Category Archives: Quantum Physics

UCLA has received a $5 million pledge from Boeing Co. to support faculty at the Center for Quantum Science and Engineering.

The center, which is jointly operated by the UCLA College Division of Physical Sciences and the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, brings together scientists and engineers at the leading edge of quantum information science and technology. Its members have expertise in disciplines spanning physics, materials science, electrical engineering, computer science, chemistry and mathematics.

We are grateful for Boeings significant pledge, which will help drive innovation in quantum science, said Miguel Garca-Garibay, UCLAs dean of physical sciences. This remarkable investment demonstrates confidence that UCLAs renowned faculty and researchers will spur progress in this emerging field.

Harnessing quantum technologies for the aerospace industry is one of the great challenges we face in the coming years, said Greg Hyslop.

UCLA faculty and researchers are already working on exciting advances in quantum science and engineering, Garca-Garibay said. And the divisions new one-year masters program, which begins this fall, will help meet the huge demand for trained professionals in quantum technologies.

Quantum science explores the laws of nature that apply to matter at the very smallest scales, like atoms and subatomic particles. Scientists and engineers believe that controlling quantum systems has vast potential for advancing fields ranging from medicine to national security.

Harnessing quantum technologies for the aerospace industry is one of the great challenges we face in the coming years, said Greg Hyslop, Boeings chief engineer and executive vice president of engineering, test and technology. We are committed to growing this field of study and our relationship with UCLA moves us in that direction.

In addition to its uses in aerospace, examples of quantum theory already in action include superconducting magnets, lasers and MRI scans. The next generation of quantum technology will enable powerful quantum computers, sensors and communication systems and transform clinical trials, defense systems, clean water systems and a wide range of other technologies.

Quantum information science and technology promises society-changing capabilities in everything from medicine to computing and beyond, said Eric Hudson.

Quantum information science and technology promises society-changing capabilities in everything from medicine to computing and beyond, said Eric Hudson, UCLAs David S. Saxon Presidential Professor of Physics and co-director of the center. There is still, however, much work to be done to realize these benefits. This work requires serious partnership between academia and industry, and the Boeing pledge will be an enormous help in both supporting cutting-edge research at UCLA and creating the needed relationships with industry stakeholders.

The Boeing gift complements recent support from the National Science Foundation, including a $25 million award in 2020 to the multi-university NSF Quantum Leap Challenge Institute for Present and Future Quantum Computation, which Hudson co-directs. And in 2021, the UCLA center received a five-year, $3 million traineeship grant for doctoral students from the NSF.

Founded in 2018, the Center for Quantum Science and Engineering draws from the talents and creativity of dozens of faculty members and students.

Boeings support is a huge boost for quantum science and engineering at UCLA, said Mark Gyure, executive director of the center and a UCLA adjunct professor of electrical and computer engineering at the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering. Enhancing the Center for Quantum Science and Engineering will attract additional world-class faculty in this rapidly growing field and, together with Boeing and other companies in the region, establish Los Angeles and Southern California as a major hub in quantum science and technology.

Read the rest here:

$5 million from Boeing will support UCLA quantum science and technology research - UCLA Samueli School of Engineering Newsroom

Rochester Institute of Technology students can soon begin earning a minor in an emerging field that could disrupt the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines. RIT students can now take classes toward a minor in quantum information science and technology.

This is a hot field garnering a lot of attention and we are excited to offer students a chance to gain some technical depth in quantum so they can take this knowledge and go the next step with their careers, said Ben Zwickl, associate professor in RITs School of Physics and Astronomy and advisor for the minor. It will provide a pathway for students from any STEM major to take two core courses that introduce them to quantum and some of its applications, as well as strategically pick some upper-level courses within or outside their program.

Quantum physics seeks to understand the rules and effects of manipulating the smallest amount of energy at the subatomic level. Scientists and engineers are attempting to harness the strange, unintuitive properties of quantum particles to make advances in computing, cryptography, communications, and many other applications. Developers of the minor said there is a growing industry that will need employees knowledgeable about quantum physics and its applications.

Were seeing a lot of giant tech companies like IBM, Intel, Microsoft, and Google get involved with quantum, but theres also a lot of venture capital going to startup companies in quantum, said Gregory Howland, assistant professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy. Howland will teach one of the minors two required courses this fallPrinciples and Applications of Quantum Technology. You have both sides of it really blossoming now.

The minor, much like the field itself, is highly interdisciplinary in nature, with faculty from the College of Science, Kate Gleason College of Engineering, College of Engineering Technology, and Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences offering classes that count toward the minor. The minor grew out of RITs Future Photon Initiative and funding from the NSFs Quantum Leap Challenge Institutes program.

Associate Professor Sonia Lopez Alarcon from RITs Department of Computer Engineering will teach the other required courseIntroduction to Quantum Computing and Information Sciencestarting this spring. She said taking these courses will provide valuable life skills in addition to lessons about cutting-edge science and technology.

Theyll learn more than just the skills from the courses, theyll learn how to get familiar with a topic thats not in the textbooks officially yet, said Lopez Alarcon. Thats a very important skill for industry. Companies want to know theyre hiring people with the ability to learn about something that is emerging, especially in science and technology because its such a rapidly changing field.

The faculty involved noted that they hope to attract a diverse group of students to enroll in the minor. They said that although the disciplines feeding into quantum have struggled with inclusion related to gender and race and ethnicity, they will work with affinity groups on campus to try to recruit students to the program and ultimately advance the fields inclusivity.

To learn more about the minor, contact Ben Zwickl.

See the original post here:

RIT offers new minor in emerging field of quantum information science and technology | RIT - Rochester Institute of Technology

3 Tech Trends That Are Poised to Transform Business in the Next Decade

By Mike Bechtel and Scott Buchholz

Covid-19, while profoundly disruptive, didnt create new enterprise technology trends so much as catalyze those already underway.

Organizations fast-tracked multi-year technology roadmaps for major investments like artificial intelligence (AI), automation, and cloud, completing them in months or even weeks. The result? Many organizations have arrived at their desired futures ahead of schedule.

But the future is still coming. Todays innovations will be our successors legacy. So executives must be mindful of meaningful advances and capabilities forecast for the decade aheadto ride tailwinds, dodge headwinds, and forestall, or at least minimize, the interest payments due on their eventual technical debt.

But the signal-to-noise ratio in most projections of future tech is abysmal, introducing an anxiety-inducing blizzard of buzzwords every year. Thats why our futures research gets right down to identifying the subset of emerging technology innovations that can create better customer experiences, modernize operations, and drive competitive advantage.

Three classes of emerging tech are poised to transform every aspect of business in the next decade: quantum technologies, exponential intelligence, and ambient computing. These field notes from the future can give business leaders a strategic view of the decade ahead to help them engineer a technology-forward future.

Quantum Technologies

I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman once said.

To eschew the physics lesson: quantum-powered solutions exploit the quirky properties of subatomic particles to allow us to solve seemingly intractable problems using physics instead of mathematics. Quantum represents as big a leap over digital as digital was over analog.

As quantum R&D turns the corner from R to D, the race among technology giants, governments, and early-stage startups will quickly find commercial applications.

Three areas to watch:

Quantums appeal to techies is clear, but business leaders must consider its potential to deliver specific competitive advantages against discrete business needs. Its spoils will first accrue to those who figure out in advance which problems they need quantum to solve.

Exponential Intelligence

Traditionally, the most widely adopted business intelligence solutions were descriptive: discovering and surfacing hidden correlations in data sets. The last 15 years saw the rise of predictive analytics: algorithms that could further extrapolate whats likely to happen next.

Most recently, AI-fueled organizations have used machine intelligence to make decisions that augment or automate human thinking.

This escalation of next-generation intelligencefrom analyst to predictor to actorwill increasingly access human behavioral data at scale, so that it better understands and emulates human emotion and intent. Enter the age of affective or emotional AI.

To a machine, a smile, a thoughtful pause, or a choice of words is all data that can, in aggregate, help an organization develop a more holistic understanding of customers, employees, citizens, and students. Its data organizations can further use it to develop classes of automated systems that better connect the dots among their financial, social, and ethical objectives.

For customer service representatives, caregivers, sales agents, and even stage actors, the business cases for these creative machines are compelling. But its imperative that leaders recognize the importance of committing to trustworthy AI practices to reduce any risk of bias, both tacit and explicit, in the training data, models, and resulting systems. As the authors of Technology Futures, a recent report from Deloitte and the World Economic Forum, put it: We must teach our digital children well, training them to do as we say, not necessarily as weve done.

Ambient Experience

The past 20 years of human-computer interaction might be summed up as an ever-bigger number of ever-smaller screens. With powerful mobile devices and advanced networks now ubiquitous in our workplaces and homes, were literally surrounded by digital information.

Ambient experience envisions a future beyond the glass when our interaction with the digital world takes place less through screens than through intuitive, out-of-the-way affordances that more naturally cater to our needs.

Recent advances in digital assistants and smart speakers light the way. These language interfaces generally speak only when spoken to and dutifully respond. Increasingly, devices will anticipate our intentions and offer help based on their understanding of content and context.

The other side of the coin: an unlimited reality. Virtual reality (VR) is not new, but enterprises increasingly turn to VR as a tool instead of a toy to support functions as varied as training, team building, and remote operations truck driving.

These ambient experiences could drive simplicity, reducing friction in the user experience. As technology develops, a voice, gesture, or glance could signal intent and initiate an exchange of business-critical information. Tomorrows digital concierges could handle increasingly complex routines in smart homes and citieswithout any logins or other traditional steps for activation.

Foresight is 80/20

These three field notes from the future are not an admonition to drop todays plans in favor of whats next. Rather, they are an encouragement to keep going.

Todays investments in cloud, data, and digital experiences lay the groundwork for opportunities in quantum technologies, exponential intelligence, and ambient experience.

Research indicates that leading organizations put 80 percent of their technology budgets toward existing investments and 20 percent toward emerging tech.1 By keeping their eyes on the future and their feet in the present, organizations can start creating tech-forward strategies todayso they can compete, lead, and advance their businesses tomorrow.

Read Field Notes from the Future in the Deloitte Tech Trends 2022 report and contact our subject matter experts for further discussion.

Mike Bechtel, Chief Futurist, Deloitte Consulting LLP

Scott Buchholz, Emerging Technology Research Director and Government & Public Services Chief Technology Officer, Deloitte Consulting LLP

1Mike Bechtel, Nishita Henry and Khalid Kark, Innovation Study 2021: Beyond the buzzword, September 30, 2021

Read the original here:

3 Tech Trends That Are Poised to Transform Business in the Next Decade - SPONSOR CONTENT FROM DELOITTE - HBR.org Daily

Theres a new sci-fi book series thats taking the young adult genre by stormthe first book,The Upper World, written by Femi Fadugba has already caught the eye of studioexecutives, and Netflix has acquired the film rights[and] Queen & Slims Daniel Kaluuya [is] attached to produce and star.

Fadugbas debut novel was alsorecentlyshortlisted for the Waterstones Childrens Book Prizein the Older Readers category in addition to being longlisted for the 2022 Branford Boase Award which is given annually to the author of an outstanding debut novel for children.

One review attributed thenovelsunusual credibility to the fact that Fadugba is a real-lifephysicistand has based his ideas about time travel on real science, including Einsteins theories(even if you dont grasp it at all). Fadugba wrote the novel after many conversations about with people who would ask him to explain quantum physics. Theyd always be super fascinated and wanted me to recommend a book, but I couldnt find one that I could put my hand on my heart and say: Youll dig this, he toldThe Guardian.

Fadugba, 35, who splits time between the UK and the US, sat down with ESSENCE to discuss his inspiration for writing the book, his career path and meteoric rise to fame, as well as his upcoming projects.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

ESSENCE: What inspired you to writeThe Upper World?

Its a complicated one because it has a few different angles. I went to university, and I ended up doing quantum physics, quantum computing, specifically and I thought I was going to be an academic physicist at that point. I published an article at PRL, which is the same publication that Einstein published a lot of his stuff in, so that was kind of like the peak of my career. I was looking for whats next, but the academic route just felt a little bit abstract.

As a Black African boy in the UK, there are lot more serious problems faced by people than partial differential equations. So, I decided, let me go into working world and see what impact I can have, and I went into business, I did solar energy. But it just wasnt quite cutting it. I felt like I hadnt found my voice and didnt have a platform. I started digging into things that excited me when I was younger, and I rediscovered my love for physics, and especially about time travel. In many ways the genesis of the book was after reading pretty much 100 books on relativity to thinking, how do I explain this in a way that 16-year-old me would have not only understood it, but also have a reason to give a st.

Thats why I ended up putting it into a narrative, because people like stories, thats how we learn things. Look at the book of Genesis, thats a story about nature. Its a story about physics in many ways and how the universe came to be, it told a story because thats how we absorb things, and I think the other side of my motivation was because of the actual story part, the specific characters I chose, the location, the theme I explored. Again, I think for me it was about writing the kind of book that teenage me would have fked with basically. A big part of that was, I dont want to lecture the kids. How do I meet young Black boys where theyre at and then give them a story that combines philosophy, physics, real-life st and elevate the conversation and never at any point underestimate their curiosity?

ESSENCE: How many drafts were there? How long, and what was the process like?

I would say that theres only four words that matter in your first draft: good enough and the end. When I started writing, I assumed that the world consisted of people were born good writers and people who were essentially not so good, and I thought I was in the second category. I had this moment, and I think it was partly from speaking with a couple of people who said, Oh, no everybody starts off rubbish, and then you practice and then you end up good. So I accepted that I was a rubbish writer and as long as I made improvement every day and I came to the page every day, I was gonna get a little bit better every day. It actually kind of worked, I mean, if you see the difference between different drafts, youd be amazed honestly. It came along, and I think there was something about that sort of amateur mindset where I was a nobody. I didnt have the weight of being a somebody, with the expectations of being a good writer. I was in a writing group with a bunch of people who were much better writers than me, and I found that most of them struggled to write a lot because they get to the end of just a couple of sentences or a chapter, or a paragraph and they will decide that its not good enough, there was that perfectionist kind of thing that made them just keep revising the first paragraph. Whereas I knew that my paragraphs were rubbish, so I just finished the draft and then went back and started again.

It took two and a half years from first words to pressing send to publishers. I think thats probably another thing that I did right in the first the first go-round when I was writing the first book, because I didnt have too much of an ego back then, so I just told people, Hey, Im not a writer, just read this. What do you think? I gave it to a lot of people, my wife read pretty much all eight drafts, whatever I produced. I probably sent it to like 10 other people, just friends, and I think the key thing for me was basically making it safe for them to tell me that my baby was ugly. Instead of just saying What do you think, which they probably would have said Its great, I asked, Did you care about the character? At what page were you hooked? What questions do you have in your mind? Does it make sense? Just basically digging for a no, rather than digging for a yes.

ESSENCE:The Upper Worldis being adapted by Netflixhow did that happen?

This all happened during June of 2020. The book went out to publishers, and out of nowhere, theres like essentially a bidding war, which was fking mental to be honest. Im just doing all these Zoom calls, with different publishers, and then maybe two weeks later the book leaked to Hollywood, I dont even know what that means. It leaked to a bunch of film studios, both in the UK and the US. And so, literally two, three weeks after the publishing thing closed, I was having calls with a bunch of the big studios and production houses. Then, Netflix came along, Daniel Kaluuyas agent got a hold of the script and then he read itI think pretty much in a dayand he said Yeah, Im keen to be involved. Its so sick, it just came together perfectly to be honest.

ESSENCE: You mentioned that you hoped for this book to be something that your teenage self would have wanted to read. Are there any other things that you hope the legacy of your book to be?

Im writing the sequel right now, literally just before I hopped on the call, burning through it. I had so many ideas, but I was surprised by how different my headspace was writing the second one versus the first one. I want the book to be a two-part booka duology. I think one of my inspirations isThe Godfather: Part II. Its a prequel sequel, and we essentially take the events in book one and then we go back in time, and we look at where Esso comes from, which takes us back to Africa, to Benin specifically, and we look at the mythology and the history of that country, and how it interweaves with the upper world. We also go forward, and we pick up from where we left off Rhia. Esso left off in the 2030s where Rhia is now going to uni and is facing a whole new host of challenges, both personally and with upper world and a maniac on the loose, whos trying to kill her and has ambitions on conquering the multiverses himself.

I mean, I think its part of a bigger story. Im really excited for you to have a look at the second book once its out and see, and we can have a discussion then on how it compares. My background, my life has been kind of strewn all over the place, and Ive seen a lot of different environments. One big contrast that I had growing up was going back and forth between Oxford and Peckham and then my parents were in Rwanda. One of the big things is showing people different worlds, just letting people imagine beyond what they see. Theres a practical aspect of that, which is literally showing different environments. In book two, youll definitely get that, in terms of going back to Africa and Rhia going to Cambridge. I think the other aspect of the legacy I hope for by the time Ive wrapped up, is that people who are religious will see just how similar they are to people who are atheists and scientists, and people who are just interested in how the world works, and what storytelling and metaphors mean and have a unified vision. I know thats a very abstract way to describe it. In book one, you saw a glimpse, where I combined physics with a concrete story in Peckham, and in book two I want to take it a bit further and incorporate Africa and religion into that.

I think for me, the biggest joy of writing is just the opportunity it gives me to like find my own joy, and also just share that with other people.

TOPICS: afrofuturism black authors

Read more from the original source:

Femi Fadugba Talks Netflix Grabbing His Debut Novel, Writing And Meeting Black Boys Where They Are - Essence

This years World Chess qualifying tournament brought a new twist: the heart rates of the players were broadcast live, with the help of AI software, so viewers could (supposedly) gain insight into the players emotions during a match. But can emotions be detected from mere heartbeats? When your own heart pounds wildly in your chest like a sledgehammer, does it necessarily mean youre frightened? Angry? Excited? Full of joy? What if youve just finished a strenuous workout or knocked back a bit too much espresso?

When it comes to the question of what your heart rate means, psychologically speaking, the scientifically correct answer is: it depends. Thats because physical signals from within your body have no inherent psychological meaning. A particular heart rate does not indicate any particular emotional state. Its not the case, say, that 100 beats per minute is happiness and 150 beats per minute is anger. The pounding in your chest during instances of both emotions can be physically identical. More specifically, your heart rate may vary just as much among different instances of anger as it does between instances of anger and happiness. Ditto for every spurt of cortisol, every trickle of dopamine, and every other electrical or chemical change in your body. What differs is the meaning that your brain makes of the physical signals in a particular context.

The same is true of physical signals from the outside world. When a tree falls in the forest and slams into the ground but no one is present, it does not make a sound. It does produce a change in air pressure. That change becomes meaningful to you as a sound only when it reaches sensory surfaces inside your ear (your cochlea), producing a different physical signal that travels to your brain, where it meets an ensemble of other signals that represent your knowledge of falling trees and what they sound like. You dont hear with your ears; you hear with your brain. If that same change in air pressure encounters your rib cage rather than your cochlea, you may feel a thudding in your chest rather than hear a sound.

Light waves similarly exist in the physical world, whether or not a human is present. But color is a feature constructed as your brain weaves those signals together with others of its own creation. So a statement like, The rose is red, is more precisely stated as, I experience the wavelengths of light reflecting from the rose as red. The redness isnt in the rose. The light waves detected by the sensory surface in your eye (your retina) modulate signals along the optic nerve that encounter other signals in your brain that reassemble past experiences and give those incoming signals psychological meaning and voila, you experience the rose as scarlet, ruby, or some other variety of red.

Your brain constantly runs a model of your body as it moves through the world. You come to know that world only through your cochlea, retina, and the other sensory surfaces of your body. Their signals, along with those streaming from within your body, continuously confirm or correct the ongoing signals in your brain. The implication is a bit startling: You cannot experience the world, or even your own body, objectively. Your experience is always from a particular perspective, and no perspective is universal.

Your brains internal model is formed from ensembles of sensory signals from your past, sourced from the body it is attached to, the world that surrounded it, and the other people who curated and inhabited that world. Their words and actions wired your brain with the concepts of your culture, empowering your brain to see red in a rose, hear trees fall, and understand your racing heart as joy in one situation and sorrow in another.

Subscribe for a weekly email with ideas that inspire a life well-lived.

This idea, called relational meaning, is familiar in quantum physics. As Carlo Rovelli beautifully explains in his latest book Helgoland, nature is not filled with permanent objects but with relations between quantities. When an electron is not interacting with anything, it has no physical properties. An electron only has a position or velocity relative to something else. The same is true for signals that arrive at the sensory surfaces of your body, whether the signals originate within your body or outside it. They become psychologically meaningful only in relation to the electrical and chemical activity in your brain a brain that continually creates a culturally-infused internal model of your body as it moves through the world.

Some experiences, like imagining the future and reliving events from the past, are constructed completely by the signals within your brain. Even some sensations are entirely your brains constructions. An example is the feeling of wetness. Your skin has no sensors for moisture, so how is it that you feel wet when you take a swim or get caught in the rain? Your brain constructs this sensation by combining physical signals from sensory surfaces for temperature and touch, and entwining them with other signals that reassemble your knowledge of what wetness feels like.

Everything you see, hear, smell, or taste; every touch you feel; and every action you take arises from a complex web of interwoven signals, and some of the most important signals are found only in your brain. Your brain does not detect features in the world and body; it constructs features to create meaning. Some constructed features are closer in detail to raw sensory data, such as lines and edges and color. Scientists call them physical features. Mental features are more abstract. When you appreciate a beautiful painting, the beauty is not in the painting; its created in your brain. When you eat a delicious dinner, the deliciousness is not in the meal but constructed in your head. The same goes for the last jerk who cut you off in traffic: You did not detect the drivers jerkiness; your brain constructed it as an ensemble of signals.

Relational meaning also holds a key to understanding how emotions work. If you watch a World Chess match and see a player scowl, it may seem that you are detecting anger in their face, but really you are experiencing that chess player as angry. That experience is constructed in your brain by giving meaning to sensory signals that have no objective emotional meaning of their own. Pursed lips, flushing skin, and of course, a rapid heart rate are not inherently emotional. These physical signals take on emotional meaning only in relation to other signals, some of which are your past experiences that have been wired into your brain by other people in your culture. In this complex web of context, a grandmasters scowl might mean anger (about 30% of the time, studies show), but the same scowl can also mean that they are concentrating hard or even that they have bad gas.

Magnus Carlsen. (Credit: Dean Mouhtaropoulos / Getty Images)

If you find some of these ideas unintuitive, Im right there with you. Relational meaning the idea that your experience of the world says as much about you as it does about the world is not extreme relativism. It is a realism that differs from the usual dichotomy drawn between materialism (reality exists in the world and you are just a spectator) and idealism (reality exists only in your head). It is an acknowledgment that the reality you inhabit is partly created by you. You are an architect of your own experience. Meaning is not infinitely malleable, but its much more malleable than people may think.

So, what does all this mean for everyday life? If physical signals from your body and the world only become meaningful to you in relation to signals created in your brain, this means you have a bit more responsibility than you might realize for how you experience and act in the world. For the most part, meaning-making is automatic and outside your awareness. When you were a child, other people curated the environment that wired experiences into your brain, seeding your brains internal model. Youre not responsible for this early wiring or the meanings it engenders, of course, but as an adult, you have the capacity to challenge those meanings and even change them. That is because your brain is always tweaking its internal model, creating the opportunity for new meanings with every new ensemble of signals it encounters.

To influence your internal model, you can effortfully seek out new meanings. You can expose yourself to people who think and act differently than you do, even if its uncomfortable (and it will be). The new experiences that you cultivate will manifest as signals in your brain and become raw material for your future experiences. In this way, you have some choice in how your brain gives meaning to a racing heart, whether its a chess champions or your own.

You dont have unlimited choice in this regard, but everyone has a bit more choice than they might realize. By embracing this responsibility, you grant yourself more agency in how you automatically make meaning and therefore over your reality and your life.

More:

Are you a spectator to reality? Or are you its creator? - Big Think

This address was given by President Christopher L. Eisgruber during the Class of 2020's Commencement ceremony in Princeton Stadium on Wednesday, May 18, 2022.

Remarks as delivered

As you know from prior experience, Princeton tradition allows the University president to say a few words to each graduating class at its Commencement exercises. Giving that address is a special privilege, and one that I cherish.

That privilege today feels even more extraordinary than usual, since this ceremony is unprecedented in the Universitys history. No class since World War II has had to wait two years for an in-person graduation. No previous class has shown your unique combination of persistence, achievement, and patience. The undergraduate and graduate alumni who make up the Great Class of 2020 will always have a special place in Princetons history.

This graduation speech is also different from others that I have given for another reason, which is that I have already had an opportunity to address the Class of 2020 at your virtual ceremony two years ago. I am honored, but also slightly daunted, by the opportunity to speak to you for a second time. What wisdom can I hope to offer to a class that has already heard one round of graduation speeches?

After considering this challenge for some time, I decided to share with you a quirky Princeton story that may perhaps, with some imagination, provide insight into what you have experienced over the last two years, and what you will experience in the years ahead.

The story begins in 1935, when Albert Einstein and two post-doctoral researchers named Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published one of the most famous papers in the history of physics. All three were appointed at the Institute for Advanced Study, temporarily housed in what is now Jones Hall on the Princeton campus.

The paper was about quantum science, and it discussed a phenomenon that Einstein would later mock as spooky action at a distance. Quantum mechanics, the authors pointed out, rests on an other-worldly idea called superposition, which says that physical systems can be in a combination of two inconsistent states at once. A particle can be, for example, in a combination of an up state and a down stateit is both and neither, but if someone observes it, it immediately becomes either up or down, but not both.

In their paper, Einstein and his co-authors argued that these strange concepts led to the bizarre conclusion that observing a particle in one placefor example, right here on the Commencement stagecould instantly affect the state of another particle somewhere elsefor example, at the opposite end of this stadium, or in Hawaii, or, for that matter, out by some distant star.

Podolsky annoyed Einstein by leaking the paper to theNew York Times.Lots of professors, I can assure you, would love to leak their papers to theNew York Times. In general, theTimesdoes not care. But a paper by Einstein was a different matter.

TheTimesran the story on page 11 under the headline Einstein Attacks Quantum Theory. Podolsky told theTimesthat Einstein and his co-authors had proven that, even if quantum mechanics made plenty of correct predictions, its consequences were too strange to provide a complete description of the physical world.

Everything in that bold and controversial 1935 paper has proven correctexcept for its conclusion. What Einstein derided as spooky action at a distance, and what scientists now call quantum entanglement, is a feature of the physical worldone with increasingly important practical applications. When people talk about quantum computing, for example, they are talking about devices that use spooky action at a distance.

There is something marvelous in the fact that one of the most exciting and practically important fields of 21stcentury science depends on something that Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientist of the 20thcentury, got emphatically wrong in one of his most famous papers.

That insight should give us all a dose of humility when we are tempted to declare, as Einstein did, that some novel idea is too bizarre to be true. And, conversely, we can perhaps all draw inspiration from the fact that new and genuinely strange ideas, beyond the ken of the greatest thinkers the world has known, sometimes contain profound truths.

Quantum mechanical properties apply at the microscopic level; we do not see them in our ordinary lives. But I sometimes thinkand here is where I need to call upon your imaginationsthat the strange metaphysics of the quantum world can provide an alternative perspective on the paradoxes and ambiguities that color our lives.

Take, for example, the idea of superposition, which says that a physical system can be a combination of two inconsistent states: up and down at the same time. Could one say that about what you have experienced over the past two years? In your senior spring, you were both at Princeton and not at Princeton. You graduated, and yet you did not. You were together, still Princetons Great Class of 2020, and yet you were apart.

And though it does not technically count as what Einstein would call spooky action at a distance, were you not throughout this period, are you not now, sublimely entangled with one another and with Princeton? You dispersed throughout the country and the world, yet you were also connected by shared challenges, memories, and your identity as a class. What happened here, and what happened to each of you, affected all of you.

Though I recognize that not every member of your class can be with us today, I hope that this day and this week nevertheless help to resolve the pandemics strange superposition of states so that we can now say emphatically: yes, the Great Class of 2020 is not only connected but together! Yes, the Great Class of 2020 has graduated in every sense of the word! And yes, the Great Class of 2020 is here, observed and observable, roaring like Tigers on this campus once again!

I hope, too, that you remain entangled with Princeton and with each other. All Princeton classes are, in my thoroughly biased opinion, great classes, but they are also distinct. They acquire their own identities and personalities. Some people speculate that the events of the last two years might weaken the bonds that tie you together. I predict the opposite: that your resilience and your creativity will make your connections to each other and your entanglement with Old Nassau ever stronger.

We shall see. For now, just let me say, on behalf of the faculty and administration, we are so glad that you are here! Welcome back! And to everyone in the Great Class of 2020, undergraduate and graduate alumni, I say congratulations, and I hope to see you back on this campus many times in the years to come. 2020: Congratulations!

Originally posted here:

Class of 2020 On-Campus Commencement Address by President Eisgruber 'Entangled with Princeton' - Princeton University

Photo Submitted

Art Hobson

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. A paper recently published in the journal Quantum Engineering proposed a solution to a long-standing problem in quantum physics, popularly known as the Schrdinger's Cat problem. The paper, "Entanglement and the Measurement Problem," was authored by emeritus professor of physics, Art Hobson.

Schrdinger's Cat is a long-standing thought experiment used to explain the seemingly paradoxical state of quantum superposition, in which, for example, an atom is said to be both decaying and not decaying at the same time. The thought experiment begins when one imagines surrounding this atom with a measurement device that can detect an emitted particle.The device could, for instance, be a Geiger counter that will click when the particle hits it.According to quantum physics, this changes things. The atom is no longer said to be in a superposition of decaying and not decaying, but "entangled" with the detector.This entanglement appears to describe a detector that is both clicked and not clicked.

That said, physicists know that a large object like a Geiger counter cannot be in a superposition of clicking and not clicking. Erwin Schrdinger, one of the inventors of quantum physics, dramatized this by imagining that the detector is connected with a cat in such a way that, when the detector clicks, the cat dies. The cat effectively becomes the detector.Quantum physics then seems to imply that the atom plus cat entanglement describes a cat that is both dead and alive an example of the long-standing "measurement problem."

Hobson's paper examines entanglement by studying experiments conducted in 1990 at the purely microscopic level.In these experiments, two photons are entangled with each other. This entangled situation is identical mathematically with the atom plus detector entanglement, but the entirely microscopic nature of the two-photon system allows experimenters to manipulate the system in ways that would be impossible if one of the objects were a detector.

The implication of this, Hobson argues, is that entanglement is not what was previously thought, which was that the Schrdinger's cat entanglement predicted an undecayed nucleus and a live cat that are superposed with a decayed nucleus and a dead cat.He argues the experiments show that the theory predicts an undecayed nucleus that is correlated with a live cat, and a decayed nucleus that is correlated with a dead cat. Thus, the entangled state says the following:the nucleus is undecayed whenever the cat is alive, and the nucleus is decayed whenever the cat is dead. Hobson concludes that this solves the measurement problem.

Hobson retired in 1999 after 35 years of teaching. He has spent most of his time since retirement studying the foundations of quantum physics. He is a fellow of the American Physics Society. In 2006, he received the Robert A. Millikan Award, given by the American Association of Physics Teachers to members who have made notable and creative contributions to the teaching of physics. Since retirement, he has authored several research papers and a book on the foundations of quantum physics.

Excerpt from:

Solution to Schrdinger's Cat Problem Proposed in New Paper - University of Arkansas Newswire

Every time you take a step, space itself glows with a soft warmth.

Called the FullingDaviesUnruh effect (or sometimes just Unruh effect if you're pushed for time), this eerie glow of radiation emerging from the vacuum is akin to the mysterious Hawking radiation that's thought to surround black holes.

Only in this case, it's the product of acceleration rather than gravity.

Can't feel it? There's a good reason for that. You'd need to move at an impossible speed to sense even the weakest of Unruh rays.

For now, the effect remains a purely theoretical phenomenon, far beyond our ability to measure. But that could soon change, following a discovery by researchers from the University of Waterloo in Canada and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

By going back to basics, they've demonstrated there could be a way to stimulate the Unruh effect so it can be studied directly under less extreme conditions.

In an unexpected twist, they might also have uncovered the secret to turning matter invisible.

The real prize, however, would be breaking new grounds in experiments that aim to unite two powerful but incompatible theories in physics one that describes how particles behave, the other covering the curving of space and time.

"The theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics are currently still somewhat at odds, but there has to be a unifying theory that describes how things function in the Universe," says mathematician Achim Kempf from the University of Waterloo.

"We've been looking for a way to unite these two big theories, and this work is helping to move us closer by opening up opportunities for testing new theories against experiments."

The Unruh effect sits right on the boundary of quantum laws and general relativity.

According to quantum physics, an atom sitting all alone in a vacuum would need to wait for an incoming photon to ripple through the electromagnetic field and give its electrons a jiggle before it could consider itself illuminated.

If we consider relativity, there is a way to cheat. Simply by accelerating, an atom could experience the smallest of wobbles in the surrounding electromagnetic field as low-energy photons, transformed by a kind of Doppler effect.

This interaction between the relative experience of waves in a quantum field and the jiggle of an atom's electrons relies on a shared timing in their frequencies. Any quantum effects that don't rely on timing are usually ignored, given on paper they tend to balance out in the long run.

Together with colleagues Vivishek Sudhir and Barbara Soda, Kempf showed that when an atom is accelerated, these usually negligible conditions become far more significant, and can actually take over as dominant effects.

By tickling an atom in just the right way, such as by using a powerful laser, they showed it's possible to make use of these alternative interactions to make moving atoms experience the Unruh effect without the need for large accelerations.

As a bonus, the team also found that given the right trajectory, an accelerating atom might turn transparent to incoming light, effectively suppressing its ability to absorb or emit certain photons.

Sci-fi applications aside, by identifying ways to influence an accelerating atom's ability to engage with ripples in a vacuum, it's possible we might be able to come up with new ways to find where quantum physics and general relativity give way to a new theoretical framework.

"For over 40 years, experiments have been hindered by an inability to explore the interface of quantum mechanics and gravity," says Sudhir, a physicist from MIT.

"We have here a viable option to explore this interface in a laboratory setting. If we can figure out some of these big questions, it could change everything."

This research was published in Physical Review Letters.

Go here to see the original:

Physicists Found a Way to Trigger The Strange Glow of Warp Speed Acceleration - ScienceAlert

A recent series of precise measurements of already known, standard particles and processes have threatened to shake up physics.

As a physicist working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, one of the most frequent questions I am asked is When are you going to find something? Resisting the temptation to sarcastically reply Aside from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole slew of new composite particles? I realize that the reason the question is posed so frequently is down to how we have depicted progress in particle physics to the wider world.

We often talk about progress in terms of discovering new particles, and this is frequently true. Studying a new, very heavy particle helps us see underlying physical processes often without annoying background noise. That makes it easy to explain the value of the discovery to the general public and politicians.

Recently, however, a series of precise measurements of ordinary already known, standard particles and processes have threatened to shake up physics. And with the LHC getting ready to run at higher energy and intensity than ever before, it is time to start discussing the implications widely.

The storage-ring magnet for the Muon G-2 experiment at Fermilab. Credit: Reidar Hahn, Fermilab

In truth, particle physics has always proceeded in two ways, of which new particles is one. The other is by making very precise measurements that test the predictions of theories and look for deviations from what is expected.

The early evidence for Einsteins theory of general relativity, for example, came from discovering small deviations in the apparent positions of stars and from the motion of Mercury in its orbit.

Particles obey a counter-intuitive but hugely successful theory called quantum mechanics. This theory shows that particles far too massive to be made directly in a lab collision can still influence what other particles do (through something called quantum fluctuations.) Measurements of such effects are very complex, however, and much harder to explain to the public.

But recent results hinting at unexplained new physics beyond the standard model are of this second type. Detailed studies from the LHCb experiment found that a particle known as a beauty quark (quarks make up the protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus) decays (falls apart) into an electron much more often than into a muon the electrons heavier, but otherwise identical, sibling. According to the standard model, this shouldnt happen hinting that new particles or even forces of nature may influence the process.

The LHCb experiment at CERN. Credit: CERN

Intriguingly, though, measurements of similar processes involving top quarks from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC show this decay does happen at equal rates for electrons and muons.

Meanwhile, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab in the US has recently made very precise studies of how muons wobble as their spin (a quantum property) interacts with surrounding magnetic fields. It found a small but significant deviation from some theoretical predictions again suggesting that unknown forces or particles may be at work.

The latest surprising result is a measurement of the mass of a fundamental particle called the W boson, which carries the weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay. After many years of data taking and analysis, the experiment, also at Fermilab, suggests it is significantly heavier than theory predicts deviating by an amount that would not happen by chance in more than a million million experiments. Again, it may be that yet undiscovered particles are adding to its mass.

Interestingly, however, this also disagrees with some lower-precision measurements from the LHC (presented in this study and this one).

While we are not absolutely certain these effects require a novel explanation, the evidence seems to be growing that some new physics is needed.

Of course, there will be almost as many new mechanisms proposed to explain these observations as there are theorists. Many will look to various forms of supersymmetry. This is the idea that there are twice as many fundamental particles in the standard model than we thought, with each particle having a super partner. These may involve additional Higgs bosons (associated with the field that gives fundamental particles their mass).

Others will go beyond this, invoking less recently fashionable ideas such as technicolor, which would imply that there are additional forces of nature (in addition to gravity, electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces), and might mean that the Higgs boson is in fact a composite object made of other particles. Only experiments will reveal the truth of the matter which is good news for experimentalists.

The experimental teams behind the new findings are all well respected and have worked on the problems for a long time. That said, it is no disrespect to them to note that these measurements are extremely difficult to make. Whats more, predictions of the standard model usually require calculations where approximations have to be made. This means different theorists can predict slightly different masses and rates of decay depending on the assumptions and level of approximation made. So, it may be that when we do more accurate calculations, some of the new findings will fit with the standard model.

Equally, it may be the researchers are using subtly different interpretations and so finding inconsistent results. Comparing two experimental results requires careful checking that the same level of approximation has been used in both cases.

These are both examples of sources of systematic uncertainty, and while all concerned do their best to quantify them, there can be unforeseen complications that under- or over-estimate them.

None of this makes the current results any less interesting or important. What the results illustrate is that there are multiple pathways to a deeper understanding of the new physics, and they all need to be explored.

With the restart of the LHC, there are still prospects of new particles being made through rarer processes or found hidden under backgrounds that we have yet to unearth.

Written by Roger Jones, Professor of Physics, Head of Department, Lancaster University.

This article was first published in The Conversation.

Read the original:

The Standard Model of Particle Physics May Be Broken A Physicist at the Large Hadron Collider Explains - SciTechDaily

The annals of science journalism werent always as inclusive as they could have been. SoPopSciis working to correct the record withIn Hindsight, a series profiling some of the figures whose contributions we missed. Read their stories and explore the rest of our 150th anniversary coveragehere.

In quantum physics, theres a law known as the conservation of parity, which is based on the notion that nature adheres to the ideal of symmetry. In a mirror-image of our world, it posits, the laws of physics would function the same waydespite everything being flipped. Since the early 1900s, experimental evidence suggested that this was true: To the pull of gravity or the draw of the electromagnetic force, the difference between left and right hardly mattered. So, physicists quite reasonably assumed that parity was a fundamental principle in the universe.

But in the 1950s, an experimental physicist at Columbia University named Chien-Shiung Wu devised an experiment that challengedand defiedthat law. Physics, she proved, to the astonishment of the field, did not always adhere to parity. Throughout her life, in fact, this woman demonstrated that parity was not the default; she flouted gender and racial barriers and eventually came to be known as the first lady of physics.

Wu was born in 1912 in a small fishing town north of Shanghai to parents who supported education for women. She displayed an extraordinary talent for physics as a college student in China. At the urging of Jing-Wei Gu, a female professor, she set her sights on earning a Ph.D. in the United States. In 1936, she arrived by ship in San Francisco and enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley, where she studied the nuclear fission of uranium.

She was 24 years old, in a new country where she wasnt fluent in the language and where the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited Chinese workers from immigrating, was in full effect. It was preceded by the Page Act, which effectively banned the immigration of Chinese women based on the assumption that they intended to be sex workers. Wu was only able to enter the US because she was a student, but she was still ineligible for citizenship. There must have been so much tension and conflict there, says Leslie Hayes, vice president for education at the New York Historical Society. Im going to this place where I wont be welcome, but if I dont go, I wont be able to fulfill my goals and dreams.

After earning her Ph.D. in 1940, she married another Chinese-American physicist, and the couple moved to the East Coast in a long-shot search for tenure-track work. Major research institutes at the time were generally unwilling to hire women, people of color, or Jewish people, and the uptick in anti-Asian sentiment during World War II certainly didnt help. She was discriminated against as an Asian, but more so as a woman, Tsai-Chien Chiang wrote in his biography of Wu.

Nevertheless, shortly after a teaching stint at a womens college, she became the first female faculty member in Princeton Universitys physics department. That job was short lived; in 1944, Columbia University recruited her to work on the Manhattan Project, where she would advise a stumped Enrico Fermi on how to sustain a nuclear chain reaction.

Wu returned to research at Columbia after the war. Her reputation for brilliance and meticulousness grew in 1949 when she became the first to design an experiment that proved Fermis theory of beta decay, a type of radioactive decay in which a neutron spontaneously breaks down into a proton and a high-speed electron (a.k.a., a beta particle). In 1956, two theoretical physicists, Tsung-Dao Lee of Columbia and Chen Ning Yang of Princeton, sought Wus expertise in answering a provocative question: Is parity really conserved across the universe?

The law had been called into question by a problem known as theta-tau puzzle, a recently discovered paradox in particle physics. Theta and tau were two subatomic particles that were exactly the same in every respectexcept that one decayed into two smaller particles, and the other into three. This asymmetry confounded the physics community. Yang and Lee dove deep into the literature to see if anyone had ever actually proven that the nucleus of a particle always behaved symmetrically. As they found out, nobody had. So Wu, who they consulted during the process of writing their theoretical paper, got to work designing an experiment that would prove that it didnt.

Over the next few months, the men were in near constant communication with Wu. The monumental experiment that she designed and carried out rang the death knell for the concept of parity conservation in weak interactions, wrote nuclear physicist Noemie Benczer-Koller in her biography of Wu. Wus findings sparked such a sensation that they led to a Nobel Prize in physicsbut only for Yang and Lee. Wus groundbreaking work in proving the theory they advanced was ignored.

Though her genius allowed her to work in the same spaces as theoretical scientists, says Hayes, once there, she was not treated as a peer. But despite how frequently she experienced discrimination throughout her careerduring which she won every award in the field except the NobelWu didnt stop researching until her retirement in 1981.

Throughout her life, she was an outspoken advocate for the advancement of female physicistscampaigning, for the rest of her life, for the establishment of parity where it actually counted. Why didnt we encourage more women to go into science? she asked the crowd at an MIT symposium in 1964. I wonder whether the tiny atoms and nuclei, or the mathematical symbols, or the DNA molecules, have any preference for either masculine or feminine treatment.

Read more:

Chien-Shiung Wus work defied the laws of physics - Popular Science