Cloud Hosting

There are some questions that, if you look up the answer, might make you question the reliability of your brain.

Many other examples abound, from the color of different flavor packets of Walkers crisps to the spelling of Looney Tunes (vs. Looney Toons) and Febreze (vs. Febreeze) to whether the Monopoly Man has a monocle or not.

Perhaps the simplest explanation for all of these is simply that human memory is unreliable, and that as much as we trust our brains to remember what happened in our own lives, that our own minds are at fault. But theres another possibility based on quantum physics thats worth considering: could these truly have been the outcomes that occurred for us, but in a parallel Universe? Heres what the science has to say.

Visualization of a quantum field theory calculation showing virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. (Specifically, for the strong interactions.) Even in empty space, this vacuum energy is non-zero, and what appears to be the ground state in one region of curved space will look different from the perspective of an observer where the spatial curvature differs. As long as quantum fields are present, this vacuum energy (or a cosmological constant) must be present, too.

One of the biggest differences between the classical world and the quantum world is the notion of determinism. In the classical world which also defined all of physics, including mechanics, gravitation, and electromagnetism prior to the late 19th century the equations that govern the laws of nature are all completely deterministic. If you can give details about all of the particles in the Universe at any given moment in time, including their mass, charge, position, and momentum at that particular moment, then the equations that govern physics can tell you both where they were and where they will be at any moment in the past or future.

But in the quantum Universe, this simply isnt the case. No matter how accurately you measure certain properties of the Universe, theres a fundamental uncertainty that prevents you from knowing those properties arbitrarily well at the same time. In fact, the better you measure some of the properties that a particle or system of particles can have, the greater the inherent uncertainty becomes an uncertainty that you can not get rid of or reduce below a critical value in other properties. This fundamental relation, known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, cannot be worked around.

This diagram illustrates the inherent uncertainty relation between position and momentum. When one is known more accurately, the other is inherently less able to be known accurately. Every time you accurately measure one, you ensure a greater uncertainty in the corresponding complementary quantity.

Travel the Universe with astrophysicist Ethan Siegel. Subscribers will get the newsletter every Saturday. All aboard!

There are many other examples of uncertainty in quantum physics, and many of those uncertain measurements dont just have two possible outcomes, but a continuous spectrum of possibilities. Its only by measuring the Universe, or by causing an interaction of an inherently uncertain system with another quantum from the environment, that we discover which of the possible outcomes describes our reality.

The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that there are an infinite number of parallel Universes that exist, holding all possible outcomes of a quantum mechanical system, and that making an observation simply chooses one path. This interpretation is philosophically interesting, but may add nothing-of-value when it comes to actual physics.

One of the problems with quantum mechanics is the problem of, what does it mean for whats really going on in our Universe? We have this notion that there is some sort of objective reality a really real reality thats independent of any observer or external influence. That, in some way, the Universe exists as it does without regard for whether anyone or anything is watching or interacting with it.

This very notion is not something were certain is valid. Although its pretty much hard-wired into our brains and our intuitions, reality is under no obligation to conform to them.

What does that mean, then, when it comes to the question of whats truly going on when, for example, we perform the double-slit experiment? If you have two slits in a screen that are narrowly spaced, and you shine a light through it, the illuminated pattern that shows up behind the screen is an interference pattern: with multiple bright lines patterned after the shape of the slit, interspersed with dark lines between them. This is not what youd expect if you threw a series of tiny pebbles through that double slit; youd simply expect two piles of rocks, with each one corresponding to the rocks having gone through one slit or the other.

Results of a double-slit-experiment performed by Dr. Tonomura showing the build-up of an interference pattern of single electrons. If the path of which slit each electron passes through is measured, the interference pattern is destroyed, leading to two piles instead. The number of electrons in each panel are 11 (a), 200 (b), 6000 (c), 40000 (d), and 140000 (e).

The thing about this double slit experiment is this: as long as you dont measure which slit the light goes through, you will always get an interference pattern.

This remains true even if you send the light through one photon at a time, so that multiple photons arent interfering with one another. Somehow, its as though each individual photon is interfering with itself.

Its still true even if you replace the photon with an electron, or other massive quantum particles, whether fundamental or composite. Sending electrons through a double slit, even one at a time, gives you this interference pattern.

And it ceases to be true, immediately and completely, if you start measuring which slit each photon (or particle) went through.

But why? Why is this the case?

Thats one of the puzzles of quantum mechanics: it seems as though its open to interpretation. Is there an inherently uncertain distribution of possible outcomes, and does the act of measuring simply pick out which outcome it is that has occurred in this Universe?

Is it the case that everything is wave-like and uncertain, right up until the moment that a measurement is made, and that act of measuring a critical action that causes the quantum mechanical wavefunction to collapse?

When a quantum particle approaches a barrier, it will most frequently interact with it. But there is a finite probability of not only reflecting off of the barrier, but tunneling through it. The actual evolution of the particle is only determined by measurement and observation, and the wavefunction interpretation only applies to the unmeasured system; once its trajectory has been determined, the past is entirely classical in its behavior.

Or is it the case that each and every possible outcome that could occur actually does occur, but simply not in our Universe? Is it possible that there are an infinite number of parallel Universes out there, and that all possible outcomes occur infinitely many times in a variety of them, but it takes the act of measurement to know which one occurred in ours?

Although these might all seem like radically different possibilities, theyre all consistent (and not, by any means, an exhaustive list of) interpretations of quantum mechanics. At this point in time, the only differences between the Universe they describe are philosophical. From a physical point of view, they all predict the same exact results for any experiment we know how to perform at present.

However, if there are an infinite number of parallel Universes out there and not simply in a mathematical sense, but in a physically real one there needs to be a place for them to live. We need enough Universe to hold all of these possibilities, and to allow there to be somewhere within it where every possible outcome can be real. The only way this could work is if:

From a pre-existing state, inflation predicts that a series of universes will be spawned as inflation continues, with each one being completely disconnected from every other one, separated by more inflating space. One of these bubbles, where inflation ended, gave birth to our Universe some 13.8 billion years ago, where our entire visible Universe is just a tiny portion of that bubbles volume. Each individual bubble is disconnected from all of the others.

The Universe needs to be born infinite because the number of possible outcomes that can occur in a Universe that starts off like ours, 13.8 billion years ago, increases more quickly than the number of independent Universes that come to exist in even an eternally inflating Universe. Unless the Universe was born infinite in size a finite amount of time ago, or it was born finite in size an infinite amount of time ago, its simply not possible to have enough Universes to hold all possible outcomes.

But if the Universe was born infinite and cosmic inflation occurred, suddenly the Multiverse includes an infinite number of independent Universes that start with initial conditions identical to our own. In such a case, anything that could occur not only does occur, but occurs an infinite number of times. There would be an infinite number of copies of you, and me, and Earth, and the Milky Way, etc., that exist in an infinite number of independent Universe. And in some of them, reality unfolds identically to how it did here, right up until the moment when one particular quantum measurement takes place. For us in our Universe, it turned out one way; for the version of us in a parallel Universe, perhaps that outcome is the only difference in all of our cosmic histories.

The inherent width, or half the width of the peak in the above image when youre halfway to the crest of the peak, is measured to be 2.5 GeV: an inherent uncertainty of about +/- 3% of the total mass. The mass of the particle in question, the Z boson, is peaked at 91.187 GeV, but that mass is inherently uncertain by a significant amount.

But when we talk about uncertainty in quantum physics, were generally talking about an outcome whose results havent been measured or decided just yet. Whats uncertain in our Universe isnt past events that have already been determined, but only events whose possible outcomes have not yet been constrained by measurables.

If we think about a double slit experiment thats already occurred, once weve seen the interference pattern, its not possible to state whether a particular electron traveled through slit #1 or slit #2 in the past. That was a measurement we could have made but didnt, and the act of not making that measurement resulted in the interference pattern appearing, rather than simply two piles of electrons.

There is no Universe where the electron travels either through slit #1 or slit #2 and still makes an interference pattern by interfering with itself. Either the electron travels through both slits at once, allowing it to interfere with itself, and lands on the screen in such a way that thousands upon thousands of such electrons will expose the interference pattern, or some measurements occurs to force the electron to solely travel through slit #1 or slit #2 and no interference pattern is recovered.

Perhaps the spookiest of all quantum experiments is the double-slit experiment. When a particle passes through the double slit, it will land in a region whose probabilities are defined by an interference pattern. With many such observations plotted together, the interference pattern can be seen if the experiment is performed properly; if you retroactively ask which slit did each particle go through? you will find youre asking an ill-posed question.

What does this mean?

It means as was recognized by Heisenberg himself nearly a century ago that the wavefunction description of the Universe does not apply to the past. Right now, there are a great many things that are uncertain in the Universe, and thats because the critical measurement or interaction to determine what that things quantum state is has not yet been taken.

In other words, there is a boundary between the classical and quantum the definitive and the indeterminate and that the boundary between them is when things become real, and when the past becomes fixed. That boundary, according to physicist Lee Smolin, is what defines now in a physical sense: the moment where the things that were observing at this instant fixes certain observables to have definitively occurred in our past.

We can think about infinite parallel Universes as opening up before us as far as future possibilities go, in some sort of infinitely forward-branching tree of options, but this line of reasoning does not apply to the past. As far as the past goes, at least in our Universe, previously determined events have already been metaphorically written in stone.

This 1993 photo by Carol M. Highsmith shows the last president of apartheid-era South Africa, F.W. de Klerk, alongside president-elect Nelson Mandela, as both were about to receive Americas Liberty Medal for effecting the transition of power away from white minority rule and towards universal majority rule. This event definitively occurred in our Universe.

In a quantum mechanical sense, this boils down to two fundamental questions.

The answer seems to be no and no. To achieve a macroscopic difference from quantum mechanical outcomes means weve already crossed into the classical realm, and that means the past history is already determined to be different. There is no way back to a present where Nelson Mandela dies in 2013 if he already died in prison in the 1980s.

Furthermore, the only places where these parallel Universes can exist is beyond the limit of our observable Universe, where theyre completely causally disconnected from anything that happens here. Even if theres a quantum mechanical entanglement between the two, the only way information can be transferred between those Universes is limited by the speed of light. Any information about what occurred over there simply doesnt exist in our Universe.

We can imagine a very large number of possible outcomes that could have resulted from the conditions our Universe was born with, and a very large number of possible outcomes that could have occurred over our cosmic history as particles interact and time passes. If there were enough possible Universes out there, it would also be possible that the same set of outcomes happened in multiple places, leading to the scenario of infinite parallel Universes. Unfortunately, we only have the one Universe we inhabit to observe, and other Universes, even if they exist, are not causally connected to our own.

The truth is that there may well be parallel Universes out there in which all of these things did occur. Maybe there is a Berenstein Bears out there, along with Shazaam the movie and a Nelson Mandela who died in prison in the 1980s. But that has no bearing on our Universe; they never occurred here and no one who remembers otherwise is correct. Although the neuroscience of human memory is not fully understood, the physical science of quantum mechanics is well-enough understood that we know whats possible and what isnt. You do have a faulty memory, and parallel Universes arent the reason why.

Read the original:

Could quantum mechanics explain the Mandela effect? - Big Think

It may seem strange to look to the discipline of quantum physics for lessons that will help to create future-fit leaders. But science has a lot to offer us.

Like scientists, business leaders need to be able to manage rapid change and ambiguity in a non-linear, multi-disciplinary and networked environment. But, for the most part, businesses find themselves trapped in processes that draw on the paradigm of certainty and predictability. This approach is analogous to the Newtonian physics developed in the 1600s.

The ambiguity that business leaders operate in is encapsulated in mathematical models developed by the advances in Quantum Physics developed in the early 1900s. These advances culminated in massive progression in technology. And they can accommodate the complexity and uncertainty archetypes found in nature and now by extension human behaviour.

These mathematical models allow for improved scenario and forecasting. They are therefore very useful in vastly improving decision-making, as pointed out by the author Adam C. Hall.

Throughout history, scholars have tried to make sense of human behaviour and, by extension, leadership attributes by studying natural phenomena.

According to complexity economist Brian Arthur and physicist Geoffrey West human social systems function optimally as complex adaptive systems or quantum systems.

The newly developed field of quantum leadership maps the human, conscious equivalents onto the 12 systems that define complex adaptive systems or quantum organisations. These are: self-awareness; vision and value led; spontaneity; holism; field-independence; humility; ability to reframe; asking fundamental questions; celebration of diversity; positive use of adversity; compassion; a sense of vocation (purpose).

Quantum leadership is essentially a new management approach that integrates the most effective attributes of traditional leadership with recent advances in both quantum physics and neuroscience. It is a model that allows for greater responsiveness. It draws on our innate ability to recognise, adapt and respond to uncertainty and complexity.

My academic work has been in nanophysics. This is an study where the laws of physics become governed by quantum physics as opposed to the rigid and deterministic Newtonian approach.

When entering the corporate world my interest was piqued on how leaders should respond to complexity, ambiguity and non-liniearity. This complimentarity extended my curiosity. In turn this led me to navigate several disciplines dealing with complex systems.

Quantum Mechanics has been confirmed by scientific evidence. The most popularly cited experiment was the Nobel winning theoretical development by Louis-Victor Pierre Raymond de Broglie explaining the wave-particle duality of light illustrated by the double slit experiment of Thomas Young. This showed that the outcome of any potential event is multi-fold and dependent on the vantage point of the observer.

This doesnt imply the correctness or incorrectness of any outcome. It just highlights how vantage point can and does influence behaviour and decision-making.

To come to grips with the vast change precipitated by the fourth industrial revolution businesses have to acknowledge that outcomes are vantage point dependent and random. This industrial revolution provides the potential to precipitate fundamental and positive changes in the way in which societies and work are organised.

Disruptive technologies such as mobile banking, practices such as remote working, and dramatic changes in consumer behaviour are inevitably rousing leadership from a linear mindset as they uncover non-linear opportunities.

The imperative of developing leaders that can deal with pervasive disruptions has being recognized by leading business schools. Examples include INSEADs programme in Executive Education. One course covers developing effective strategies and learning how to innovate in a disruptive, uncertain world.

The concept of a quantum leader is gaining traction in behavioural studies.

Quantum leaders, like the systems they have to manage, are poised at the edge of chaos. They thrive on the potential latent in uncertainty. They are also:

In this way, they are precipitating a radical break from the past.

Practically, quantum leadership is informed by quantum thinking and guided by the defining principles of quantum physics. Quantum leaders think ahead by formulating many scenarios for what the future might hold, encourage questions and experiments, and thrive on uncertainty.

Quantum leaders are guided by the same principles that inform complex adaptive systems. They can also operate effectively outside the direct control of formal systems. They have the ability to reframe challenges and issues within the context of the environment. And develop new approaches through relationships.

In short, they are curious, adaptable and tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty.

The charismatic and forceful leader like the iconic Lee Iacocca led Chrysler to the company to great heights. Yet he failed to anticipate the dominance of Japanese automotive manufacturers. Lionised leaders who consult only as a matter of form but impose what they believed to be their superior way of thinking are the antithesis of what a quantum leaders represents.

The ingrained categorisation or divide between hard, such as Physics and soft, the Humanities in general sciences is self limiting. It creates unnecessary chasms between creativity and innovation. The quantum management paradigm recognises that analytics, design, creativity and human behaviour has to be integrated into the mindsets of future leaders.

The World Economic Forum estimates that digital transformation will transform a third of all jobs globally within the next decade. In addition billions of people will require reskilling. This trend will hit developing nations particularly hard. They have limited access to technology, remain locked into traditional teaching methods, and still practice top-down models of management.

In seeking solutions to this scenario, intellectuals across all disciplines need to come together to explore a more agile, multi-disciplinary approach to social and business management. Drawing on quantum theory concepts, we need to create a different way of looking at probability and possibility in the business world.

Business schools need to develop a new kind of business leader that can consider all possible outcomes. They need to be adaptable enough to function in a world in which outcomes may well be counter-intuitive. This is the way of the future.

Link:

Quantum physics offers insights about leadership in the 21st century - The Conversation

A new warp speed experiment could finally offer an indirect test of famed physicist Stephen Hawking's most famous prediction about black holes.

The new proposal suggests that, by nudging an atom to become invisible, scientists could catch a glimpse of the ethereal quantum glow that envelops objects traveling at close to the speed of light.

The glow effect, called the Unruh (or Fulling-Davies-Unruh) effect, causes the space around rapidly accelerating objects to seemingly be filled by a swarm of virtual particles, bathing those objects in a warm glow. As the effect is closely related to the Hawking effect in which virtual particles known as Hawking radiation spontaneously pop up at the edges of black holes scientists have long been eager to spot one as a hint of the others existence.

Related: 'X particle' from the dawn of time detected inside the Large Hadron Collider

But spotting either effect is incredibly hard. Hawking radiation only occurs around the terrifying precipice of a black hole, and achieving the acceleration needed for the Unruh effect would probably need a warp drive. Now, a groundbreaking new proposal, published in an April 26 study in the journal Physical Review Letters, could change that. Its authors say they have uncovered a mechanism to dramatically boost the strength of the Unruh effect through a technique that can effectively turn matter invisible.

"Now at least we know there is a chance in our lifetimes where we might actually see this effect," co-author Vivishek Sudhir, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and a designer of the new experiment, said in a statement. "Its a hard experiment, and theres no guarantee that wed be able to do it, but this idea is our nearest hope."

First proposed by scientists in the 1970s, the Unruh effect is one of many predictions to come out of quantum field theory. According to this theory, there is no such thing as an empty vacuum. In fact, any pocket of space is crammed with endless quantum-scale vibrations that, if given sufficient energy, can spontaneously erupt into particle-antiparticle pairs that almost immediately annihilate each other. And any particle be it matter or light is simply a localized excitation of this quantum field.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking predicted that the extreme gravitational force felt at the edges of black holes their event horizons would also create virtual particles.

Gravity, according to Einsteins theory of general relativity, distorts space-time, so that quantum fields get more warped the closer they get to the immense gravitational tug of a black holes singularity. Because of the uncertainty and weirdness of quantum mechanics, this warps the quantum field, creating uneven pockets of differently moving time and subsequent spikes of energy across the field. It is these energy mismatches that make virtual particles emerge from what appears to be nothing at the fringes of black holes.

"Black holes are believed to be not entirely black," lead author Barbara oda, a doctoral student in physics at the University of Waterloo in Canada, said in a statement. "Instead, as Stephen Hawking discovered, black holes should emit radiation."

Much like the Hawking effect, the Unruh effect also creates virtual particles through the weird melding of quantum mechanics and the relativistic effects predicted by Einstein. But this time, instead of the distortions being caused by black holes and the theory of general relativity, they come from near light-speeds and special relativity, which dictates that time runs slower the closer an object gets to the speed of light.

According to quantum theory, a stationary atom can only increase its energy by waiting for a real photon to excite one of its electrons. To an accelerating atom, however, fluctuations in the quantum field can add up to look like real photons. From an accelerating atoms perspective, it will be moving through a crowd of warm light particles, all of which heat it up. This heat would be a telltale sign of the Unruh effect.

But the accelerations required to produce the effect are far beyond the power of any existing particle accelerator. An atom would need to accelerate to the speed of light in less than a millionth of a second experiencing a g force of a quadrillion meters per second squared to produce a glow hot enough for current detectors to spot.

"To see this effect in a short amount of time, youd have to have some incredible acceleration," Sudhir said. "If you instead had some reasonable acceleration, youd have to wait a ginormous amount of time longer than the age of the universe to see a measurable effect."

To make the effect realizable, the researchers proposed an ingenious alternative. Quantum fluctuations are made denser by photons, which means that an atom made to move through a vacuum while being hit by light from a high-intensity laser could, in theory, produce the Unruh effect, even at fairly small accelerations. The problem, however, is that the atom could also interact with the laser light, absorbing it to raise the atom's energy level, producing heat that would drown out the heat generated by the Unruh effect.

But the researchers found yet another workaround: a technique they call acceleration-induced transparency. If the atom is forced to follow a very specific path through a field of photons, the atom will not be able to "see" the photons of a certain frequency, making them essentially invisible to the atom. So by daisy-chaining all these workarounds, the team would then be able to test for the Unruh effect at this specific frequency of light.

Making that plan a reality will be a tough task. The scientists plan to build a lab-size particle accelerator that will accelerate an electron to light speeds while hitting it with a microwave beam. If theyre able to detect the effect, they plan to conduct experiments with it, especially those that will enable them to explore the possible connections between Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

"The theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics are currently still somewhat at odds, but there has to be a unifying theory that describes how things function in the universe," co-author Achim Kempf, a professor of applied mathematics at the University of Waterloo, said in a statement. "We've been looking for a way to unite these two big theories, and this work is helping to move us closer by opening up opportunities for testing new theories against experiments."

Originally published on Live Science.

Visit link:

Warp drive experiment to turn atoms invisible could finally test Stephen Hawking's most famous prediction - Livescience.com

Jacinda Ardern is right to draw attention to the fragile nature of democracy (New Zealand PM addresses Harvard on gun control and democracy, 27 May). In rewriting the ministerial code, Boris Johnson is making a blatant attempt to save his own neck (Boris Johnson accused of changing ministerial code to save his skin, 27 May). How long before he changes other cornerstones of British democracy? Why bother with the scrutiny of select committees? Why go through the difficult and expensive process of election? Why not appoint a prime minister for life?

Johnson is as grubby a man who ever set foot in politics, but the electorate need to look at the equally grubby band of sycophantic enablers who keep him in post. If we stand by as Johnson and his cronies stealthily undermine our democracy, future generations may find themselves negotiating a very different political landscape: one that cannot be easily overthrown.Lynne CopleyHuddersfield, West Yorkshire

The shenanigans in Downing Street, and the apparent absolution of the chief political protagonist after police inquiries (barring one fixed-penalty notice), seemed to me to be reminiscent of Bullingdon Club behaviour. Rich kids get drunk, trash the place, abuse the servants, ignore the laws that are for the little people and are let off by a spineless police service after heavy action by expensive lawyers.

That seemed bad enough, but now it seems that Boris Johnson has decided to use his power to protect himself by changing the ministerial code. So much for our unwritten constitution, British values and the rule of law. I am incandescent with rage at this shamelessness.Anne CarslawGlasgow

So much of the UK constitution, based in convention as much as law, is reliant on the integrity of its government. It follows that a rogue prime minister, lacking integrity and with a servile majority in the Commons, can alter this uncodified constitution to his own advantage, more or less at will. This government has a long track record of changing, and attempting to change, both convention and law, of which the alterations to the ministerial code of conduct are but the most recent example. It is what makes this government so dangerous. It is accentuating the trend to an unaccountable elective dictatorship. We should not be complacent about the weaknesses of our much-lauded democracy.Roy BoffySutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Marina Hyde likens the cabinets Partygate comments to quantum physics (No drive, no spine, very little vision: even science cant explain the creatures clinging on to Johnson, 27 May), but it is equally Marxist. Groucho, when chairing a meeting in the film Duck Soup, does not allow a point to be raised because the current agenda item is old business. He immediately moves on to new business, but disallows the previous point again because thats old business already.Joe LockerSurbiton, London

Marina Hyde could have found a word in another science, biology, to account for Boris Johnson and the weird creatures who cling to him: atavism. An atavism is a characteristic thought to have disappeared from the genome of a species many generations in the past, only to suddenly reappear usually to the detriment of the species as a whole.Pauline CaldwellDerby

Have an opinion on anything youve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

Go here to see the original:

Democracy is in danger as Boris Johnson rips up the rulebook - The Guardian