Category Archives: Quantum Physics
Quantum Superposition Evidenced by Measuring Interaction of Light with Vibration – AZoQuantum
Written by AZoQuantumDec 21 2020
An exclusively counterintuitive aspect of quantum mechanics is the fact that a single event can exist in a state of superpositionoccurring both here and there, or both today and tomorrow.
It is challenging to create such superpositions because they are destroyed if any type of information related to the time and place of the event leaks into the surroundingand even if nobody really records this information. However, when superpositions do happen, they result in observations that are highly distinct from that of classical physics, which questions down to the very understanding of time and space.
Researchers from EPFL, MITand CEA Saclay demonstrate a state of vibration that occurs at two different times concurrently. They have proven this quantum superposition by quantifying the strongest family of quantum correlations between light beams that tend to interact with the vibration. The findings have been published in Science Advances.
The team triggered a particular pattern of vibration within a diamond crystal by using a very short laser pulse. Each pair of neighboring atoms oscillated similar to two masses connected by a spring, where the oscillation was found to be synchronous over the entire illuminated region. Energy is conserved during this process by the emission of light of a new color and shifting toward the red end of the spectrum.
But this classical picture is not consistent with the experiments. Rather, both vibration and light should be characterized as particles, or quantalight energy is quantized into discrete photons, whereas vibrational energy is quantized into discrete phonons (which are named after the ancient Greek 'photo = light'and 'phono = sound').
The process illustrated above should hence be regarded as the fission of an incoming photon from the laser into a pair of photon and phononsimilar to nuclear fission of an atom into two smaller pieces.
However, this is not the only defect of classical physics. According to quantum mechanics, it is possible for particles to occur in a superposition state, such as the famous Schrdinger cat that is alive and dead simultaneously.
Much more counterintuitive is the fact that two particles can be entangled, thereby losing their individuality. The only information that can be gathered in relation to them is linked to their common correlations.
Since both particles are characterized by a common state or the wavefunction, these correlations are more robust compared to what is viable in classical physics. This can be demonstrated by carrying out suitable measurements on the two particles. In case a classical limit is violated by the results, then it can be said that they were entangled.
As part of the new study, researchers from EPFL were able to entangle the photon and the phonon (i.e. light and vibration) generated during the fission of an incoming laser photon within the crystal.
They achieved this by designing an experiment where the photon-phonon pair could be produced at two different instants. As per classical physics, it would lead to a condition where the pair is produced at time t1 with 50% probability, or later at time t2 with 50% probability.
However, here arrives the 'trick'played by the team to produce an entangled state. They performed an accurate arrangement of the experiment to ensure that not even the faintest trace of the light-vibration pair creation time (t1 vs t2) was left out in the universe.
Simply put, information related to t1 and t2 was erased. Then, quantum mechanics predicts whether the phonon-photon pair turns entangled and occurs in a superposition of time t1 and t2. The prediction was validated by the measurements, which produced results incompatible with the classical probabilistic theory.
The new study demonstrates entanglement between vibration and light in a crystal that can be held in the finger of a person during the experiment, thus forming a bridge between the daily experience and the enchanting world of quantum mechanics.
Quantum technologies are heralded as the next technological revolution in computing, communication, sensing, stated Christophe Galland, one of the main authors of the study, who is the head of the Laboratory for Quantum and Nano-Optics at EPFL.
They are currently being developed by top universities and large companies worldwide, but the challenge is daunting. Such technologies rely on very fragile quantum effects surviving only at extremely cold temperatures or under high vacuum. Our study demonstrates that even a common material at ambient conditions can sustain the delicate quantum properties required for quantum technologies.
Christophe Galland, Head, Laboratory for Quantum and Nano-Optics, EPFL
There is a price to pay, though: the quantum correlations sustained by atomic vibrations in the crystal are lost after only 4 picosecondsi.e., 0.000000000004 of a second! This short time scale is, however, also an opportunity for developing ultrafast quantum technologies. But much research lies ahead to transform our experiment into a useful devicea job for future quantum engineers, added Galland.
1. A laser generates a very short pulse of light. 2. A fraction of this pulse is sent to a nonlinear device to change its color. 3. The two laser pulses overlap on the same path again, creating a write & read pair of pulses. 4. Each pair is split into a short and a long path, 5. yielding an early and a late time slot, overlapping once again. 6. Inside the diamond, during the early time slot, one photon from the write pulse may generate a vibration, while one photon from the read pulse converts the vibration back into light. 7. The same sequence may also happen during the late slot. But in this experiment, the scientists made sure that only one vibration is excited in total (in both early and late time slots). 8. By overlapping the photons in time again it becomes impossible to discriminate the early vs. late moment of the vibration. The vibration is now in a quantum superposition of early and late time. 9. In the detection apparatus, write and read photons are separated according to their different colors, and analyzed with single-photon counters to reveal their entanglement. Video Credit: Santiago Tarrago Velez (EPFL).
Velez, S. T., et al. (2020) Bell correlations between light and vibration at ambient conditions. Science Advances. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb0260.
Source: https://www.epfl.ch/en/
View post:
Quantum Superposition Evidenced by Measuring Interaction of Light with Vibration - AZoQuantum
Superpositions The Cosmic Weirdness of Quantum Mechanics – The Daily Galaxy –Great Discoveries Channel
Posted on Dec 22, 2020 in Physics, quantum physics, Science
If quantum mechanics hasnt profoundly shocked you , you havent understood it yet, said physicist Niels Bohr. The more we delve into the cosmic weirdness of quantum mechanics the stranger the world becomes. A state of quantum superposition is being in more than one place, or more than one state, at the same time a single event can be happening both here and there, or both today and tomorrow. Caltechs great theoretical physicist, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, was fond of noting that the paradox of quantum mechanics is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ought to be.
Questions Our Very Understanding of Space and Time
Quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of subatomic particles, challenges common sense. Waves behave like particles; particles behave like waves. Its like sneaking a look at Gods cards, said the Italian physicist Giancarlo Ghirardi.
Superpositions, however, are hard to create say scientists from EPFL, MIT, and CEA Saclay, as they are destroyed if any kind of information about the place and time of the event leaks into the surrounding and even if nobody actually records this information. But when superpositions do occur, they lead to observations that are very different from that of classical physics, questioning down to our very understanding of space and time.
New research from the international team using a very short laser-pulse to trigger a specific pattern of vibration inside a diamond crystal demonstrates a state of vibration that exists simultaneously at two different times, and evidence this quantum superposition by measuring the strongest class of quantum correlations between light beams that interact with the vibration.
The Experiment Classical vs Quantum
In their experiment, they reported that each pair of neighboring atoms oscillated like two masses linked by a spring, and this oscillation was synchronous across the entire illuminated region. To conserve energy during this process, a light of a new color is emitted, shifted toward the red of the spectrum.
This classical picture, however, is inconsistent with the experiments. Instead, both light and vibration should be described as particles, or quanta: light energy is quantized into discrete photons while vibrational energy is quantized into discrete phonons (named after the ancient Greek photo = light and phono = sound).
The process described above reports the Ecole Polytechniqe Federale de Lausanne, should therefore be seen as the fission of an incoming photon from the laser into a pair of photon and phonon akin to nuclear fission of an atom into two smaller pieces. But it is not the only shortcoming of classical physics. In quantum mechanics, particles can exist in a superposition state, like the famous Schrdinger cat being alive and dead at the same time.
Even More Counterintuitive
Even more counterintuitive supporting Feynmans observation of a quantum reality: two particles can become entangled, losing their individuality. The only information that can be collected about them concerns their common correlations. Because both particles are described by a common state (the wavefunction), these correlations are stronger than what is possible in classical physics. It can be demonstrated by performing appropriate measurements on the two particles. If the results violate a classical limit, one can be sure they were entangled.
Entangled Light and Vibration
In the new study, EPFL researchers managed to entangle the photon and the phonon (i.e., light and vibration) produced in the fission of an incoming laser photon inside the crystal. To do so, the scientists designed an experiment in which the photon-phonon pair could be created at two different instants. Classically, it would result in a situation where the pair is created at time t1 with 50% probability, or at a later time t2 with 50% probability.
The Trick Bridges Our Daily Reality and Quantum Mechanics
But here comes the trick played by the researchers to generate an entangled state. By a precise arrangement of the experiment, they ensured that not even the faintest trace of the light-vibration pair creation time (t1 vs. t2) was left in the universe. In other words, they erased information about t1 and t2. Quantum mechanics then predicts that the phonon-photon pair becomes entangled, and exists in a superposition of time t1 and t2. This prediction was beautifully confirmed by the measurements, which yielded results incompatible with the classical probabilistic theory.
By showing entanglement between light and vibration in a crystal that one could hold in their finger during the experiment, the new study creates a bridge between our daily experience and the fascinating realm of quantum mechanics.
Source: Santiago Tarrago Velez, Vivishek Sudhir, Nicolas Sangouard, Christophe Galland. Bell correlations between light and vibration at ambient conditions. Science Advances 18 December 2020, 6: eabb0260.
The Daily Galaxy, Jake Burba, via Ecole Polytechniqe Federale de Lausanne and Science
Image credit: Shutterstock License
Here is the original post:
Here’s Why Quantum Computing Will Not Break Cryptocurrencies – Forbes
Safe Deposit. Symbol of cryptocurrency safety. The man puts a physical bitcoin in small Residential ... [+] Vault. Toned soft focus picture.
Theres a lurking fear in cryptocurrency communities about quantum computing. Could it break cryptocurrencies and the encryption that protects them? How close might that be? Do the headlines around quantum supremacy mean that my private keys are at risk?
The simple answer: no. But lets dive deeper into this phenomenon and really try to understand why this is the case and how quantum computing will interact with cryptocurrencies.
To start off with, lets define quantum computing and the classical computing were all used to, and seeing where the terms compare and contrast with one another. Quantum computing can be roughly placed in the same paradigm as classical pre-1900s physics and modern physics which comprises Einsteins insights on relativity and quantum physics.
Classical computing is the kind of computers weve grown used to, the extensions of Turings theories on computation, the laptops or mobile phones that you carry around with you. Classical computing relies heavily on the manipulation of physical bits the famous 0s and 1s.
Quantum computing relies on qubits, bits that are held in superposition and use quantum principles to complete calculations. The information captured or generated by a quantum system benefits from the ability of qubits to be in more than one physical state at a time (superposition), but there is information decay in capturing the state of the system.
One point that will be immediately relevant to the discussion is that quantum computers are not universally better than classical computers as a result. When people speak about quantum supremacy, including reports from Google GOOG and/or China, they really mean that a quantum computer can do a certain task better than classical computers, perhaps one that is impossible to do in any reasonable timeframe with classical computers.
We can think of this in terms of time scales from a computing perspective there are some, but not all functions, that go from being impossible to accomplish in any meaningful human-level time period to ones that become slow but manageable with a large enough quantum computer.
In a way, you can think of Turing tests and quantum supremacy tests in much the same way. Designed at first to demonstrate the superiority of one system over another (in the case of Turing tests, artificial language generation vs. human language comprehension, in the case of quantum supremacy tests, quantum computing systems vs classical computers), theyve become more gimmick than substance.
A quantum computer has to perform better at some minute and trivial task that might seem impressive but completely useless in much the same way a Turing test of machine-generated English might fool a Ukrainian child with no fluency in the language.
This means that we have to narrow down to a function that quantum computers can be better on that would materially affect cryptocurrencies or the encryption theyre built on in order for quantum supremacy to matter.
One area of specific focus is Shors Algorithm, which can factor large prime numbers down into two smaller ones. This is a very useful property for breaking encryption, since the RSA family of encryption depends on factoring large prime numbers in exactly this manner. Shors Algorithm works in theory with a large enough quantum computer and so its a practical concern that eventually, Shors Algorithm might come into play and among other things, RSA encryption might be broken.
On this front, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has already started gathering proposals for post-quantum cryptography, encryption that would operate and not be broken even with much larger quantum computers than the ones were currently able to build. They estimate that large enough quantum computers to disrupt classical encryption will potentially arrive in the next twenty years.
For cryptocurrencies, a fork in the future that might affect large parts of the chain, but it will be somewhat predictable there is a lot of thought being placed on post-quantum encryption technology. Bitcoin would not be one of the first planks to fall if classical encryption were suddenly broken for a number of reasons. Yet, a soft fork (as opposed to a hard one) might be enough to help move crypto-assets from suddenly insecure keys to secure post-quantum encryption.
Even an efficient implementation of Shors Algorithm may not break some of the cryptography standards used in bitcoin. SHA-256 is theorized to be quantum-resistant.
The most efficient theoretical implementation of a quantum computer to detect a SHA-256 collision is actually less efficient than the theorized classical implementation for breaking the standard. The wallet file in the original Bitcoin client is using SHA-512 (a more secure version than SHA-256) to help encrypt private keys.
Most of the encryption in modern cryptocurrencies are built on elliptic curve cryptography rather than RSA especially in the generation of signatures in bitcoin which requires ECDSA. This is largely due to the fact that elliptic curves are correspondingly harder to crack than RSA (sometimes exponentially so) from classical computers.
Thanks to Moores law and better classical computing, secure RSA key sizes have grown so large so as to be impractical compared to elliptic curve cryptography so most people will opt for elliptic curve cryptography for performance reasons for their systems, which is the case with bitcoin.
However, quantum computers seem to flip this logic on its head: given a large enough quantum computer with enough qubits, you can break elliptic curve cryptography easier than you might break RSA.
Both elliptic curve cryptography are widely used in a bunch of other industries and use cases as well RSA-2048 and higher are standards in the conventional banking system to send encrypted information, for example.
Yet, even with a large enough quantum computer, you would still have to reveal or find somebodys public keys so they could be subject to attack. With cryptocurrency wallet reuse being frowned upon, and a general encouragement of good privacy practices, the likelihood of this attack is already being reduced.
Another area of attack could be Grovers algorithm, which can exponentially speed up mining with a large enough quantum computer though its probable that ASICs, the specialized classical computers mostly used to mine bitcoin now, would be faster compared to the earliest versions of more complete quantum computers.
This poses more of a stronger threat when it comes to the state of cryptocurrencies: the ability to mine quickly in a sudden quantum speedup could lead to destabilization of prices and more importantly control of the chain itself an unexpected quantum speedup could, if hidden, lead to vast centralization of mining and possible 51% attacks. Yet the most likely case is that larger systems of quantum computing will be treated like any kind of hardware, similar to the transition for miners between GPUs, FGPAs and ASICs a slow economic transition to better tooling.
Its conceivable that these avenues of attack and perhaps other more unpredictable ones might emerge, yet post-quantum encryption planning is already in process and through the mechanism of forks, cryptocurrencies can be updated to use post-quantum encryption standards and defend against these weaknesses.
Bitcoin and even other cryptocurrencies and their history are filled with examples of hardware and software changes that had to be made to make the network more secure and performant and good security practices in the present (avoiding wallet reuse) can help prepare for a more uncertain future.
So quantum computers being added to the mix wont suddenly render classical modes of encryption useless or mining trivial quantum supremacy now doesnt mean that your encryption or the security of bitcoin is at risk right at this moment.
The real threat is when quantum computers become many scales larger than they currently are by which point planning for post-quantum encryption, which is already well on the way would come to the fore, and at which point bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can soft fork and use both decentralized governance and dynamism when needed in the face of new existential threats to defeat the threat of quantum supremacy.
Read the original post:
Here's Why Quantum Computing Will Not Break Cryptocurrencies - Forbes
Irish researchers reveal how Santa delivers toys to billions in one night – BreakingNews.ie
Santa Claus is preparing for his journey around the world after being given clearance from the Government for international travel during the pandemic.
Mr Claus is classed as an essential worker and is exempt from Covid-19 quarantine restrictions.
Now, Irish researchers investigating how he delivers billions of presents in the space of one night are advising children to go to bed early, to avoid catching a glimpse of Mr Claus and jeopardising his operation.
Michael Fitzgerald, air traffic controller based in Shannon, said conditions are looking good for a safe journey this evening.
The good news is that the weather forecast for tonight is good, clear skies, dry, he said.
The controllers, as they do every year, will make sure that Santas arrival is well looked after, well make sure that the air space is clear, all the airplanes are out of the way and he can continue on his path for the night.
Mr Fitzgerald said Mr Claus usually arrives in Ireland on the west coast first:Tonight now, just after midnight usually, we would be keeping an eye out for him, and hes usually coming straight in off the west coast deep out over the Atlantic, you see him coming in roughly in the the direction from Iceland.
With Mr Claus set to deliver presents to 2.2 billion children around the world over the next 24 hours, researchers at Trinity have put their heads together to figure out how he does it.
The newest theory, according to Professor John Goold and Dr Mark Mitchison, is that Mr Claus is using quantum mechanics to deliver his gifts.
The researchers say that, in a nutshell,quantum mechanics allows objects, including Santa and his reindeer, to be in many places at the same time.
It is this key ingredient that allows for his extraordinarily efficient delivery on Christmas Eve.
We advise children the world over to go to bed early on Christmas Eve and suggest they dont try to catch a glimpse of him and risk collapsing his merry superposition
There is little doubt now to quantum physicists that Santa is exploiting what we know as macroscopic quantum coherence, which is precisely the same resource used by cutting-edge quantum technologies to outperform technologies based on classical physics, Prof Goold, Assistant Professor in Physics at Trinity said.
Although researchers now believe Mr Claus uses quantum physics to bring gifts to all the children in the world on the same night, they still do not understand exactly how he does it.
When we observe a quantum object, we only ever find it in one place at a time. This tells us that superpositions are very fragile. Just looking at them causes them to collapse, which means the object ends up in just one place and all the other possibilities vanish, Dr Mark Mitchisonsaid.
We are pretty sure that Santa has developed some advanced technology to protect his quantum superposition and stop such a collapse from ruining Christmas.
But just in case we advise children the world over to go to bed earlyon Christmas Eveand suggest they dont try to catch a glimpse of him and risk collapsing his merry superposition!
Read more from the original source:
Irish researchers reveal how Santa delivers toys to billions in one night - BreakingNews.ie
Eight ways Argonne advanced science in 2020 – Newswise
Newswise Throughout2020, Argonne answered fundamental science questions and provided solutions for the world.
Throughout the year, scientists and engineers from the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory conducted groundbreaking research to tackle the nations most pressing challenges. Here are eight ways Argonne research made a difference in2020.
More than80research groups from across the country used the Advanced Photon Source (APS), aDOEOffice of Science User Facility at Argonne, to study the SARS-CoV-2virus that causesCOVID-19. Researchers logged more than10,000hours of time at theAPS, discovering among other things the ways the virus camouflages itself inside the human body. This pivotal discovery was published inNature Communications.
One of the most influential contributions theAPSmade to theCOVID-19vaccines can be traced back to work done at the facility between2009and2013. Scientists at the National Institutes for Health (NIH) discovered a technique that helps the human body generate more effective antibodies against a disease called respiratory syncytial virus, orRSV. Years later, those same scientistsadapted that technique to fight SARS-CoV-2,and their innovation is included in five of the announced vaccine candidates, including those developed by Pfizer and Moderna.
Using a combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and supercomputing resources, Argonne researchers areexamining the dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2spike proteinto determine how it fuses with a human host cell, which could advance the search for new medications. In November, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) awarded its firstACMGordon Bell Special Prize for High Performance Computing-BasedCOVID-19Research to a multi-institutional research team that included Argonne. The team showed how the SARS-CoV-2virusinfiltrates the human immune system, setting off a viral chain reaction throughout the body.
Argonne researchers developedCityCOVID, a large-scale agent-based epidemiological model that tracks the movements of millions of simulated individuals, or agents, as they go about their daily activities to predict how disease will spread and the impact of preventive measures, such as mask use. Powered by supercomputers at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, aDOEOffice of Science user facility, this model has informed decision making by officials from Chicago, Cook County and Illinois, since early in the pandemic, and was also nominated as a finalist for theACMGordon Bell Special Prize.
Thethermal energy storage system, orTESS, can quickly store heat and release it for use when needed, surpassing conventional storage options in flexibility and efficiency. The introduction ofTESS, announced on April7, can capture and storeheat from concentrated solar power facilities and is suitable for various commercial applications, including desalination plants, combined heat and power (CHP) systems, industrial processes and heavy-duty trucks.
Researchers have demonstrated thatTESScan operate in temperatures over1,292F. Its high-energy density makes it smaller and more flexible than commonly used heat storage tanks. Being able to recover and use heat can raise efficiency and cut costs by extracting more energy from the same amount of fuel.
After a year-long collaboration between Argonne andAT&T to forecast risks from a changing climate in the Southeastern region, the partnership announced in September that they wereextending their analysis to cover the contiguous United States. Researchers are projecting the impact of climate at regional, local and neighborhood scales, using high-resolution models and a wide range of statistical methods for estimating uncertainty.
AT&T, in turn, uses these insights as input for its Climate Change Analysis Tool so it can forecast how changes in climate will impact company infrastructure and operations for up to30years into the future. As it did with the initial Southeastern pilot,AT&T also will make Argonnes data free to the general public, which could inspire new scientific applications that could benefit communities at large.
The Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), aDOEEnergy Innovation Hub led by Argonne, made significant strides with solid-state batteries as promising successors to todays lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. Researchers at the University of Waterloo, one of18JCESRpartners, published research in June onenhancing the mobility of Li-ions in solid-state batteries using the paddlewheel effect, which is the coordinated motion of atoms.
In addition, knowing how different ions move through different electrolytes will help researchers figure out how to create batteries that best fit their specific uses. In a breakthrough discovery announced Dec.3, a group of scientists demonstrated a combination oftechniques that allows for the precise measurement of ions moving through a batteryduring operation.
Funding is vital to such battery-related research andsix innovative battery manufacturing projectsled by Argonne were awarded funding in August throughDOEs Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The projects, which span a range of essential components for energy storage, are among13battery manufacturing projects at national laboratories that earned combined funding of almost $15million over three years.
Then in September, Argonne completed itsexpansion of the Materials Engineering Research Facility (MERF),a now28,000-square-foot facility, where50scientists, engineers and support staff develop scalable manufacturing technologies for advanced energy materials and chemicals that can be difficult to manufacture.
In a multidisciplinary study, scientists at Argonne, along with collaborators from the Korean Institute of Science and Technology and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, announced on April29that they had developed an approach to prevent plaque formation in Alzheimers disease by engineering ananosized devicethat captures the dangerous peptides before they can self-assemble.
Alzheimers, the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, affects people who have a specific type of plaque, made of self-assembled molecules called -amyloid (A) peptides, that build up in the brain over time. Researchers are studying ways to prevent the peptides from forming these dangerous plaques to halt development of Alzheimers disease in the brain.
Catalysts speed up chemical reactions and form the backbone of many industrial processes. For example, they are essential in transforming heavy oil into gasoline or jet fuel. A research team, led by Argonne in collaboration with Northern Illinois University, said in August that they discovered anew electrocatalyst that converts carbon dioxide (CO2) and water into ethanolwith very high energy efficiency and at a low cost. Ethanol is a desirable commodity because it is an ingredient in nearly all U.S. gasoline and is widely used as an intermediate product in the chemical, pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries.
BecauseCO2is a stable molecule, transforming it into a different molecule is normally energy intensive and costly. Argonnes process would electrochemically convert theCO2emitted from industrial processes, such as fossil fuel power plants or alcohol fermentation plants, into valuable commodities at reasonable cost.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy andDOEannounced August26the creation of five new Quantum Information Science (QIS) Research Centers led byDOEs national laboratories, includingQ-NEXT, led by Argonne. Q-NEXT brings together nearly100world-class researchers from three national laboratories, nine universities and10leading U.S. technology companies with the single goal of developing the science and technology to control and distribute quantum information. In August, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation andDOEannounced more than$1billion in awardsto establish12AIand quantum information science (QIS) research institutes. Of the $1billion,DOEawarded $625million to Argonnes Q-NEXT, Brookhaven, Fermi, Oak Ridge and Lawrence Berkeley national laboratories.
This followsDOEs unveiling ofa reporton July23that provided a strategy for the development of the national quantum internet that will include all17national laboratories, including Argonne. They will serve as the backbone of the coming quantum internet, which will rely on the laws of quantum mechanics to control and transmit information more securely than ever before.
Argonne increased the supply ofCopper-67(Cu-67),a promising medical radioisotope that could lead to new drug discoveries and clinical studies in the fight against cancers, such as neuroendocrine tumors, prostate cancer and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Through support of theDOEIsotope Program,Argonnes Radioisotope Research and Production Programdeveloped a new method to produce large quantities of this desirable radioisotope during its first full year in operation.
There is a pressing need for new radiopharmaceuticals to advance personalized medicine, coupling diagnostic and therapeutic agents to tailor the treatment to the patients individual response. Diagnostic agents enable doctors to visualize tumors and determine the best method of treatment. Therapeutic agents then provide doctors the ability to treat the disease. Cu-67is called atheragnostic radioisotope that couples the ability to visualize tumors with the ability to treat the disease in a single radioisotope. The use of this single agent may result in fewer injections and fewer patient visits to the hospital, along with reduced costs.
About Argonnes Center for Nanoscale MaterialsThe Center for Nanoscale Materials is one of the fiveDOENanoscale Science Research Centers, premier national user facilities for interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale supported by theDOEOffice of Science. Together the NSRCs comprise a suite of complementary facilities that provide researchers with state-of-the-art capabilities to fabricate, process, characterize and model nanoscale materials, and constitute the largest infrastructure investment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. The NSRCs are located atDOEs Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. For more information about theDOENSRCs, please visithttps://science.osti.gov/User-Facilities/User-Facilities-at-a-Glance.
The Argonne Leadership Computing Facilityprovides supercomputing capabilities to the scientific and engineering community to advance fundamental discovery and understanding in a broad range of disciplines. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energys (DOEs) Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, theALCFis one of twoDOELeadership Computing Facilities in the nation dedicated to open science.
The Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), aDOEEnergy Innovation Hub, is amajor partnershipthat integrates researchers from many disciplines to overcome critical scientific and technical barriers and create new breakthrough energy storage technology. Led by theU.S. Department of Energys Argonne National Laboratory, partners include national leaders in science and engineering from academia, the private sector, and national laboratories. Their combined expertise spans the full range of the technology-development pipeline from basic research to prototype development to product engineering to market delivery.
About theAdvanced Photon Source
The U. S. Department of Energy Office of Sciences Advanced Photon Source (APS) at Argonne National Laboratory is one of the worlds most productive X-ray light source facilities. TheAPSprovides high-brightness X-ray beams to a diverse community of researchers in materials science, chemistry, condensed matter physics, the life and environmental sciences, and applied research. These X-rays are ideally suited for explorations of materials and biological structures; elemental distribution; chemical, magnetic, electronic states; and a wide range of technologically important engineering systems from batteries to fuel injector sprays, all of which are the foundations of our nations economic, technological, and physical well-being. Each year, more than5,000researchers use theAPSto produce over2,000publications detailing impactful discoveries, and solve more vital biological protein structures than users of any other X-ray light source research facility.APSscientists and engineers innovate technology that is at the heart of advancing accelerator and light-source operations. This includes the insertion devices that produce extreme-brightness X-rays prized by researchers, lenses that focus the X-rays down to a few nanometers, instrumentation that maximizes the way the X-rays interact with samples being studied, and software that gathers and manages the massive quantity of data resulting from discovery research at theAPS.
This research used resources of the Advanced Photon Source, a U.S.DOEOffice of Science User Facility operated for theDOEOffice of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No.DE-AC02-06CH11357.
Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contract numberDEAC0206CH11357. This research used resources of the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System (ATLAS), aDOEOffice of Science User Facility.
Argonne National Laboratoryseeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nations first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance Americas scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future. With employees from more than60nations, Argonne is managed byUChicago Argonne,LLCfor theU.S. Department of Energys Office of Science.
The U.S. Department of Energys Office of Scienceis the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visithttps://energy.gov/science.
Read more from the original source:
Scaling the heights of quantum computing to deliver real results – Chinadaily.com.cn – China Daily
Jiuzhang, a quantum computer prototype developed at the University of Science and Technology of China, represents such a giant leap forward in computing that just 200 seconds of its time dedicated to a specific task would equal 600 million years of computing time for today's current most powerful supercomputer.
On Dec 4, Science magazine announced a major breakthrough made by a team from USTC headed by renowned physicist Pan Jianwei. The team had jointly developed a 76-photon Jiuzhang, realizing an initial milestone on the path to full-scale quantum computing.
This quantum computational advantage, also known as "quantum supremacy", established China's leading position in the sphere of quantum computing research in the world.
USTC has produced a string of wonders: Sending Wukong, China-'s first dark matter particle explorer, and Mozi, the world's first quantum communication satellite, into space; and witnessing the National Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory sending off light from the Hefei Light Source.
During the past 50 years, USTC has made significant achievements in the fields of quantum physics, high-temperature superconductivity, thermonuclear fusion, artificial intelligence and nanomaterials.
Technology is the foundation of a country's prosperity, while innovation is the soul of national progress.
Since 1970, when USTC was relocated to Hefei, Anhui province, it has focused on research and innovation, targeting basic and strategic work in a bid to fulfill its oath to scale "the peak of sciences".
The large number of world-renowned innovative achievements shined glory on USTC, exhibiting its courage to innovate, daring to surpass its peers and unremitting pursuit of striving to be a top university in the world.
Although USTC was set up only 62 years ago, it established the country's first national laboratory and also the first national research center. It has obtained the largest number of achievements selected among China's Top 10 News for Scientific and Technological Progress each year since its founding.
Its reputation as an "important stronghold of innovation" has become stronger over the years.
While facing the frontiers of world science and technology, the main economic battlefield, the major needs of China and people's healthcare, USTC focuses on cultivating high-level scientific and technological innovation talents and teams, and shoulders national tasks.
It has used innovation to generate transformative technologies and develop strategic emerging industries, perfecting its ability to serve national strategic demand, and regional economic and social development.
Facing sci-tech frontiers
USTC has top disciplines covering mathematics, physics, chemistry, Earth and space sciences, biology and materials science. While based on basic research, USTC pays close attention to cutting-edge exploration, encouraging innovative achievements.
Serving major needs
In response to major national needs, USTC has led and participated in a number of significant scientific and technological projects that showcase the nation's strategic aims.
For example, sending the Mozi satellite and Wukong probe into space. Meanwhile, it also participated in the development of core components of Tiangong-2, China's first space lab, and Tianwen-1, the nation's first Mars exploration mission.
Main economic battlefield
In the face of economic and social development needs, USTC has balanced meeting national needs and boosting exploration in frontier spheres.
It has witnessed a series of innovative achievements in the fields of materials science, energy, environment, advanced manufacturing, AI, big data and security.
Safeguarding health
USTC's School of Life Sciences was founded in 1958 with emphasis on biophysics. In recent years, this flourished into many branches of biological sciences.
The new School of Life Sciences was established in Hefei in 1998. Based on its years of cultivation in the field of life sciences, the university has contributed much to China's medical science.
In 2020, the university developed the "USTC protocol" to treat COVID-19 patients, which has been introduced to more than 20 countries and regions.
See more here:
Scaling the heights of quantum computing to deliver real results - Chinadaily.com.cn - China Daily
MIT’s quantum entangled atomic clock could still be ticking after billions of years – SYFY WIRE
Famous medieval poetand authorGeoffrey Chaucer once wrotethat "'timeand tide wait for no man," andthat certainly rings true whether you've still got a '90s Swatch watch strapped to your wrist, your name isDoc Brown,or you're a brilliant scientistworking on the latestatomic clock designwhich employslasers to trap and measure oscillations of quantum entangled atoms to maintain precise timekeeping.
The official time for the United States is set at the atomic clock located at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, where thisCesium Fountain Atomic Clockremainsaccurate to within one second every 300 million years.Itscesium-133 atomvibratesexactly 9,192,631,770 times per second, a permanent statistic that has officially measured one second since the machine's inception and operational rollout back in 1968.
But hoping to improve on that staggering feat, scientists at MIT have now pushed the envelope anddevised plans for an even more reliable timepiecewith notionsfor amind-bogglingnew quantum-entangled atomic clock.Details of theirresearch wererecently published in the online journalNature, where MIT's team provided the blueprintsfor this remarkable device.
You'd think that recording the vibrations of a single atom should be the ultimate method by which to document time passing. However, a pesky principle involving random quantum fluctuations can disturb the near-perfect mechanism in an effect called the Standard Quantum Limit.
Entanglement-enhanced optical atomic clocks will have the potential to reach a better precision in one second than current state-of-the-art optical clocks, noteslead author Edwin Pedrozo-Peafiel, a postdoc in MITs Research Laboratory of Electronics.
Today, most advanced quantum clocks track a gas made up of thousands of identical atoms, usually cesium, but ytterbium hasalso been harnessed by physicistsin the last few years.Cooled down to a temperature hovering near absolute zero, these atoms are locked down by lasers while a second laser measures their oscillations. In theory, by taking the average of many atoms, a more accurate answer can be reached.
The minute, wibbly-wobbly variations of the Standard Quantum Limit is something that can't be altogether eradicated, but its effects can be substantially reduced. MIT's crew has hung its thinking capon these ideasof quantum entanglement to conceive an even more accurate clock by taking full advantage of the uncanny phenomenon.
Under certain conditions, atoms in a quantumstate can become intertwined, allowing for the measuring ofone particleto affect the result of measuring the partner particle, independent ofthe distance separating the pair.
Researchers began by testing approximately350 atoms of ytterbium-171, which vibratesmuch faster than cesium. Next, the atoms are trapped in an optical cavity between two mirrors, before a laser is introduced into the space to quantum entangle the atoms.
Its like the light serves as a communication link between atoms, explainsChi Shu, co-author of the study. The first atom that sees this light will modify the light slightly, and that light also modifies the second atom, and the third atom, and through many cycles, the atoms collectively know each other and start behaving similarly."
During entanglement, a second laser is shot through the cloud to obtain a reading on their average frequency. Shu and his colleagues discovered that this arrangement manifested a clock that achieved a specific precision four times faster than a timepieceenlisting the help of non-entangled atoms.
MIT's timely invention might allow atomic clocks to be so insanely accurate that they would be less than 100 milliseconds out of sync after 14 billion years, roughly the age of the entire universe. In addition, these quantum entangled timekeepers could help researchers investigate puzzling physics like dark matter, gravitational waves, and how rules and limitations of physics can be altered over a period of time.
As the universe ages, does the speed of light change? asksVladan Vuletic, co-author of the paper. Does the charge of the electron change? Thats what you can probe with more precise atomic clocks.
Originally posted here:
MIT's quantum entangled atomic clock could still be ticking after billions of years - SYFY WIRE
Matter Deconstructed: The Observer Effect and Photography – PetaPixel
Photographs are omnipresent in our daily lives. From social media and advertising to family photos hanging on your wall. Images are used for identification and as evidence, as well as informing us at a cultural level about who we are.
Photographs are both bookmarks and timestamps. When we want to see who we were, who we are, and how far weve come, our story can be told quite simply in a photographic history.
Photographs can also act to subjectively portray the world through an art context. We are presented with the ability to take photographs anytime, all the time, and most of us do! Theres a good chance theres a camera in your pocket or on your table right now; your phone. We have replaced notetaking and manual documentation with the simple snap of a photo.
So what does it literally mean to take a photograph? And what are the processes involved in the production of a photograph? What part does the photographer play at the quantum level? Is there an invisible dynamic at work between who is capturing and what is being captured?
Im here to argue that on the quantum level, the presence of a photographer and camera alter the scene that is being viewed and photographed. This can be explained through the observer effect on a social, physical, and philosophical level.
The observer effect is most commonly linked to the realm of science, more specifically the field of quantum physics. This phenomenon refers to the idea that the very act of observing changes the way the world around us operates.
The famous double-slit experiment found that electrons shot through two slits and projected onto a photosensitive surface produced an interference pattern much like a wave. At the same time, when the electrons were observed, they produced a particle pattern (two lines). This experiment provided evidence for wave-particle duality the idea that quantum objects can be both a wave and a particle dependent upon whether or not they are observed.
What this means is that the simple act of observation dictated how the electrons behaved.
Much like electrons at the quantum level, until we observe it (it being the subject thats photographed), we dont know what the outcome will be. The very act of observing the event changes the outcome.
A camera is a powerful tool; a tool whose sole purpose is to observe and record. Recall the common visual scenario of the oblivious individual and their sudden change in behavior when they realize they are being observed. The idea of being viewed can make anyone hyper-aware of their behavior, sometimes making them change the way they act completely. This phenomenon is most commonly referred to as reactivity in psychology.
For some, a camera is an excuse to perform, and for others, its a cue to hide. Either way, its undeniable that the sheer presence of camera and photographer alter the people who are aware of its presence. It calls into the validity of a double-blind experiment. This is the social layer to the observer effect.
A camera can be like a social shield, allowing the photographer to distance themselves from the scene, but it can also act as an excuse to participate and intervene in the scene such as in giving instructions to a model or bypassing someones personal space as a street photographer. Our worldviews are shaped by things such as the culture we are raised in, the language we speak, the race we are, and the gender we identify as. These differences can show up in what and how photographers choose to capture their subjects.
Physically, there are so many different things happening at a quantum scale when a photo is captured. The camera in and of itself is like a double-slit experiment; a source of light shown through an opening and captured onto a photosensitive material. Those photons are captured on the sensor of the camera and are thus being absorbed or taken. In the act of taking a photograph, we are literally taking photons away from the scene.
On the same note, the photographer and camera are also adding light to the scene that is being captured. Of course, this light I speak of is not visible to us, but it is light nonetheless.
As stated in Kathryn Shaffers book titled What the What, Light is produced any time that charged particles move back and forth, move erratically, or jump from one place to another. By that definition, the charged particles that make up your body and are moved or accelerated when you yourself move or accelerate in any direction produce light.
Even if you were to stand still, the very act of being alive produces light in the form of heat.
The photographer, and the moving mechanics inside of the camera, produce a light of their own at the same time that the light is being taken from the scene and interpreted by the camera. A photograph is both an additive and subtractive process of light. A dynamic push and pull.
Quantum field theory states that everything is connected, but not in a pseudoscience way of understanding connection. As context, the photographer and camera which occupy a location impact the physical space around them on a quantum scale. For example, everything that has mass has its own gravitational field associated with it. These fields, which are everywhere, are constantly vibrating and interacting with each other.
The photographer changes a scene on a gravitational, electromagnetic, sound, temperature, and light level.
You can think of the photographer as a disruptor to the field around them, constantly sending out waves that interact with other waves much like a swimmer disrupts and displaces water as they move through it, creating and sending out the proverbial ripples in the water. This may not be obvious to the eye or even seen later in a printed image, but at a quantum level, these changes are measurable.
The French ready-made artist Marcel Duchamp famously said that art was completed by the viewer. Duchamp believed that before the art was observed, it didnt exist,
All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act. Marcel Duchamp in The Creative Act
You could argue that a photograph both exists and does not exist until the moment it is observed much in the way that quantum objects can both exist and not exist simultaneously. A photograph, unlike other mediums such as painting, is often interpreted as evidence.
Take, for example, crime scene photography in a courtroom they are often presented as an index, a record, proof of what was there. According to French philosopher Jean Baudrillard in Image Studies, a photograph has four phases if you will:
What is profound about image making is that a photograph can be both a direct representation of what it captured while also containing no sense of reality whatsoever (phase 1 vs phase 4). A photograph is undoubtedly linked to the scene that it captured while also having no relation to the scene at all. The camera is a device that can be used to create a photograph, but it is not limited to or defined by the presence of a camera, but instead, photography relies on light being permanently recorded onto a light-sensitive medium. Cameraless examples in photography include solarization, the rayograph, and the similar photogram process.
But what remains the same in all photographic mediums and techniques is its inherent indexicality. Semiotics and photography are closely intertwined, if not the same. The symbol wouldnt exist without the meaning we bring to it. In other words, the symbol is expressed through the observer, and without the observer, the symbol would not only cease to exist, but there would be absolutely no need for it to exist because symbols only find meaning in what the observer brings to it.
This applies to art, language, religion, culture, etc, but not to the universe in general. Semiotics would not exist without the universe, but the universe exists without semiotics.
The steps involved in taking a photograph provide a perfect metaphorical explanation of the observer effect on a social, physical, and philosophical level. Although the very act of taking a photograph is not a study in quantum physics, metaphorically speaking it allows us to understand more easily the mystery of the observer effect on a quantum scale.
The idea of the photographer being removed from the scene because they are behind the camera holds no truth in this context.
At the social level, we are talking about the dynamic between the consciousness of the subject matter and the consciousness of the photographer. These fields of consciousness are interacting and overlapping with each other all the time. This dynamic can be overt or totally covert, but it is occurring nonetheless.
On a physical level, when a photographer sets up their tripod or raises their viewfinder to their eye, they are undeniably impacting the scene. The actual mechanical process of taking the photograph is both an additive and subtractive transaction and measurable at the quantum level.
At the philosophical level, the observer effect only happens when there is an observer. Much like photography and art in general, it takes an observer to complete the work. But the difference between art and the quantum realm is that the quantum observer does not need to be a conscious one.
About the author: Max Depatie is a photographer and artist who is currently studying at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can find more of Depaties work on his website and Instagram.
Read more:
Matter Deconstructed: The Observer Effect and Photography - PetaPixel
Everything you need to know about quantum physics (almost …
What is quantum physics?
Quantum physics is a branch of physics also known as quantum mechanics or quantum theory.
Mechanics is that part of physics concerned with stuff that moves, from cannonballs to tennis balls, cars, rockets, and planets. Quantum mechanics is that part of physics which describes the motions of objects at molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic levels, such as photons and electrons.
Although quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily successful scientific theory, on which much of our modern, tech-obsessed lifestyles depend, it is also completely mad.
Read more about quantum physics:
The theory quite obviously works, but it appears to leave us chasing ghosts and phantoms, particles that are waves and waves that are particles, cats that are at once both alive and dead, lots of seemingly spooky goings-on, and a desperate desire to lie down quietly in a darkened room.
If youve ever wondered what is it about quantum theory that makes it so baffling to many, heres a brief summary of quantum in simple terms.
We now know that all matter is composed of atoms. Each atom is in turn made up of electrons orbiting a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons. Atoms are discrete. They are localised: here or there.
But towards the end of the 19th Century, atoms were really rather controversial. In fact, it was a determination to refute the existence of atoms that led the German physicist Max Planck to study the properties and behaviour of so-called black-body radiation.
What he found in an act of desperation in late-1900 turned him into a committed atomist, but it took a few more years for the real significance of his discovery to sink in.
Planck had concluded that radiation is absorbed and emitted as though it is composed of discrete bits which he called quanta. In 1905, Albert Einstein went further. He speculated that the quanta are real radiation itself comes in discrete lumps of light-energy. Today we call these lumps photons.
Einsteins hypothesis posed a bit of a problem. There was an already well-established body of evidence in favour of a wave theory of light. The key observation is called the double slit experiment.
Push light through a narrow aperture or slit and it will squeeze through, bend around at the edges and spread out beyond. It diffracts.
Cut two slits side-by-side and we get interference. Waves diffracted by the two slits produce an alternating pattern of light and dark bands called interference fringes. This kind of behaviour is not limited to light such wave interference is easily demonstrated using water waves.
But waves are inherently delocalised: they are here and there. Einsteins hypothesis didnt overturn all the evidence for the delocalised wave-like properties of light. What he was suggesting is that a complete description somehow needs to take account of its localised, particle-like properties, too.
So, light acts like both a wave and a particle.
In 1923, French physicist Louis de Broglie made a bold suggestion. If light waves can also be particles, could particles like electrons also be waves? This was just an idea, but he was able to use it to develop a direct mathematical relationship between an electrons wave-like property (wavelength) and a particle-like property (momentum).
But this was not a fully-fledged wave-particle theory of matter. That challenge fell to Erwin Schrdinger, whose formulation first published early in 1926 and called wave mechanics is still taught to science students today.
Schrdingers theory is really the classical theory of waves in which we introduce some quantum conditions using de Broglies relation. The result is Schrdingers wave equation, in which the motion of a particle such as an electron is calculated from its wave function.
Right from the very beginning, physicists were scratching their heads about Schrdingers wave function.
In classical mechanics, there are no real issues with the way we interpret the concepts represented in the theory, such as energy and momentum (which are called physical observables) and their relation to the properties of the objects that possess them.
Read more about the quantum world:
Want to calculate the classical momentum of an object flying through the air at a fixed speed? Easy. Measure the objects mass and its speed and multiply these together. Job done.
But what if you want to know the momentum of an electron moving freely in a vacuum? In quantum mechanics we calculate this by performing a specific mathematical operation on the electrons wave function.
Such operations are mathematical recipes, which we can think of as keys which unlock the wave function (depicted in this animation as a box), releasing the observable before closing again.
The operation is a key that unlocks the wave function
We calculate the momentum by opening the box using the momentum key. A different observable will require a different key.
So, if electrons behave like waves, can they be diffracted? If we push a beam of electrons through two slits side-by-side will we see interference fringes on a distant screen? What if we limit the intensity of the beam so that, on average, only one electron passes through the slits at a time. What then?
What we see is at first quite comforting. Each electron passing through the slits registers as a single spot on the screen, telling us that an electron struck here. This is perfectly consistent with notion of electrons as particles, as it seems they pass one by one through one or other of the slits and hit the screen in a seemingly random pattern.
Interference patterns appearing in a double slit experiment
But wait. The pattern isnt random. As more and more electrons pass through the slits we cross a threshold. We begin to see individual dots group together, overlap and merge. Eventually we get a two-slit interference pattern of alternating bright and dark fringes.
Alternatively, we conclude that the wave nature of the electron is an intrinsic behaviour. Each individual electron behaves as a wave, described by a wave function, passing through both slits simultaneously and interfering with itself before striking the screen.
So, how are we supposed to know precisely where the next electron will appear?
Schrdinger had wanted to interpret the wave function literally, as the theoretical representation of a matter wave. But to make sense of one-electron interference we must reach for an alternative interpretation suggested later in 1926 by Max Born.
Born reasoned that in quantum mechanics the wave function-squared is a measure of the probability of finding its associated electron in a certain spot.
The alternating peaks and troughs of the electron wave translate into a pattern of quantum probabilities in this location (which will become a bright fringe) theres a higher probability of finding the next electron, and in this other location (which will become a dark fringe) theres a very low or zero probability of finding the next electron.
Read more about physics:
Before an electron strikes the screen, it has a probability of being found here, there and most anywhere where the square of the wave function is bigger than zero. This probability of many states existing at the same time is known as quantum superposition.
Does this mean that an individual electron can be in more than one place at a time? No, not really. It is true to say that it has a probability of being found in more than one place at a time. And, if we want to interpret the wave function as a real physical thing, there is a sense in which this is delocalised or distributed.
But if by individual electron were referring to an electron as a particle, then there is a sense in which this doesnt exist as such until the wave function interacts with the screen, at which point it collapses and the electron appears here, in only one place.
One more thing. That theres a 50 percent probability that a tossed coin will land heads simply means that it has two sides and we have no way of knowing (or easily predicting) which way up it will land. This is a classical probability born of ignorance.
We can be confident that the coin continues to have two sides heads and tails as it spins through the air, but were ignorant of the exact details of its motion so we cant predict with certainty which side will land face up. In theory, we could, if we knew exactly how hard you flipped it at exactly what angle, and at exactly what height you would catch it.
Quantum probability is thought to be very different. When we toss a quantum coin we might actually be quite knowledgeable about most of the details of its motion, but we cant assume that heads and tails exist before the coin has landed, and we look.
So, it doesnt matter exactly how much information you have about the coin toss, you will never be able to say with any certainty what the result will be, because its not pre-determined like in a classical system.
Einstein deplored this seeming element of pure chance in quantum mechanics. He famously declared that: God does not play dice.
And then, in 1927, the debates began. What is the wave function and how should it be interpreted? What is quantum mechanics telling us about the nature of physical reality? And just what is this thing called reality, anyway?
Read more here:
Everything you need to know about quantum physics (almost ...
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 description of physics that existed before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, while quantum mechanics explains the aspects of nature at small (atomic and subatomic) scales, for which classical mechanics is insufficient. 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 function, the wave function, provides information about the probability amplitude of energy, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle.
Quantum mechanics allows the calculation of probabilities for how physical systems can behave. It is typically applied to microscopic systems: molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles. A basic mathematical feature of quantum mechanics is that 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. 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 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.[4]: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.[4] 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).[4]:109[5][6] 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.
When quantum systems interact, the result can be the creation of quantum entanglement, a type of correlation in which "the best possible knowledge of a whole" does not imply "the best possible knowledge of all its parts", as Erwin Schrdinger put it.[7] Quantum entanglement can be a valuable resource in communication protocols, as demonstrated by quantum key distribution, in which (speaking informally) the key used to encrypt a message is created in the act of observing it.[8] (Entanglement does not, however, allow sending signals faster than light.[8])
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. If a Bell test is performed in a laboratory and the results are not thus constrained, then they are inconsistent with the hypothesis that local hidden variables exist. Such results would support the position that there is no way to explain the phenomena of quantum mechanics in terms of a more fundamental description of nature that is more in line with the rules of classical physics. Many types of Bell test have been performed in physics laboratories, using preparations that exhibit quantum entanglement. To date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.[9][10]
Later sections in this article cover the practical applications of quantum mechanics, its relation to other physical theories, the history of its development, and its philosophical implications. It is not possible to address these topics in more than a superficial way without knowledge of the actual mathematics involved. As mentioned above, using quantum mechanics requires manipulating complex numbers; it also makes use of linear algebra, differential equations, group theory, and other more advanced subjects.[note 1] 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 developed by Paul Dirac,[13] David Hilbert,[14] John von Neumann,[15] and Hermann Weyl,[16] the state of a quantum mechanical system is a vector {displaystyle psi } belonging to a (separable) Hilbert space H {displaystyle {mathcal {H}}} . This vector is postulated to be normalized under the Hilbert's 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.
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. 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]
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).[25] 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.
When a measurement is performed, the introduction of a measurement device changes the Hamiltonian of the observed system. Note that such a measurement device may be any large object interacting with the observed system - including a lab measurement device, eyes, ears, cameras, microphones etc. When the measurement device is coupled to the observed system, the change in the Hamiltonian can be described by adding to the Hamiltonian a linear operator, that ties between the time evolution of the observed system with that of the measurement device. This linear operator can thus be described as the product of a measurement operator, acting on the observed system, with another operator, acting on the measurement devices.[26]
After the observed system and the measurement device interact in a manner described by this operator, they are said to be entangled, so that the quantum state of the measurement device together with the observed system is a superposition of different states, with each such state consisting of two parts: A state of the observed system with a particular measurement value, and a corresponding state of the measurement device measuring this particular value. For example, if the position of a particle is measured, the quantum state of the measurement device together with the particle will be a superposition of different states, in each of which the particle has a defined position and the measurement device shows this position; e.g. if the particle has two possible positions, x1 and x2, the overall state would be a linear combination of (particle at x1 and device showing x1) with (particle at x2 and device showing x2). The coefficients of this linear combination are called probability amplitudes; they are the inner products of the physical state with the basis vectors.[26]
Because the measurement device is a large object, the different states where it shows different measurement results can no longer interact with each other due to a process called decoherence. Any observer (e.g. the physicist) only measures one of the results, with a probability that depends on the probability amplitude of that result according to Born rule. How this happens is a matter of interpretation: Either only one of the results will continue to exist due to a hypothetical process called wavefunction collapse, or all results will co-exist in different hypothetical worlds, with the observer we know of living in one of these worlds.[26]
After a quantum state is measured, the only relevant part of it (due to decoherence and possibly also wavefunction collapse) has a well-defined value of the measurement operator. This means that it is an eigenstate of the measurement operator, with the measured value being the eigenvalue. Thus the different parts corresponding to the possible outcomes of the measurement are given by looking at the quantum state in a vector basis in which all basis vectors are eigenvectors of the measurement operator, i.e. a basis which diagonalizes this operator. Thus the measurement operator has to be diagonalizable. Further, if the possible measurement results are all real numbers, then the measurement operator must be Hermitian.[27]
As explained previously, the measurement process, e.g. measuring the position of an electron, can be described as consisting of an entanglement of the observed system with the measuring device, so that the overall physical state is a superposition of states, each of which consists of a state for the observed system (e.g. the electron) with defined measured value (e.g. position), together with a corresponding state of the measuring device showing this value. It is usually possible to analyze the possible results with the corresponding probabilities without analyzing the complete quantum description of the whole system: Only the part relevant to the observed system (the electron) should be taken into account. In order to do that, we only have to look at the probability amplitude for each possible result, and sum over all resulting probabilities. This computation can be performed through the use of the density matrix of the measured object.[19]
It can be shown that under the above definition for inner product, the time evolution operator e i H ^ t / {displaystyle e^{-i{hat {H}}t/hbar }} is unitary, a property often referred to as the unitarity of the theory.[27] This is equivalent to stating that the Hamiltonian is Hermitian:
This is desirable in order for the Hamiltonian to correspond to the classical Hamiltonian, which is why the -i factor is introduced (rather than defining the Hamiltonian with this factor included in it, which would result in an anti-Hermitian Hamiltonian). Indeed, in classical mechanics the Hamiltonian of a system is its energy, and thus in an energy measurement of an object, the measurement operator is the part of the Hamiltonian relating to this object. The energy is always a real number, and indeed the Hamiltonian is Hermitian.[19]
Let us choose a vector basis that is diagonal in a certain measurement operator; then, if this measurement is performed, the probability to get a measurement result corresponding to a particular vector basis must somehow depend on the inner product of physical state with this basis vector, i.e. the probability amplitude for this result. It turns out to be the absolute square of the probability amplitude; this is known as Born rule.
Note that the probability given by Born rule to get a particular state is simply the norm of this state. Unitarity then means that the sum of probabilities of any isolated set of state is invariant under time evolution, as long as there is no wavefunction collapse. Indeed, interpretations with no wavefunction collapse (such as the different versions of the many-worlds interpretation) always exhibit unitary time evolution, while for interpretations which include wavefunction collapse (such as the various views often grouped together as the Copenhagen interpretation) include both unitary and non-unitary time evolution, the latter happening during wavefunction collapse.[26]
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 2] Instead, we can consider a Gaussian wavepacket:
which has Fourier transform, and therefore momentum distribution
We see that as we make a smaller the spread in position gets smaller, but the spread in momentum gets larger. Conversely, by making 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 wavepacket 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.[28]
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.
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 3] 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). Quantum mechanics has strongly influenced string theories, candidates for a Theory of Everything (see reductionism).
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.[29] 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 are fundamental, and predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to an extremely high degree of accuracy.[note 4] The rules assert that the state space of a system is a Hilbert space (crucially, that the space has an inner product) 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.[30] 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 coherence is an essential difference between classical and quantum theories as illustrated by the EinsteinPodolskyRosen (EPR) paradox an attack on a certain philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics by an appeal to local realism.[31] Quantum interference involves adding together probability amplitudes, whereas classical "waves" infer that there is an adding together of intensities. For microscopic bodies, the extension of the system is much smaller than the coherence length, which gives rise to long-range entanglement and other nonlocal phenomena characteristic of quantum systems.[32] 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] This is in accordance with the following observations:
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]
A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is a model in particle physics in which, at high energies, the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model comprising the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are merged into a single force. Although this unified force has not been directly observed, the many GUT models theorize its existence. If unification of these three interactions is possible, it raises the possibility that there was a grand unification epoch in the very early universe in which these three fundamental interactions were not yet distinct.
Experiments have confirmed that at high energy the electromagnetic interaction and weak interaction unify into a single electroweak interaction. GUT models predict that at even higher energy, the strong interaction and the electroweak interaction will unify into a single electronuclear interaction. This interaction is characterized by one larger gauge symmetry and thus several force carriers, but one unified coupling constant. The novel particles predicted by GUT models are expected to have extremely high massesaround the GUT scale of 10 16 {displaystyle 10^{16}} GeV (just a few orders of magnitude below the Planck scale of 10 19 {displaystyle 10^{19}} GeV)and so are well beyond the reach of any foreseen particle collider experiments. Therefore, the particles predicted by GUT models will be unable to be observed directly, and instead the effects of grand unification might be detected through indirect observations such as proton decay, electric dipole moments of elementary particles, or the properties of neutrinos.[38]
Even with the defining postulates of both Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum theory being indisputably supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidence, and while they do not directly contradict each other theoretically (at least with regard to their primary claims), they have proven extremely difficult to incorporate into one consistent, cohesive model.[note 6]
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.
Beyond the "grand unification" of the electromagnetic and nuclear forces, it is speculated that it may be possible to merge gravity with the other three gauge symmetries, expected to occur at roughly 1019 GeV. However and while special relativity is parsimoniously incorporated into quantum electrodynamics general relativity, currently the best theory describing the gravitational force, has not been fully incorporated into quantum theory. 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.
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 granular analogous to the granularity of photons in the quantum theory of electromagnetism and the discrete energy levels of atoms. More precisely, space is an extremely fine fabric or networks "woven" of finite loops called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network over time is called a spin foam. The predicted size of this structure is the Planck length, which is approximately 1.6161035 m. According to this theory, there is no meaning to length shorter than this (cf. Planck scale energy).
Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. Even fundamental issues, such as Max Born's basic rules about probability amplitudes and probability distributions, took decades to be appreciated by society and many leading scientists. Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."[40] According to Steven Weinberg, "There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics."[41]
The views of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and other physicists are often grouped together as the "Copenhagen interpretation".[42][43] 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 conjugate nature of evidence obtained under different experimental situations. Copenhagen-type interpretations remain popular in the 21st century.[44]
Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, did not accept some of the more philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as rejection of determinism and of causality. Einstein believed that underlying quantum mechanics must be a theory that thoroughly and directly expresses the rule against action at a distance; in other words, he insisted on the principle of locality. He argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete, a currently valid but not a permanently definitive theory about nature. Einstein's long-running exchanges with Bohr about the meaning and status of quantum mechanics are now known as the BohrEinstein debates. 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 7]
John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and theories that rely on local hidden variables. Experiments confirmed the accuracy of quantum mechanics, thereby showing that quantum mechanics cannot be improved upon by addition of local hidden variables.[49] Alain Aspect's experiments in 1982 and many later experiments definitively verified quantum entanglement. Entanglement, as demonstrated in Bell-type experiments, does not violate causality, since it does not involve transfer of information. By the early 1980s, experiments had shown that such inequalities were indeed violated in practice so that there were in fact correlations of the kind suggested by quantum mechanics. At first these just seemed like isolated esoteric effects, but by the mid-1990s, they were being codified in the field of quantum information theory, and led to constructions with names like quantum cryptography and quantum teleportation.[22][23] Quantum cryptography is proposed for use in high-security applications in banking and government.
The Everett 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.[50] This is not accomplished by introducing a "new axiom" to quantum mechanics, but by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet. All possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations quantum superposition. Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state. While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can only observe the universe (i.e., the consistent state contribution to the aforementioned superposition) that we, as observers, inhabit. The role of probability in many-worlds interpretations has been the subject of much debate. Why we should assign probabilities at all to outcomes that are certain to occur in some worlds, and why should the probabilities be given by the Born rule?[51] Everett tried to answer both questions in the paper that introduced many-worlds; his derivation of the Born rule has been criticized as relying on unmotivated assumptions.[52] Since then several other derivations of the Born rule in the many-worlds framework have been proposed. There is no consensus on whether this has been successful.[53][54]
Relational quantum mechanics appeared in the late 1990s as a modern derivative of Copenhagen-type ideas,[55] and QBism was developed some years later.[56]
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.[57] In 1803 English polymath Thomas Young described the famous double-slit experiment.[58] This experiment played a major role in the general acceptance of the wave theory of light.
In 1838 Michael Faraday discovered cathode rays. These studies were followed by the 1859 statement of the black-body radiation problem by Gustav Kirchhoff, the 1877 suggestion by Ludwig Boltzmann that the energy states of a physical system can be discrete, and the 1900 quantum hypothesis of Max Planck.[59] Planck's hypothesis that energy is radiated and absorbed in discrete "quanta" (or energy packets) precisely matched the observed patterns of black-body radiation. The word quantum derives from the Latin, meaning "how great" or "how much".[60] 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.[61] In fact, he considered his quantum hypothesis a mathematical trick to get the right answer rather than a sizable discovery.[62] 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.[63] 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.[64] 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,[65] 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.[66] The theory is now understood as a semi-classical approximation[67] to modern quantum mechanics.[68] Notable results from this period include, in addition to the work of Planck, Einstein and Bohr mentioned above, Einstein and Debye's work on the specific heat of solids, Bohr and van Leeuwen's proof that classical physics cannot account for diamagnetism, and Arnold Sommerfeld's extension of the Bohr model to include relativistic effects.
In the mid-1920s quantum mechanics was developed to become the standard formulation for atomic physics. In the summer of 1925, Bohr and Heisenberg published results that closed the old quantum theory. Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan pioneered matrix mechanics. The following year, Erwin Schrdinger suggested a partial differential equation for the wave functions of particles like electrons. And when effectively restricted to a finite region, this equation allowed only certain modes, corresponding to discrete quantum states whose properties turned out to be exactly the same as implied by matrix mechanics. Born introduced the probabilistic interpretation of Schrdinger's wave function in July 1926.[69] Thus, the entire field of quantum physics emerged, leading to its wider acceptance at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927.[70]
By 1930 quantum mechanics had been further unified and formalized by David Hilbert, Paul Dirac and John von Neumann[71] 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[72] and superfluids.[73]
Its speculative modern developments include string theory and other attempts to build a quantum theory of gravity.
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 the original post: