Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quantum State Created In Largest Object Yet

Posted by samzenpus on from the hoping-each-time-that-his-next-leap-will-be-the-leap-home. dept.

SpuriousLogic writes "A team of researchers have created a 'quantum state' in an object billions of times larger than ever before. From the article: 'Such states, in which an object is effectively in two places at once, have until now only been accomplished with single particles, atoms and molecules. In this experiment, published in the journal Nature, scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests. The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing.'"

18 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. so how big is it? by Punto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:so how big is it? by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.

      It's the Library of Congress.

      It's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.

      Librarians are wetting themselves at least as much as physicists.

    2. Re:so how big is it? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Informative

      "With this experiment, we've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms."

      "The "quantum resonator" can be seen with the naked eye."

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:so how big is it? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "barely visible with the naked eye"

      Sounds like they must have bought one of those "penis enlargement" pills.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:so how big is it? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's the problem with vague claims in an article. We don't know if the weight is billions of times bigger or if the diameter is. Therefore we don't know if we have 6x10^9 atoms or 6x10^27 atoms. It doesn't even give an order of magnitude -> epic fail of scientific journalism.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:so how big is it? by waxigloo · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the researchers' website the nano-mechanical resonator is a few micrometers in diameter:
      http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~clelandgroup/research.html

      The previous record was a buckyball.

    6. Re:so how big is it? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it can be seen with the naked eye, then what does it look like when it's "in two places at once"? Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it?

  2. Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! by Canazza · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about one that doesn't destroy the original you?

    ooh ooh! I just came up with an awesome idea to make money!
    Tell people you have a quantum teleporter that will make a copy of them on another planet, but in reality, it doesn't do anything, but they can't prove it because they can't get to the other planet.

    we could make a religion out of it or something. Make loads of money. *ca ching!*

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  3. Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! by Canazza · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who modded that funny? I was being serious!
    *Lrons*

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  4. Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER! by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please stop giving Tom Cruise ideas.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Let me know when it scales up... by bobdotorg · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... to the size of a cat.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  6. A Bose-Einstein Condensate? by Snowtred · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From what the article looks like, all they've done is created a BEC (They don't mention that in the article, am I off?) of the largest object yet, which just means they cooled the material to milli-kelvin using some kind of trap, and the material becomes a new state of matter, a Bose Einstein Condensate.

    For some reason, I expected some kind of two-slit or uncertainty principle thing with a very large object. This doesn't really seem that impressive to me, but then my quantum is a bit dated.

  7. How do they confirm it's in a quantum state? by NthDegree256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a question that I assume has a reasonable answer, just one I've never actually gotten confirmation on.

    Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?" Do they just measure it and repeat the process several times, and note that it's occasionally at 1 quanta, occasionally at 0, and from that infer that it was in a quantum state up until they measured it?

    Second question, while I'm here - am I right in saying that according to the many-worlds interpretation, the universe branches when this object enters a quantum state, and we end up in one of two universes, one where the object has 1 quanta of energy and one where it has 0?

    Trying to grok all this "quantum mechanics" stuff :)

    1. Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. Yes.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state? by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

      Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?"

      Interference phenomena. The article is light on detail, but presumably they excite the system into a superposition of (mechanical) normal modes and then observe the motion, or the position of some part of it, at a later time and find that it is in a classically forbidden region.

      For example, suppose they excite it into two modes that interfere to produce a node at some point, so there is no motion there, but there would be if there it was in one mode or the other. Then monitoring the motion at that point would allow you to determine if the system was in a superposition of two quantum states rather than one or the other.

      With regard to the many-worlds interpretation: it doesn't answer the really important question. Neither does consistent histories or any of the decoherence-based approaches. The really important question is, "Why is there a classical world at all?" That is, these theories purport to show that we can get along just fine without the wavefunction ever undergoing "collapse", so in some sense all possible quantum outcomes of an experiment are permitted. But they never answer (or even ask), "Why is it only via interference phenomena that we are aware of these effects? Why aren't we aware of the other components of the wavefunction all the time? Why is there a classical world at all? Is it a feature of consciousness or the physics that permits beings like us to exist, that we are selected by a basically anthropic process to be able to experience only the narrowest subset of existence? If so, how?"

      Apart from that, the article is badly misleading: it seems to suggest that anyone anywhere thinks there is anything interesting about the physical size or number of particles involved the detectability of quantum phenomena. It has been known for decades that this is not the case: the number of available modes is what matters, and any sufficiently cold object can become arbitarily large without exhibiting classical behaviour. Furthermore, phenomena like the Mossbaure Effect told us something similar half a century or so ago. It's probably time for the popular press to stop talking about the quantum equivalent of the luminiferous aether and get with the 21st century.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  8. Re:This is awesome! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I am convinced that science is getting us closer and closer to God. Pretty soon we're going to understand how the universe works and He's going to say "you figured it out! Come up to My kingdom!" and we'll get to go to Heaven. Blessed be!"

    More likely it'll be "OMFM! Wall hacks, BANNED!!!!!"
    OMFM = Oh My Fuckin Me

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  9. The answer, Schrodingers kitten by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now it can AND cannot has cheezburger at the same time!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  10. Been done in superconductors by climate_control · · Score: 4, Informative

    Similarly macroscopic quantum states have been achieved in superconductors. So the significance of this work is that macroscopic superposition is accomplished with a mechanical system, not an electronic one. The Nature article that the BBC is referring to: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08967.html The BBC removed the scale bar, which shows that the resonator is about 70 microns long, with an "active region" 40 microns long. But the resonant frequency is still up in the GHz, so they only have to cool to 0.1K, which is not so hard these days.