Slashdot Mirror
100th Anniversary of Quantum Physics
EricR writes "On December 14, 1900, Max Planck presented experimental results in front of the German Physical Society and announced that they could best be explained if energy exists in discrete packets, which he called "quanta." Today is the 100th birthday of Quantum Physics."
Gotta love quantum physics...
Check out the University of Chicago's Physics Department for all the information you could want to know about modern research in quantum physics.
Oh, and December 2, 2002 was the 60th Anniversy of the first self-sustaining controlled release of nuclear energy
Since I goofed on the last post, I'll add the obligatory links to:
CERN
The Enrico Fermi Institute
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratories
Agronne National Laboratories
Los Alamos National Laboratories
Yep, all the information you could want on modern Quantum Physics.
He also said "look at me, everything I do is brilliant, you must listen to me, BTW I designed the H-bomb whilst hacking into someone's safe isn't that cool?".
My favourite quote from a quantum mechanic was Einstein's "Two things are infinite: the Universe, and human stupidity. Oh and I'm not so sure about the first one." If you're worried about the phrase quantum mechanic being applied to Einstein, I suggest you read about the photoelectric effect.
When Planck was studying spectra, he was mostly dealing with photons, and then layed down the fundamental parts of quantum theory, outlining the physics behind these "digital" packages, which Einstein later defined as photons.
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
this page talks about some other interesting scientific events that have their anniversary today:
1986 - First non-stop, non-refuelled flight around the world
1967 - Announcement of first synthesis of biologically active DNA
1962 - Mariner transmits information from first-ever rendezvous with Venus
It all goes downhill from first post
Quantum Physics was president we wouldn't have the problems we have today...
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft - [ Translate this page ] ...
n
Max-Planck-Institute betreiben Grundlagenforschung in den Natur-, Bio-
und Geisteswissenschaften im Dienste der Allgemeinheit. Insbesondere
Description: Übersicht aller Institute in Deutschland.
Category: World>Deutsch>Wissenschaft>Forschungseinrichtunge
www.mpg.de/ - 20k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages
MPIfM ... Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science Max ...
MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR MATHEMATIK
Vivatsgasse
www.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/static/home.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik: Home Page
... International Max Planck Research School for Computer Science (IMPRS) PhD Programme ...
g en
and fellowships for graduates of all nationalities European Union Marie
Description: Saarbrücken (Deutschland)
Category: World>Deutsch>...>Informatik>Forschungseinrichtun
www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/ - 9k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Astrophysik, Garching - [ Translate this page ]
Description: Prominent research institution in astrophysics.
Category: Science>Physics>Astrophysics>Institutions
www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages
Planck
... Max Planck came from an academic family, his father being professor of law at ...
Kiel and both his grandfather and great-grandfather had been professors of
www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/ Mathematicians/Planck.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen - Home
... The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics is one of the institutes of the ...
German Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV Currently
www.mpi.nl/world/ - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung - Homepage - [ Translate this page ]
... The Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies is an institute ...
for advanced research in the social sciences. It builds a bridge
Description: Köln (Deutschland)
Category: World>Deutsch>...>Forschungseinrichtungen
www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/ - 21k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages
Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik - [ Translate this page ] ...
Das Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik untersucht die physikalischen Grundlagen
für ein Fusionskraftwerk, das - ähnlich wie die Sonne - Energie aus der
Description: Garching (Deutschland)
Category: World>Deutsch>...>Physik>Forschungseinrichtunge n
www.ipp.mpg.de/ - 14k - Dec. 13, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages
Max Planck Institut fuer Radioastronomie Bonn - [ Translate this page ]g en
[english]. Aktuell, Das Institut. Forschung, Mitarbeiter.
Öffentlichkeit, Intranet. webmaster@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de.
Description: Bonn (Deutschland)
Category: World>Deutsch>...>Astronomie>Forschungseinrichtun
www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages
An entangled particle is subatomic. That means it doesn't have electrons to drain away.
What do you think you mean by manipulate the particles?
The only thing entagled particles share is spin. If you move one particle the other does not also move.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still applies, so that it is possible for a particle to travel faster than light, but it is not possible to send a signal faster than light. The proof by contridiction for that under quantum theory is still quite simple.
How does one use a single subatomic particle to "cause" a nuclear blast? The statement is meaningless.
Most of the people here have read the Ender series and know what an ansible is. A science fiction story does not equal a quantum mechanics theory.
Jason
The wavelength distribution of blackbody radiation had been determined some (many?) years earlier. However, no one could figure out how to to explain how it could come about.
Somehow, Planck worked out an equation which yielded that wavelength distribution quite precisely. I believe that it is correct that his model was a "what if" conjecture about energy exisiting in discrete packets.
As discussed, the rest is history.
53 years of passing time has dimmed my memory, but I'm pretty sure that is the story.
1.) Entanglement has more to do with determining the state of a particle and then knowing more about the partner particle than you "should" be able to know than it does with two things "doing the same things" at the same time. After all, you're presuming that they do not go in the same direction...
o ry
2.) A "proven" theory is still a theory. Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of gravitation, Theory of Quantum Energy. Theory of Evolution. Theory is ultimate in science.
A Theory in Science is something totally different from what the average person thinks is a theory. What an average person thinks of when he/she hears the word "Theory" is really closer to what scientists would call an "Hypothesis".
See the definitions at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=the
The first definition fits science; the last fits the general population.
JD
Basically, formalism in quantum mechanics is expressing quantum mechanical ideas in the language of QM, namely linear algebra. Operators and observables (physical quantities like position, velocity, etc.) are represented either by matrices or " notation". This allows one to delve further into quantum mechanics, and allows one to use mathematics to predict phenomenon. In a sense, this complication of the mathematics for simple problems (like the hydrogen atom) allows one to do more complex problems (like the hydrogen atom in a magnetic field, where the energy levels of the orbitals will split).
So today, quantum is taught by trying to relate basic concepts in QM to those in classical mechanics (such as postition, energy, momentum, etc.) in the first few chapters in a book. Then to faciliate communicating QM ideas, formalism is introduced. It's like no one wants to write three plus two equals five, when 3+2=5 will suffice. This allows more difficult problems to be tackled more easily.
Wow... I don't even know where to start...
"it doesn't even matter how far apart they are in the universe; they'll always do the same things at the same times no matter where they are in the universe"
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Quantum entanglement says that the two particles *started off the same (or opposite or some such relationship of the initial states). It follows, then that if you do not *observe* either particle for quite some time, and take the two of them far distant from one another, then the instant that you *observe* the state of one particle, you immediately *know* the state of the other particle (wherever it is).
This gives at first pass the illusion that you have gotten information at faster than the speed of light... I mean, you did just *instantaneously* learn the state of a particle far, far away, right? That's gotta mean that you communcated with that thing way over there, right? No. Not at all.
Now, what makes this interesting is the fact that quantum mechanics tells us that if you don't *observe* either particle's state, then neither particle has actually "picked" a state yet. So, it's as though the one particle *told* the other one that "hey I was observed at state A, so you must now occupy state B". So, now it appears that information has traveled faster than the speed of light... and I won't argue that point, because last I knew better scientists than me were still duking that one out.
However, one thing that anyone with a basic understanding of this can agree upon is the fact that there is no way to *use* the possible information transfer involved in the collapse of a wave function to TRANSMIT INFORMATION. Why? Well, there is no way to observe a wave function directly. You can only measure some operator on a wave function (like energy, position, spin), and by doing so, you collapse the wave function into an eigenfunction of that operator. However there is no way to tell whether the eigenfunction you observe is the result of *your* observation or someone elses. In other words, you can't tell if you collapsed the wave function or if someone else did, and quantum entanglement doesn't *do* anything other than pre-collapse the wave-fcuntion for you.
:Wq
Not an editor command: Wq
Interview with David Bohmt m
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.h
David Bohm 1917-1992
In 1950 David Bohm wrote what many physicists consider to be a model textbook on quantum mechanics. Ironically, he has never accepted that theory of physics. In the history of science he is a maverick, a member of that small group of physicists-including Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, Erwin Schrödinger, Alfred Lande, Paul Dirac, and John Wheeler--who have expressed grave doubts that a theory founded on indeterminism and chance could give us a true view of the universe around us.
Today's generation of physicists, impressed by the stunning successes of quantum physics--from nuclear weapons to lasers-are of a different mind. They are busy applying quantum mechanics to areas its original creators never imagined. Stephen Hawking, for example, used it to describe the creation of elementary particles from black holes and to argue that the universe exploded into being in a quantum-mechanical event.
Bucking this tide of modern physics for more than 30 years, Bohm has been more than a gadfly. His objections to the foundations of quantum mechanics have gradually coalesced into an extension of the theory so sweeping that it amounts to a new view of reality. Believing that the nature of things is not reducible to fragments or particles, he argues for a holistic view of the universe. He demands that we learn to regard matter and life as a whole, coherent domain, which he calls the implicate order.
Most other physicists discard Bohm's logic without bothering to scrutinize it. Part of the difficulty is that his implicate order is rife with paradox. Another problem is the sheer range of his ideas, which encompass such hitherto nonphysical subjects as consciousness, society, truth, language, and the process of scientific theory making itself.
The son of a furniture dealer, Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1917. He studied physics at the University of California with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Unwilling to testify against his former teacher and other friends during the McCarthy hearings, Bohm left the United States and took a post at the University of São Paulo, Brazil. From there he moved to Israel, then England, where he eventually became professor of physics at Birkbeck College in London.
Bohm is perhaps best known for his early work on the interactions of electrons in metals. He showed that their individual, haphazard movement concealed a highly organized and cooperative behavior called plasma oscillation. This intimation of an order underlying apparent chaos was pivotal in Bohm's development.
In 1959 Bohm, working with Yakir Ahronov, showed that a magnetic field might alter the behavior of electrons without touching them: If two electron beams were passed on either side of a space containing a magnetic field, the field would retard the waves of one beam even though it did not penetrate the space and actually touch the electrons. This 'AB effect" was verified a year later.
During the Fifties and Sixties Bohm expanded his belief in the existence of hidden variables that control seemingly random quantum events, and from that point on, his ideas diverged more and more from the mainstream of modern physics. His books Causality and Chance in Modern Physics and Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1957 and 1980, respectively, spell out his new theory in considerable detail. In the Sixties Bohm met the Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti, and their continuing dialogues, published as a book, The Ending of Time, helped the physicist clarify his ideas about wholeness and order.
Recently retired from Birkbeck College, Bohm is now trying to develop a mathematical version of his implicate-order hypothesis-the kind of precise, testable theory that other physicists will take seriously. It is not an easy task, for Bohm's universe is a strange, mystical place in which past, present, and future coexist. The objects in his universe, even the subatomic particles, are secondary; it is a process of movement, continuous unfolding and enfolding from a seamless whole that is fundamental. To test the theory of general relativity, Einstein forecast that the sun's gravity would bend light waves from distant stars; he was correct. So far Bohm has been unable to find an experimental aspect that could support his ideas in the same way.
Although recently recovered from serious heart surgery, Bohm continues to make frequent trips throughout Europe and to the United States, where he lectures, talks to colleagues, and encourages students. His ideas have been enthusiastically received by philosophers, neuroscientists, theologians, poets, and artists.
I think his main problem was the idea of Universal instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction (which leads to "spooky action at a distance"[2] and God playing "dice with the Universe"). These concepts came from the Copenhagen Interpretation, and was the best way the Quantum theoreticians could think to explain the seemingly counterintuitive results of QM - it's pure philosophy and has nothing to do with the Physics.
Of course not everyone necessarily subscribes Copenhagen now. My personal favourite explanation is the proposition popular in the 80s and in Sliders - that multiple Universes are created at each instant multiple outcomes are possible, each reflecting the different outcomes.
Quantum mechanics as we currently know it includes Bose-Einstein statistics describing the behaviour of systems of integer-spin particles (which leads to the concept of a Bose-Einstein condensate - a highly active area of research today); Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (described at the atomic scale by the Einstein coefficients); quantisation of electromagnetic radiation (proposed by Einstein); Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect (for which he received the Nobel prize). Stretching the boundaries a little, there are equations for the equilibrium number of charge carriers in Solid State physics which rely on the quantisation of charge in the material. These are known as the Einstein equations.
Even the greatest can be mistaken.Such as when he removed lambda from his equation on the state of the Universe (his "biggest blunder", indeed :-)).
[1]Point of order: even Schroedinger didn't believe in Schroedinger's Cat. He set it up as a thought experiment to show how absurd QM is (I mean, who could really believe in a dead/alive cat? Not him). The experiment has of course, since been done, sans cat.
[2]He believed that the "instantaneous" collapse of the wavefunction would lead to information being propagated instantaneously throughout the Universe. Of course, the wavefunction is not a measurable quantity so this does not occur.
No, he (and the others) said, more or less, "if quantum mechanics is true, this weird thing would happen, which no one could possibly believe in". The problem is that many years later, when it became possible to run the experiment, the weird thing did, in fact, happen.
Here goes...
One of the odd phenomena observed in quantum mechanics is the creation of tandem photons from certain kinds of light sources that have the odd characteristic that their dynamic properties are very strongly correlated. That is, if two observers measure the polarization of one photon each, they will observe the same value for the polarization. Quantum mechanically speaking however, if, say, the two photons are polarized at some angle perpendicular to its line of travel, and you set up your measurement apparatus to measure the polarization at a different angle, then QM does not tell you what polarization value you will observe, but gives you a probability. The observed polarization for one photon is essentially random, but the distribution of values for many photons will follow the probability predicted.
Now several physicists, notably Einstein, took this bizarre feat of the correlated photons to mean that the polarization values for the two photons had to be dependent on some hidden variables that QM just didn't know about, but that became apparent in the experiment, which became known as the Einstein-Podalsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.
Now, in the '60s, along came Bell, who was working on the EPR paradox hoping to prove Einstein et al correct. Bell's inequality reasons what the maximum possible correlation between the two photons should be, assuming that once the two are created, the one cannot affect the other. The problem is, the EPR paradox, when carried out in real experiments, has been shown to violate this inequality: the two photons are much more strongly correlated than they have any right to be according to a hidden-variables-locality-preserved interpretation of QM.
In the mathematical description of QM, this behavior has to do with the fact that in QM the two photons are not treated separately, but must be modelled by one function in hilbert space. The two photons are "phase entagled". Einstein particularly disliked this property of QM because it seems to throw out the principle of locality (no action-at-a-distance), although currently I believe the accepted idea is that no "information" can be sent non-locally using entaglement. I'll leave those questions to a real physicist.
See EPR Paradox
"When I was in school, I cheated on my metaphysics exam: I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me"
Oh god no, you don't want just Liboff to learn QM with. That is, unless your lecturer is really good--ours is decent, but the class is at 8 AM so it's a moot point--I'm currently in Quantum Theory II, the highest undergrad QM class at U of Arizona, and the text is Liboff. I, and several others, bought Griffiths on our own to get a good general understanding of what's going on, and then refer back to Liboff to look for the quantitative bits that are absent from Liboff.
All are better than Goswami, though.
BTW, with reference to this article, if you know math up through differential equations and want to learn about QM, I highly recommend Griffiths' book. It's not a reference text like Liboff, but it contains more than enough math so that it's not handwavy.
Heh heh, that really was ripped word for word from Agnostica.com, right down to the announcement of the "100th" anniversary. Of course, the funny thing is that that "news" item announced the launch of the Agnostica site, two years ago when it was the 100th year anniversary, for sure.
Guess I need to update the site more often.
Nice to know the folks at Slashdot celebrate Agnostica, though!
Lates...
Darren "Gav" Bleuel
Nukees, an atomic comic