and general relativity describe exactly the motion of the planets, stars, and galaxies. Quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of Particle Physics have worked wonders at clarifying what goes on inside of atoms.

However, with each of these successful theories comes hard-and-fast limits to our observing abilities. Today, these limits seem to define true boundaries to our knowledge.

On the large end, there is a speed limit that caps what we can see. It hampers any hope for us to observe most of our universe first-hand.

The speed of light is approximately 300,000,000 meters per second (or 671,000,000 miles per hour, if thats how your brain works). The theory of special relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905, forbids anything from traveling faster than that. Massless things always travel this speed in a vacuum. Accelerating massive objects to this speed essentially introduces a divide-by-zero in one of special relativitys equations; it would take infinite energy to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light.

If, as a child, you hopped on a spaceship traveling out of the solar system at 99% the speed of light, you might be able to explore other parts of the galaxy before succumbing to age, but because time is relative, your friends and family would likely be long gone before you could report your observations back to Earth. But youd still have your limitsthe Milky Way galaxy is 105,700 light-years across, our neighboring galaxy Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years away, and the observable universe is around 93 billion light-years across. Any hope of exploring farther distances would require multigenerational missions or, if using a remote probe, accepting that youll be dead and humanity may be very different by the time the probes data returns to Earth.

The speed of light is more than just a speed limit, however. Since the light we see requires travel time to arrive at Earth, then we must contend with several horizons beyond which we cant interact, which exist due to Einsteins theory of general relativity. There is an event horizon, a moving boundary in space and time beyond which light and particles emitted now will never reach Earth, no matter how much time passesthose events we will never see. There is also the particle horizon, or a boundary beyond which we cannot observe light arriving from the pastthis defines the observable universe.

Theres a second kind of event horizon, one surrounding a black hole. Gravity is an effect caused by the presence of massive objects warping the shape of space, like a bowling ball on a trampoline. A massive-enough object might warp space such that no information can exit beyond a certain boundary.

These limits arent static. We will see further and further as time goes on, because the distance light travels outward gets bigger and bigger, said Tamara Davis, astrophysics professor who studies cosmology at the University of Queensland. But this expanding perspective wont be permanentsince our universe is also expanding (and that expansion is accelerating). If you fast-forward 100 billion years into the future, all of the galaxies that we can currently see will be so far, and accelerating so quickly away from us, that the light they emitted in the past will have faded from view. At that point, our observable universe would be just those nearby galaxies gravitationally bound to our own.

Another boundary lives on the other end of the scale. Zoom in between molecules, into the center of atoms, deep into their nuclei and into the quarks that make up their protons and neutrons. Here, another set of rules, mostly devised in the 20th century, governs how things work. In the rules of quantum mechanics, everything is quantized, meaning particles properties (their energy or their location around an atomic nucleus, for example) can only take on distinct values, like steps on a ladder, rather than a continuum, like places on a slide. However, quantum mechanics also demonstrates that particles arent just dots; they simultaneously act like waves, meaning that they can take on multiple values at the same time and experience a host of other wave-like effects, such as interference. Essentially, the quantum world is a noisy place, and our understanding of it is innately tied to probability and uncertainty.

This quantum-ness means that if you try to peer too closely, youll run into the observer effect: Attempting to see things this small requires bouncing light off of them, and the energy from this interaction can fundamentally change that which youre attempting to observe.

But theres an even more fundamental limit to what we can see. Werner Heisenberg discovered that the wonkiness of quantum mechanics introduces minimum accuracy with which you can measure certain pairs of mathematically related properties, such as a particles position and momentum. The more accurately you can measure one, the less accurately you can measure the other. And finally, even attempting to measure just one of those properties becomes impossible at a small enough scale, called the Planck scale, which comes with a shortest length, 10^-35 meters, and a shortest time interval, around 5 x 10^-44 seconds.

You take the constant numbers that describe naturea gravitational constant, the speed of light, and Plancks constant, and if I put these constants together, I get the Planck length, said James Beacham, physicist at the ATLAS experiment of the Large Hadron Collider. Mathematically, its nothing specialI can write down a smaller number like 10^-36 meters But quantum mechanics says that if I have a prediction to my theory that says structure exists at a smaller scale, then quantum has built-in uncertainty for it. Its a built-in limit to our understanding of the universethese are the smallest meaningful numbers that quantum mechanics allows us to define.

This is assuming that quantum mechanics is the correct way to think about the universe, of course. But time and time again, experiments have demonstrated theres no reason to think otherwise.

These fundamental limits, large and small, present clear barriers to our knowledge. Our theories tell us that we will never directly observe what lies beyond these cosmic horizons or what structures exist smaller than the Planck scale. However, the answers to some of the grandest questions we ask ourselves might exist beyond those very walls. Why and how did the universe begin? What lies beyond our universe? Why do things look and act the way that they do? Why do things exist?

The unobservable and untestable exist beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Alls well and good to write down the math and say you can explain the universe, but if you have no way of testing the hypothesis, then thats getting outside the realm of what we consider science, said Nathan Musoke, a computational cosmologist at the University of New Hampshire. Exploring the unanswerable belongs to philosophy or religion. Its possible, however, that science-derived answers to these questions exist as visible imprints on these horizons that the scientific method can uncover.

That imprinting is literal. Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman first predicted in 1948 that some light left over from an early epoch in the universes history might still be observable here on Earth. Then, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were working as radio astronomers at Bell Labs in New Jersey, when they noticed a strange signal in their radio telescope. They went through every idea to figure out the source of the noiseperhaps it was background radiation from New York City, or even poop from pigeons nesting in the experiment? But they soon realized that the data matched Alpher and Hermans prediction.

Penzias and Wilson hadspotted the microwave radiation from just 400,000 years after the Big Bang called the cosmic microwave background, the oldest and most distant radiation observable to todays telescopes. During this era in the universes history, chemical reactions caused the previously opaque universe to allow light to travel through uninhibited. This light, stretched out by the expanding universe, now appears as faint microwave radiation coming from all directions in the sky.

Astronomers experiments since then, such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and the Planck space observatory have attempted to map this cosmic microwave background, revealing several key takeaways. First, the temperature of these microwaves is eerily uniform across the skyaround 2.725 degrees above absolute zero, the universes minimum temperature. Second, despite its uniformity, there are small, direction-dependent temperature fluctuations; patches where the radiation is slightly warmer and patches where its slightly cooler. These fluctuations are a remnant of the structure of the early universe before it became transparent, produced by sound waves pulsing through it and gravitational wells, revealing how the earliest structures may have formed.

At least one theory has allowed for a scientific approach to probing this structure, with hypotheses that have been tested and supported by further observations of these fluctuations. This theory is called inflation. Inflation posits that the observable universe as we see it today would have once been contained in a space smaller than any known particle. Then, it underwent a burst of unthinkable expansion lasting just a small fraction of a second, governed by a field with dynamics determined by quantum mechanics. This era magnified tiny quantum-scale fluctuations into wells of gravity that eventually governed the large-scale structure of the observable universe, with those wells written into the cosmic microwave background data. You can think of inflation as part of the bang in the Big Bang theory.

Its a nice thought, that we can pull knowledge from beyond the cosmic microwave background. But this knowledge leads to more questions. I think theres a pretty broad consensus that inflation probably occurred, said Katie Mack, theoretical astrophysicist at North Carolina State University. Theres very little consensus as to how or why it occurred, what caused it, or what physics it obeyed when it happened.

Some of these new questions may be unanswerable. What happens at the very beginning, that information is obscured from us, said Mack. I find it frustrating that were always going to be lacking information. We can come up with models that explain what we see, and models that do better than others, but in terms of validating them, at some point were going to have to just accept that theres some unknowability.

At the cosmic microwave background and beyond, the large and the small intersect; the early universe seems to reflect quantum behaviors. Similar conversations are happening on the other end of the size spectrum, as physicists attempt to reconcile the behavior of the universe on the largest scale with the rules of quantum mechanics. Black holes exist in this scientific space, where gravity and quantum physics must play together, and where physical descriptions of whats going on sit below the Planck scale.

Here, physicists are also working to devise a mathematical theory that, while too small to observe directly, produces observable effects. Perhaps most famous among these ideas is string theory, which isnt really a theory but a mathematical framework based on the idea that fundamental particles like quarks and electrons arent just specks but one-dimensional strings whose behavior governs those particles properties. This theory attempts to explain the various forces of nature that particles experience, while gravity seems to be a natural result of thinking about the problem in this way. Like those studying any theory, string theorists hope that their framework will put forth testable predictions.

Finding ways to test these theories is a work in progress. Theres faith that one way or another we should be able to test these ideas, said David Gross, professor at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics and winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics. It might be very indirectbut thats not something thats a pressing issue.

Searching for indirect ways to test string theory (and other theories of quantum gravity) is part of the search for the theory itself. Perhaps experiments producing small black holes could provide a laboratory to explore this domain, or perhaps string theory calculations will require particles that a particle accelerator could locate.

At these small timescales, our notion of what space and time really is might break down in profound ways, said Gross. The way physicists formulate questions in general often assumes various givens, like spacetime exists as a smooth, continuous manifold, he said. Those questions might be ill formulated. Often, very difficult problems in physics require profound jumps, revolutions, or different ways of thinking, and its only afterward when we realize that we were asking the question in the wrong way.

For example, some hope to know what happened at the beginning of the universeand what happened before time began. That, I believe, isnt the right way to ask the question, said Gross, as asking such a question might mean relying on an incorrect understanding of the nature of space and time. Not that we know the correct way, yet.

Walls that stop us from easily answering our deepest questions about the universe well, they dont feel very nice to think about. But offering some comfort is the fact that 93 billion light-years is very big, and 10^-35 meters is very small. Between the largest and the smallest is a staggering space full of things we dont but theoretically can know.

Todays best telescopes can look far into the distance (and remember, looking into the distance also means looking back in time). Hubble can see objects as they were just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, and its successor, the Webb Space Telescope, will look farther still, perhaps 150 million years after the Big Bang. Existing galactic surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Dark Energy Survey have collected data on millions of galaxies, the latter having recently released a 3D map of the universe with 300 million galaxies. The upcoming Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile will survey up to 10 billion galaxies across the sky.

From an astronomy point of view, we have so much data that we dont have enough people to analyze it, said Mikhail Ivanov, NASA Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. There are so many things we dont understand in astrophysicsand were overwhelmed with data. To question whether were hitting a limit is like trolling. Even then, these mind-boggling surveys represent only a small fraction of the universes estimated 200 billion galaxies that future telescopes might be able to map.

But as scientists attempt to play in these theoretically accessible spaces, some wonder whether the true limit is us.

Today, particle physics seems to be up against an issue of its own: Despite plenty of outstanding mysteries in need of answers, the physicists at the Large Hadron Collider have found no new fundamental particles since the Higgs Boson in 2012. This lack of discovery has physicists scratching their heads; its ruled out the simplest versions of some theories that had been guiding particle physicists previously, with few obvious signposts about where to look next (though there are some!).

Beacham thinks that these problems could be solved by searching for phenomena all the way down to the Planck scale. A vast, unknown chasm exists between the scale of todays particle physics experiments and the Planck scale, and theres no guarantee of anything new to discover in that space. Exploring the entirety of that chasm would take an immense amount of energy and increasingly powerful colliders. Quantum mechanics says that higher-momentum particles have smaller wavelengths, and thus are needed to probe smaller length scales. However, actually exploring the Planck scale may require a particle accelerator big enough to circle the Sunmaybe even one the size of the solar system.

Maybe its daunting to think of such a collider, but its inspiration for a way to get to the scaleand inspiration to figure out how to get there with a smaller device, he said. Beacham views it as particle physicists duty to explore whether any new physical phenomena might exist all the way down to the Planck scale, even if there currently isnt evidence theres anything to find. We need to think about going as high in energy as we can, building larger and larger colliders until we hit the limit. We dont get to choose what the discoveries are, he said.

Or, perhaps we can use artificial intelligence to create models that perfectly explain the behavior of our universe. Zooming back out, Fermilab and University of Chicago scientist Brian Nord has dreamed up a system that could model the universe with the help of artificial intelligence, constantly and automatically updating its mathematical model with new observations. Such a model could grow arbitrarily close to the model that actually describes our universeit could generate a theory of everything. But, as with other AI algorithms, it would be a black box to humans.

Such issues are already cropping up in fields where we use software-based tools to make accurate models, explained Taner Edis, physicist at Truman State University. Some software toolsmachine learning models, for examplemay accurately describe the world we live in but are too complex for any individual to completely understand. In other words, we know that these tools work, but not necessarily how. Maybe AI will take us farther down this path, where the knowledge we create will exist spread over a civilization and its technology, owned in bits and pieces by humanity and the algorithms we create to understand the universe. Together, wed have generated a complete picture, but one inaccessible to any single person.

Finally, these sorts of models may provide supreme predictive power, but they wouldnt necessarily offer comfortable answers to questions about why things work the way they do. Perhaps this sets up a dichotomy between what scientists can domake predictions based on initial conditionsand what they hope these predictions will allow them to dolead us to a better understanding of the universe we live in.

I have a hunch that well be able to effectively achieve full knowledge of the universe, but what form will it come in? said Nord. Will we be able to fully understand that knowledge, or will it be used merely as a tool to make predictions without caring about the meaning?

Thinking realistically, todays physicists are forced to think about what society cares about most and whether our systems and funding models permit us to fully examine what we can explore, before we can begin to worry about what we cant. U.S.legislators often discuss basic science research with the language of applied science or positive outcomesthe Department of Energy funds much particle physics research. The National Science Foundations mission is To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.

Physicists hoping to receive funding must compete for resources in order to do research that promotes the missions of these organizations. While many labs, such as CERN, exist solely to fund peaceful research with no military applications, most still brag that indirectly solving bigger problems will lead to new techthe internet, or advances in data handling and AI, for example. Private funding organizations exist, but they, too, are either limited in their resources, driven by a mission, or both.

But what if answering these deep questions requires thinking that isnt driven by anything? How can scientists convince funders that we should build experiments, not with the hope of producing new technology or advancing society, but merely with the hope of answering deep questions? Echoing a sentiment expressed in an article by Vanessa A. Bee, what if our systems today (sorry, folks, Im talking about capitalism) are actually stifling innovation in favor of producing some short-term gain? What if answering these questions would require social policy and international collaboration deemed unacceptable by governments?

If this is indeed the world we live in, then the unknowable barrier is far closer than the limits of light speed and the Planck scale. It would exist because we collectivelythe governments we vote for, the institutions they funddont deem answering those questions important enough to devote resources to.

Prior to the 1500s, the universe was simply Earth; the Sun, Moon, and stars were small satellites that orbited us. By 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus proposed a heliocentric model of the universethe Sun sat at the center, and Earth orbited it. It was only in the 1920s that Edwin Hubble calculated the distance of Andromeda and proved the Milky Way wasnt the whole universe; it was just one of many, many galaxies in a larger universe. Scientists discovered most of the particles that make up todays Standard Model of particle physics in the second half of the 20th century. Sure, relativity and quantum theory seem to have established the size of the sandbox we have to play inbut precedent would suggest theres more to the sandbox, or even beyond the sandbox, that we havent considered. But then, maybe there isnt.

There are things that well never know, but thats not the right way to think about scientific discovery. We wont know unless we attempt to know, by asking questions, crafting hypotheses, and testing them with experiments. The vast unknown, both leading up to and beyond our boundaries, presents limitless opportunities to ask questions, uncover more knowledge, and even render previous limits obsolete. We cannot truly know the unknowable, then, since the unknowable is just what remains when we can no longer hypothesize and experiment. The unknowable isnt factits something we decide.

Go here to see the original:

What We Will Never Know - Gizmodo

The Future of Quantum Computing – The Business Standard

Quantum computing could be the solution to the challenges that are faced by quantum physicists. It has the power to change our fundamental understanding of reality, and it could soon become a reality.

Quantum computing is an area of research in which engineers, scientists, and technologists are trying to build a computer where information is represented at the quantum level.

Quantum computers would be able to solve problems that are not possible with classical computers or solve them much more quickly. Today's silicon-based computer chips use binary digits (bits) with values of either 0 or 1 for storing information. These bits exist in two states at any given time and can't represent both 0 and 1 simultaneously like qubits which can represent all values at once thanks to the quantum mechanics principle called superpositioning.

Classical Computers VS Quantum ComputersTo understand how quantum computing works, it's important to know the difference between the old (classical) way of computing and the new (quantum) way.

On classical computers, information is encoded into binary digits called "bits." These bits can be in one of two states: 0 or 1. A qubit also has two possible states - 0, 1, or both at once (superposition). This means that it can encode much more information than a binary digit. The physical world behaves according to quantum mechanics. So theoretically, if we want to simulate physical phenomena on a computer, we should use quantum mechanical principles as well

Now that we have made the switching and memory units of computers, known as transistors, almost as small as an atom, we need to find an entirely new way of thinking about and building computers. Quantum computers are not intended to replace classical computers, they are expected to be a different tool we will use to solve complex problems that are beyond the capabilities of a classical computer. A problem that requires more power and time than today's computers can accommodate is called an intractable problem. These are the problems that quantum computers are predicted to solve.

When you enter the world of atomic and subatomic particles, things begin to behave in unexpected ways. It's this ability that quantum computers take advantage of. By entering into this quantum area of computing where the traditional laws of physics no longer apply, we will be able to create processors that are significantly faster than the ones we use today. Sounds fantastic, but the challenge is that quantum computing is also incredibly complex.

That's precisely why the computer industry is racing to make quantum computers work on a commercial scale.

Quantum computers are different from traditional computers because they use quantum bits (qubits) instead of binary bits. One qubit can be in two states at the same time, which solves many problems that current computers don't. Moreover, quantum computing can solve highly complex problems by using "parallelism" to process many calculations at the same time. The downside to this technology is that it needs an enormous amount of energy for operations to work properly. For instance, IBM has said that qubits need about 100 milliwatts of power per operation whereas regular processors need about 10 kilowatts

The Quantum Revolution

The practical uses of quantum computers are still being researched and tested. In the future, it is possible that quantum computers will be able to solve problems that have been impossible to solve before. For example, they have the potential to be used for modelling molecules or predicting how a molecule will behave under different conditions.

We should also remember that a quantum computer is not faster than a regular computer - it's just more powerful. That means that "running" a program on a quantum computer will take just as long as on a regular computer - but with much better results because of their increased power.Quantum computers will allow for the storage and processing of data in ways that we cannot even comprehend today. They also offer more complex calculations than traditional computers and therefore can easily solve problems that would take years to solve on a traditional computer.

Some experts believe that they could be used to calculate complex formulas with no time limit, which will make them an invaluable tool in medical science, AI technologies, aeronautical engineering and so on. So far, quantum computing has been used to solve optimization problems, which are too complex for traditional computer models. It's also been used to study protein folding and drug interactions within the body.

Quantum computers are powerful computers that work on the principles of quantum mechanics. They use qubits, not bits to represent data and they can access potentially more than two values at the same time. Quantum computers will be able to break all of the encoding and encryption we have today. Quantum computing is changing the world of cybersecurity. Quantum computers are capable of running sophisticated simulations in parallel, making them much faster than classical computers. The ability to run simulations in parallel means that quantum computers can quickly find solutions to difficult problems. Quantum computers will disrupt many industries like finance, healthcare, and education.

While it's still unclear how big of an impact quantum computing will have on marketing in the future, there are already some significant uses happening now. One example is in ad targeting where companies can analyze customer behaviour with astounding precision by processing large amounts.

See more here:

The Future of Quantum Computing - The Business Standard

To find extraterrestrials, we have to think like extraterrestrials – Massive Science

Over lunch one day in 1950, the Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi posed a question that would reverberate through parts of astronomy for decades.

Where is everybody? he mused.

He and a few other physicists had been discussing technological extraterrestrials, and Fermi appeared to be making the innocuous argument that since no aliens had landed on Earth, interstellar travel must be a tall order.

Seventy years later, his question has morphed into something else a case against the very existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and an implication that astronomers are wasting their time looking the infamous Fermi Paradox. Its continued occupation of the popular consciousness tends to make the researchers doing this work salty.

There is no Fermi Paradox, says Sofia Sheikh, a postdoctoral researcher at the Berkeley SETI Research Center . You cant say something about why there isnt something there if you havent searched for it. (Others point out that the academic argument does not actually belong to Fermi, and is not a paradox.)

Despite decades of talk, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been a field of comparatively little action largely starved of federal funding due in part to Fermi Paradox-influenced thinking. SETI pioneer Frank Drake spent four months in 1960 scanning two stars for radio signals. More than a half century later, SETI researchers have made only modest progress. The privately funded Breakthrough Listen project is currently conducting one of the most exhaustive searches to date, listening to nearby stars for roughly fifteen minutes each. Preliminary results suggest that of our closest couple hundred neighbors, no star system harbors a civilization that broadcasts a powerful radio signal in our direction all the time. That leaves a couple hundred billion stars in the galaxy yet to be searched.

In 2012, Jill Tartar, a foundational SETI astronomer and inspiration for Carl Sagans novel Contact, likened the search for signals that could arrive from any direction at any time to hunting for marine creatures in a volume as vast as the Earths oceans. She estimated that SETI efforts had, collectively, sampled roughly one glass of water. An academic calculation suggested that, as of last year, SETI astronomers were up to perhaps a large hot tub of water.

To speed the cosmic trawl, researchers are increasingly leaning on a concept first articulated in of all places economics. Due to the current limits of technology, the modern SETI enterprise is mainly a search for potential civilizations that want to be found. Extraterrestrial intelligences would, by definition, be rational agents, and might intentionally beam out signals indicating their presence, shouting We are here! into the void. If so, astronomers could turn our common intelligence to their advantage, working out how to cooperate even without communicating. All they need to do is think like aliens.

This is clearly the way we should think about how to design things, says James Davenport, an astronomer at the University of Washington. Its a natural framework to think about how you might communicate with an unknown actor.

A galactic game of seek and dont hide

Stripped of its science-fiction trappings, the challenge of making contact looks like a special kind of game in economic theory: two players share one goal, but they cant communicate as they attempt to achieve it.

While such an exercise might initially seem futile, Thomas Schelling, an iconoclastic and Nobel prize winning economist who popularized the Cold War concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, realized that games where players cant communicate are still games. They may lack sure-fire paths to victory, but some strategies beat others. In Schellings 1960 book The Strategy of Conflict, he described how to identify such focal or Schelling points; focus on what you suppose your counterpart might know and what your counterpart supposes you might know.

A classic example is two strangers tasked with finding each other in Manhattan. An organized, but rather hopeless plan might be to walk the streets in a grid from Battery Park to Inwood, from the Hudson to the East River. Rather, Schelling reasoned, canny players might consider unique places and times that jump out to both parties as special, such as Grand Central Terminal at noon. Schellings theory has been born out in real demonstrations. In 2006, ABC staged just such a game, dropping off six pairs of people at random spots in the city. Within hours, the teams converged on two spots: Time Square and the observation deck of the Empire State Building. All six groups independently choose noon as their meeting time.

As technology improves and bigger astronomical data sets become available, SETI astronomers are rolling out a wide variety of novel searches based on the same principle. But its easier said than done. What, if anything, can SETI researchers hope to have in common with alien civilizations? What do we know extraterrestrials know, and what do they know we know?

Weve got to pick some signal strategy or signal reception strategy that will match with what someone else comes up with, Sheikh says. Otherwise, the task is hopeless.

Special frequencies

Human astronomy remains, for the time being, firmly attached to Earth. Presumably, other civilizations have a home base from which they broadcast too. In SETI, the question of where to meet often becomes a question of what frequency to chat on. After all, even just here on Earth humans reach each other on a dizzying array of radio channels, microwaves, and with beams of visible and infrared light.

In a foundational SETI publication appearing in Nature in 1959, physicists Giuseppe Cocconi and Philip Morrison proposed that 1420 MHz or thereabouts would be a good place to start the conversation. Hydrogen gas buzzes at precisely this radio frequency, and since hydrogen is the most common element in the galaxy (and the universe), this channel might be of particular interest. Schelling himself called out the frequency as an example of a Schelling point the next year in The Strategy of Conflict, writing in a footnote, In the most favored radio region there lies a unique, objective standard of frequency, which must be known to every observer in the universe.

The hydrogen line has since fallen out of favor in SETI, partially because all that hydrogen makes the channel rather noisy, and partially because astronomers no longer need to spend months turning the radio dial by hand as Drake did. In the first SETI searches youd look at a channel at a time, Sheikh says. Now we're doing billions of times that with a single observation with a single instrument.

Yet researchers continue to think about special frequencies. When analyzing a billion signals at once, there are a billion chances for the algorithm to mistakenly flag one channel as artificial. Identifying the most promising candidates ahead of time could lend confidence to future detections.

Jason Wright, a Penn State astrophysicist, described a novel set of Schelling point frequencies last year in the International Journal of Astrobiology. Using base ten numbers and the units of Hertz to measure radio frequencies are merely conventions of human culture, so Wright sought culture-independent frequencies in fundamental physics. He found inspiration in research from the pioneer quantum physicist, Max Planck, who in 1900 wrote about physical quantities that remain meaningful for all times, and also for extraterrestrial and non-human cultures, and therefore can be understood as natural units.

These fundamental constants of nature describe the speed of light, the strength of gravity, and the relationship between a photons energy and its frequency. Any civilization capable of building a radio beacon would likely be able to measure these numbers as humans have, and by mixing them together could find a particular frequency a universal frequency specified by fundamental physics. If you know those three things, you say huh, something funny happens at that frequency, Wright says.

Plancks constant, the gravitational constant, and the speed of light define a unique duration of time the Planck time which Wright used to build up a set of universal frequencies.

Electromagnetic radiation with the fundamental frequency would be impossible to detect, so Wright added the fundamental charge of atomic particles to the mix and used the four constants to construct a base like we use the number 10 as a base to formulate a list of more reasonable frequencies in both radio waves and visible light, a frequency comb, that SETI researchers could use to sift through the haystack of radio channels.

Special times

As some SETI researchers ponder how aliens might reach out, others wonder when. Transmitting beacons take energy, and civilizations may not transmit all the time. (We certainly dont. Our highest profile message lasted for three minutes in 1974, a powerful blast from the recently ruined Arecibo radio dish in Puerto Rico.)

To get picked up during Breakthrough Listens 15-minute scans, for instance, our nearest neighbors would need to be beaming out an all-directional signal using around a trillion watts of power, according to Wright, or about five percent of humanitys total energy consumption. Thats an expensive porch light to leave on all the time. To hear from cultures on a budget, researchers may need to work out the cosmic equivalent of noon a universal hailing time.

Sheikh reasons that any civilizations engaged in sending interstellar messages are likely to be at least as good at astronomy as we are. In recent decades, astronomers have spotted thousands of exoplanets, often by looking for stars that regularly dim as planets pass in front of them. Any aliens doing the same could already know Earth is here.

That knowledge could focus their efforts to make contact by specifying a unique time to say hello the moment when Earth eclipses the sun, dimming our star and revealing our presence. Sheikh is moving to the SETI Institute in California in January, and for her first project there she plans to use the institutes Allen Telescope Array to sweep the night sky directly overhead when the sun is positioned behind the Earth from the perspective of any inhabitants of star systems in view.

The Arecibo Radiotelescope in Puerto Rico, before its destruction

Via Wikimedia

She estimates that the survey will be sensitive to radio broadcasts from an extraterrestrial dish analogous to Arecibo transmitting within about 220 light years. Weaker signals, or signals coming from deeper in the galaxy which spans 100,000 light years would go unnoticed.

Sheikh admits that her plan might seem like a long shot, but argues that it beats scanning the sky from one side to the other the celestial equivalent of wandering Manhattan south to north. You have to start somewhere, she says. Why not start somewhere you think is more likely?

Another Schelling-inspired lesson is to test out as many Schelling points as possible. If your counterpart doesnt show up at Grand Central at noon, try Times Square at midnight. In that spirit, Sheikh is collaborating with Davenport, at the University of Washington to study another temporal landmark.

Nearly 35 years ago, astronomers witnessed a star just outside the Milky Way explode like a bomb. SN 1987a quickly became the subject of more academic papers than any other supernova. Its the only supernova thats gone off in our neighborhood in the last 100 years, Davenport says. Its kind of a big event. Its rare, visible, and outshone the entire galaxy.

If any civilizations were poised, waiting for a special galactic moment to announce their presence, SN 1987a would have been a great opportunity, suggested Argentinian astrophysicist Guillermo Lemarchand in 1994. Now Sheikh and Davenport, together with undergraduate physics and astronomy student Brbara Cabrales at Smith College, are working out the math to look for signals that would just be reaching Earth now, had they been sent in response to SN 1987a.

As light from the supernova reaches new stars, and potential signals from those stars ripple out through space, the zone of the sky to search changes. Using data from NASAs Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), which watches for stars being eclipsed by exoplanets, the group is developing an algorithm to look for stars that dim or flash at precisely the right moment. They dont expect to find a smoking gun with TESS, which keeps tabs on hundreds of thousands of stars. Their main goal is to get the software tools ready for the upcoming Vera Rubin Telescope, which will monitor 10 to 20 billion stars on a weekly basis.

Further down the line, other SETI researchers could tweak the software to search for radio signals, rather than looking only for civilizations with the technology to make their star flicker. Were looking at signals now in [visible light] because thats where the data is, Davenport says. Were scavengers. Were taking what is already available to us. Astronomers have to be crafty.

Shy Civilizations

The central conceit of seeking Schelling points in modern SETI is the assumption that both sides are playing the same game. But with more powerful instruments, researchers might be able to start looking for more bashful civilizations. In that case too, crafty astronomers are already thinking about what common behaviors might give an inhabited planet away, even if its not actively broadcasting.

Humanity, for instance, has benefited from putting television, radio, and weather satellites in high enough orbits that they continuously face the same part of the Earth. These spacecraft in geosynchronous orbits form an artificial ring around our planet roughly 22,000 miles above the ground. If another planet sported a thick enough artificial ring, it might block the light from its star in a peculiar way that astronomers could spot.

Our ring is sparse today but gets slightly denser every year. In 200 years, the satellite belt would become notable enough to be seen by extraterrestrial astronomers at a distance of ten light years using current telescopes, astrophysicist Hector Socas-Navarro calculated in 2018.

Another proposal assumes that civilizations have a vested interest in their long-term survival and may develop the technology to watch out for catastrophic asteroid collisions. As Carl Sagan reportedly quipped, If the dinosaurs had had a space program, they would not be extinct."

Some of the loudest radio pulses humanity has sent out into space have been for exactly this purpose, with much of the responsibility of monitoring the trajectories of asteroids falling to Arecibos 2.5-million-watt radar beam, before its destruction. Most of that radio signal bounced back to Earth carrying vital information about its target, but some would spill past the asteroid into the galaxy. Similar signals from another world would come sporadically. But since the orbits of asteroids and planets form a flat disk, any radar signals originating from a planet and directed toward an asteroid would always spill outward from the plane of the disk. Future eavesdropping attempts could use this fact to prioritize systems that are oriented edge on to Earth, rather than top down.

Some researchers recoil from efforts to get into the heads of extraterrestrial beings, considering them too outlandish, and Sheikh understands the instinct to avoid assumptions. Nevertheless, since coming to view SETI through a Schelling-tinted lens, she has realized that every project assumes some shared attributes between humanity and whomever else could be out there. Even the fact that many SETI searches target stars betrays a presumption that other lifeforms, like us, are more likely to live on planets than in deep space.

Everything is a Schelling point, Sheikh says. You can't get away from it.

Seeking universality

The more Schelling-inclined researchers can intuit commonalities between terrestrials and hypothetical extraterrestrials, the better their odds of success. And the only commonalities likely to span light years are going to be potential universalities, like knowing how fast sunbeams travel, or not wanting to be taken out by an asteroid. In the interest of ferreting out such universalities, some researchers point out that Earth might hold more than just one example to learn from.

Human cultures have risen and fallen for millennia,and have a long history of misinterpreting each others legacies. Spanish conquistadors, for instance, mistook the Great Pyramid of Cholula (the worlds largest pyramid by volume) for a hill and built a church on it. . Looking at the full sweep of human behaviors, anthropology-style, is useful for shaking us out of our own cultural biases, Kathryn Denning, an anthropologist at York University in Toronto.

She goes even farther, suggesting that observing how dolphins, whales, birds, and other social animals interact while sharing or dividing up territory would be a good way to broaden our thinking beyond the human.

Penn States Wright conceives of Schelling points in a similar way. The goal isnt to get into an aliens head per se, but rather to decipher the essential behaviors of all intelligent beings, starting with animals here on Earth. They have to use energy. They have to move around. At some point they have to interact with each other. They have to eat. And so, we hope that there are similar fundamental things the alien species out there might be doing, he says.

Perhaps in another 70 years, equipped with more sensitive instruments and smarter searching algorithms, SETI astronomers will have checked enough galactic Schelling points to start to answer Fermis question. If we show up at enough interesting landmarks at enough unique times and fail to connect, well have to conclude that no one else is trying to meet up. Or, if they are, theyre going about it in a way thats truly alien.

More:

To find extraterrestrials, we have to think like extraterrestrials - Massive Science

Seizing the multiverse opportunities the hybrid way – The Times of India Blog

Implementation allows businesses to integrate elements physical and virtual and bank on the combined advantages. With proper strategy, a hybrid environment has the potential to deliver the benefits of the core business systems, public and private cloud without the need for massive investment. These future-ready applications offer portability and robustness to businesses for having a competitive edge in deploying high-quality solutions and services.

Power of DevSecOps

Analysing the future of business growth, say in the next 20 years, the hybrid vision must be in close alignment with the present business model and technology disruption capabilities driven by AI/ML, real-time analytics, and automation prowess. The future of adopting a hybrid environment aims at achieving enhanced user experience and agile deployment of solutions that a public cloud can provide across all environments (traditional and cloud). It also allows for the increased protection of data and assets, deciding the storage mode and cover best suited to its requirements. The rise of DevSecOps or secure DevOps has ensured seamless application security at the beginning of the software development lifecycle. Enhanced security automation throughout the delivery pipeline reduces the risk of data breaches and allows quicker turnaround on deploying solutions. It has become critical to ensure the cyber resilience capabilities in todays challenging landscape and protect data, identities, and applications by integrating cyber security in every layer of product delivery. The hybrid environment boosts security capabilities in the workforce allowing unhindered performance and elevated customer experience.

Seize the hybrid future

In the post-pandemic world with an evolved work base, hybrid is the way to go. Optimizing workloads, ensuring cyber resiliency, and minimizing costs on resources sets the business on an upward growth trajectory. Quicker data management with DevOps, cloud-native applications, cybersecurity capabilities, and increased sync within the organization transforms the business into a next-gen powerhouse. As the cloud complexity intensifies, enterprises must make sound investment today in building a strong hybrid IT foundation to capitalize on the multiverse opportunities for a future focused on innovation. Our universe and its possibilities are limitless, with millions and trillions of galaxies spinning through space. Sci-fi movies and years of research have brought to us the concept of the multiverse the probability of multiple and diverse universes exiting parallelly to ours or distant due to the Big Bang. But the real question lies in, is it all there? The mysterious ways in which our universe evolves, and the various quantum physics theories might make us want to believe in the existence of multiple universes or scourge for more evidence. However, while scientists debate this theory, the world of emerging technologies has brought the cloud multiverse at our disposal for endless opportunities in the digital era.

The pandemic-induced digital acceleration has revolutionized business operations today, transforming the pathway to determine growth and success. Businesses have been relooking to rewire their old strategies and underlying framework to achieve an agile and nimble workflow with higher revenue. They now have the bandwidth to evaluate their investment plans, growth goals, and requirements to focus on innovation through deploying niche technologies like AI/ML, IoT, cloud, etcetera. As we move ahead in this digital journey, remote working has pushed companies to shift their base to cloud environments to staying relevant in the present market landscape. Basis the customer demand and the future goals, IT leaders can choose to adopt private cloud, public cloud, multi-cloud, hybrid cloud, or be on edge. The future is truly cloudy!

Exploring the hybrid order

As IT frameworks integrate these technologies to ensure flexibility in operations, the cloud multiverse stands ready to be explored by organizations to attain the next generation of transformation. Setting foot in the cloud journey as per the requirements, most organizations are looking at adopting a hybrid cloud approach. According to IDC, 70% of companies by the year 2022 will integrate public and private clouds by deploying hybrid management technologies, tools, and processes. As the industry matures at a fast pace, it has become critical to focus on integrating the right mix of solutions customized for each set of applications cost-effectively while ensuring a higher scale of reliability, resiliency, and agility.

The hybrid cloud architecture allows businesses to manage their core business system while embracing the newly adopted cloud framework. It presents the best way for organizations to optimally move their business-critical assets to the cloud and ensure business continuity as the pressure of the changing IT landscape grows.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

See more here:

Seizing the multiverse opportunities the hybrid way - The Times of India Blog

Quantum Time Exactly What Is Time?

Max Planck is sometimes considered the father of quantum theory

In the first half of the 20th Century, a whole new theory of physics was developed, which has superseded everything we know about classical physics, and even the Theory of Relativity, which is still a classical model at heart. Quantum theory or quantum mechanics is now recognized as the most correct and accurate model of the universe, particularly at sub-atomic scales, although for large objects classical Newtonian and relativistic physics work adequately.

If the concepts and predictions of relativity (see the section on Relativistic Time) are often considered difficult and counter-intuitive, many of the basic tenets and implications of quantum mechanics may appear absolutely bizarre and inconceivable, but they have been repeatedly proven to be true, and it is now one of the most rigorously tested physical models of all time.

One of the implications of quantum mechanics is that certain aspects and properties of the universe are quantized, i.e. they are composed of discrete, indivisible packets or quanta. For instance, the electrons orbiting an atom are found in specific fixed orbits and do not slide nearer or further from the nucleus as their energy levels change, but jump from one discrete quantum state to another. Even light, which we know to be a type of electromagnetic radiation which moves in waves, is also composed of quanta or particles of light called photons, so that light has aspects of both waves AND particles, and sometimes it behaves like a wave and sometimes it behaved like a particle (wave-particle duality).

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be no, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). Tests have been carried outusing sophisticated timing equipment and pulsating laser beams to observe chemical changes taking place at very small fractions of a second (down to a femtosecond, or 1015 seconds) and at that level timecertainly appears to be smooth and continuous. However,if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities.

It should be noted that our current knowledge of physics remains incomplete, and, according to some theories that look to combine quantum mechanics and gravity into a single theory of everything (often referred to as quantum gravity see below), there is a possibility that time could in fact be quantized. A hypothetical chronon unit for a proposed discrete quantum of time has been proposed, although it is not clear just how long a chronon should be.

One of the main tenets of quantum theory is that the position of a particle is described by a wave function, which provides the probabilities of finding the particle at any number of different places, or superpositions. It is only when the particle is observed, and the wave function collapses, that the particle is definitively located in one particular place or another. So, in quantum theory, unlike in classical physics, there is a difference between what we see and what actually exists. In fact, the very act of observation affects the observed particle.

Another aspect of quantum theory is the uncertainty principle, which says that the values of certain pairs of variables (such as a particles location and its speed or momentum) cannot BOTH be known exactly, so that the more precisely one variable is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This is reflected in the probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics, something very foreign to the deterministic and certain nature of classical physics.

This view of quantum mechanics (developed by two of the originators of quantum theory, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg), is sometimes referred to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Because the collapse of the wave function cannot be undone, and because all the information associated with the initial possible positions of the particle contained in the wave function is essentially lost as soon as it is observed and collapsed, the process is considered to be time-irreversible, which has implications for the so-called arrow of time, the one way direction of time that we observe in daily life (see the section on The Arrow of Time).

Some quantum physicists (e.g. Don Page and William Wootters) have developed a theory that time is actually an emergent phenomenon resulting from a strange quantum concept known as entanglement, in which different quantum particles effectively share an existence, even though physically separated, so that the quantum state of each particle can only be described relative to the other entangled particles. The theory even claims to have experimental proof recently, from experiments by Ekaterina Moreva which show that observers do not detect any change in quantum particles (i.e. time foes not emerge) until becoming entangled with another particle.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, mentioned above, is not however the only way of looking at it. Frustrated by the apparent failure of the Copenhagen interpretation to deal with questions like what counts as an observation, and what is the dividing line between the microscopic quantum world and the macroscopic classical world, other alternative viewpoints have been suggested. One of the leading alternatives is the many worlds interpretation, first put forward by Hugh Everett III back in the late 1950s.

According to the many worlds view, there is no difference between a particle or system before and after it has been observed, and no separate way of evolving. In fact, the observer himself is a quantum system, which interacts with other quantum systems, with different possible versions seeing the particle or object in different positions, for example. These different versions exist concurrently in different alternative or parallel universes. Thus, each time quantum systems interact with each other, the wave function does not collapse but actually splits into alternative versions of reality, all of which are equally real.

This view has the advantage of conserving all the information from wave functions so that each individual universe is completely deterministic, and the wave function can be evolved forwards and backwards. Under this interpretation, quantum mechanics is therefore NOT the underlying reason for the arrow of time.

Quantum gravity, or the quantum theory of gravity, refers to various attempts to combine our two best models of the physics of the universe, quantum mechanics and general relativity, into a workable whole. It looks to describe the force of gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics, and represents an essential step towards the holy grail of physics, a so-called theory of everything. Quantum theory and relativity, while coexisting happily in most respects, appear to be fundamentally incompatible at unapproachable events like the singularities in black holes and the Big Bang itself, and it is believed by many that some synthesis of the two theories is essential in acquiring a real handle on the fundamental nature of time itself.

Many different approaches to the riddle of quantum gravity have been proposed over the years, ranging from string theory and superstring theory to M-theory and brane theory, supergravity, loop quantum gravity, etc. This is the cutting edge of modern physics, and if a breakthrough were to occur it would likely be as revolutionary and paradigm-breaking as relativity was in 1905, and could completely change our understanding of time.

Any theory of quantum gravity has to deal with the inherent incompatibilities of quantum theory and relativity, not the least of which is the so-called problem of time that time is taken to have a different meaning in quantum mechanics and general relativity. This is perhaps best exemplified by the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, devised by John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt back in the 1970s. Their attempt to unify relativity and quantum mechanics resulted in time essentially disappearing completely from their equations, suggesting that time does not exist at all and that, at its most fundamental level, the universe is timeless. In response to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, some have concluded that time is a kind of fictitious variable in physics, and that we are perhaps confusing the measurement of different physical variables with the actual existence of something we call time.

While looking to connect quantum field theory with statistical mechanics, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking introduced a concept he called imaginary time. Although rather difficult to visualize, imaginary time is not imaginary in the sense of being unreal or made-up. Rather, it bears a similar relationship to normal physical time as the imaginary number scale does to the real numbers in the complex plane, and can perhaps best be portrayed as an axis running perpendicular to that of regular time. It provides a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space, so that it is possible to move forwards and backwards along it, justas one can move right and left or up and down in space.

Despite its rather abstract and counter-intuitive nature, the usefulness of imaginary time arises in its ability to help mathematically to smooth out gravitational singularities in models of the universe. Normally, singularities (like those at the centre of black holes, or the Big Bang itself) pose a problem for physicists, because they are areas where the known physical laws just do not apply. When visualized in imaginary time, however, the singularity is removed and the Big Bang functions like any other point in space-time.

Exactly what such a concept might represent in the real world, though,is unknown, and currently it remainslittle more than a potentially useful theoretical construct.

>> Time and the Big Bang

Originally posted here:

Quantum Time Exactly What Is Time?

Observer effect (physics) – Wikipedia

In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1] [2] This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detectorpossibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a personits results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.

An electron is detected upon interaction with a photon; this interaction will inevitably alter the velocity and momentum of that electron. It is possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron. It is also necessary to distinguish clearly between the measured value of a quantity and the value resulting from the measurement process. In particular, a measurement of momentum is non-repeatable in short intervals of time. A formula (one-dimensional for simplicity) relating involved quantities, due to Niels Bohr (1928) is given by

where

The measured momentum of the electron is then related to vx, whereas its momentum after the measurement is related to vx. This is a best-case scenario.[7]

In electronics, ammeters and voltmeters are usually wired in series or parallel to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring by way of presenting an additional real or complex load to the circuit, thus changing the transfer function and behavior of the circuit itself. Even a more passive device such as a current clamp, which measures the wire current without coming into physical contact with the wire, affects the current through the circuit being measured because the inductance is mutual.

In thermodynamics, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb or give up some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.

The theoretical foundation of the concept of measurement in quantum mechanics is a contentious issue deeply connected to the many interpretations of quantum mechanics. A key focus point is that of wave function collapse, for which several popular interpretations assert that measurement causes a discontinuous change into an eigenstate of the operator associated with the quantity that was measured, a change which is not time-reversible.

More explicitly, the superposition principle ( = nann) of quantum physics dictates that for a wave function , a measurement will result in a state of the quantum system of one of the m possible eigenvalues fn , n = 1, 2, ..., m, of the operator F which in the space of the eigenfunctions n , n = 1, 2, ..., m.

Once one has measured the system, one knows its current state; and this prevents it from being in one of its other statesit has apparently decohered from them without prospects of future strong quantum interference.[8][9][10] This means that the type of measurement one performs on the system affects the end-state of the system.

An experimentally studied situation related to this is the quantum Zeno effect, in which a quantum state would decay if left alone, but does not decay because of its continuous observation. The dynamics of a quantum system under continuous observation are described by a quantum stochastic master equation known as the Belavkin equation.[11][12][13] Further studies have shown that even observing the results after the photon is produced leads to collapsing the wave function and loading a back-history as shown by delayed choice quantum eraser.[14]

When discussing the wave function which describes the state of a system in quantum mechanics, one should be cautious of a common misconception that assumes that the wave function amounts to the same thing as the physical object it describes. This flawed concept must then require existence of an external mechanism, such as a measuring instrument, that lies outside the principles governing the time evolution of the wave function , in order to account for the so-called "collapse of the wave function" after a measurement has been performed. But the wave function is not a physical object like, for example, an atom, which has an observable mass, charge and spin, as well as internal degrees of freedom. Instead, is an abstract mathematical function that contains all the statistical information that an observer can obtain from measurements of a given system. In this case, there is no real mystery in that this mathematical form of the wave function must change abruptly after a measurement has been performed.

A consequence of Bell's theorem is that measurement on one of two entangled particles can appear to have a nonlocal effect on the other particle. Additional problems related to decoherence arise when the observer is modeled as a quantum system, as well.

The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[15] The uncertainty principle in its standard form describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[16]An alternative version of the uncertainty principle,[17] more in the spirit of an observer effect,[18] fully accounts for the disturbance the observer has on a system and the error incurred, although this is not how the term "uncertainty principle" is most commonly used in practice.

Read the original post:

Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia

Breaking Heisenberg: Evading the Uncertainty Principle in …

Schematic of the entangled drumheads. Credit: Aalto University

New technique gets around 100-year-old rule of quantum physics for the first time.

The uncertainty principle, first introduced by Werner Heisenberg in the late 1920s, is a fundamental concept of quantum mechanics. In the quantum world, particles like the electrons that power all electrical products can also behave like waves. As a result, particles cannot have a well-defined position and momentum simultaneously. For instance, measuring the momentum of a particle leads to a disturbance of position, and therefore the position cannot be precisely defined.

In recent research, published in Science, a team led by Prof. Mika Sillanp at Aalto University in Finland has shown that there is a way to get around the uncertainty principle. The team included Dr. Matt Woolley from the University of New South Wales in Australia, who developed the theoretical model for the experiment.

Instead of elementary particles, the team carried out the experiments using much larger objects: two vibrating drumheads one-fifth of the width of a human hair. The drumheads were carefully coerced into behaving quantum mechanically.

In our work, the drumheads exhibit a collective quantum motion. The drums vibrate in an opposite phase to each other, such that when one of them is in an end position of the vibration cycle, the other is in the opposite position at the same time. In this situation, the quantum uncertainty of the drums motion is canceled if the two drums are treated as one quantum-mechanical entity, explains the lead author of the study, Dr. Laure Mercier de Lepinay.

This means that the researchers were able to simultaneously measure the position and the momentum of the two drumheads which should not be possible according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Breaking the rule allows them to be able to characterize extremely weak forces driving the drumheads.

One of the drums responds to all the forces of the other drum in the opposing way, kind of with a negative mass, Sillanp says.

Furthermore, the researchers also exploited this result to provide the most solid evidence to date that such large objects can exhibit what is known as quantum entanglement. Entangled objects cannot be described independently of each other, even though they may have an arbitrarily large spatial separation. Entanglement allows pairs of objects to behave in ways that contradict classical physics, and is the key resource behind emerging quantum technologies. A quantum computer can, for example, carry out the types of calculations needed to invent new medicines much faster than any supercomputer ever could.

In macroscopic objects, quantum effects like entanglement are very fragile, and are destroyed easily by any disturbances from their surrounding environment. Therefore, the experiments were carried out at a very low temperature, only a hundredth a degree above absolute zero at -273 degrees.

In the future, the research group will use these ideas in laboratory tests aiming at probing the interplay of quantum mechanics and gravity. The vibrating drumheads may also serve as interfaces for connecting nodes of large-scale, distributed quantum networks.

Reference: Quantum mechanicsfree subsystem with mechanical oscillators by Laure Mercier de Lpinay, Caspar F. Ockeloen-Korppi, Matthew J. Woolley and Mika A. Sillanp, 7 May 2021, Science.DOI: 10.1126/science.abf5389

Sillanps group is part of the national Centre of Excellence, Quantum Technology Finland (QTF). The research was carried out using OtaNano, a national open access research infrastructure providing state-of-the-art working environment for competitive research in nanoscience and -technology, and in quantum technologies. OtaNano is hosted and operated by Aalto University and VTT.

See the original post here:

Breaking Heisenberg: Evading the Uncertainty Principle in ...

Quantum Technology: Translating the Power of Quantum Mechanics – CIOReview

Quantum technology, which has been known for decades, promises spectacular applications such as revolutionary material production, better metrology, secure communication, and more.

FREMONT, CA: Quantum mechanics has paved the road for humanity's comprehension of the physical world through the years. It describes the physical features of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles, from the interplay of light and matter to pervasive innovations like lasers and semiconductor transistors. In today's digital world, every company and even country is vying for quantum dominance. Last year, Google announced that it had achieved quantum supremacy by constructing the Sycamore quantum computer. It can complete a test computation in under 200 seconds, whereas the most powerful supercomputers would take thousands of years to complete.

Despite decades of research, the quantum mechanics world remains mysterious and beyond human comprehension. Quantum technology is a new discipline of physics and engineering that is based on quantum mechanics principles.

Quantum Technology's Promising Prospects

Advancements in both commercial and technological applications have always gone hand in hand when it comes to technology. Quantum technology, which has been known for decades, promises spectacular applications such as revolutionary material production, better metrology, secure communication, and more. Many organizations well understand the benefits of quantum technology to society, industry, and academics. Governments are also investing in quantum mechanics research and commercialization of these technologies, while universities are looking into far-fetched possibilities.

One country, for example, has demonstrated secure quantum communication links between terrestrial stations and satellites lately. The team of 24 scientists published their findings in one journal, claiming that they had successfully tested the transmission of a secret key for encrypting and decrypting information between a satellite and two ground stations 700 miles apart. Quantum entanglement, a recent physics concept that seems absurdly at odds with common sense, was used in the procedure.

Quantum technology is garnering new hype, with the latest feats of engineering harnessing more of the potential of quantum mechanics-50 years later; it became a part of life through nuclear power. One is now beginning to govern quantum entanglement and quantum superposition. As a result, quantum technology can improve a wide range of common devices, including more dependable navigation and timing systems, more secure communications, more accurate healthcare imaging, and more powerful computing.

See Also:Top 10 Agile Solution Companies

Read the rest here:

Quantum Technology: Translating the Power of Quantum Mechanics - CIOReview