Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Do What Einstein Thought Impossible

An anonymous reader writes "Einstein worked on Brownian motion (the movement of small particles in a fluid as they collide with the fluid's molecules) in 1905, but said it would be 'impossible' to determine the speed and direction of a single particle during this dance. Now researchers have gone and done it, by suspending a dust-sized glass sphere in air (which slowed down its dance moves, since it had fewer collisions with spaced-out air molecules than it would have had with water molecules). The researchers held the sphere in place with 'laser chopsticks,' and then watched how the glass bead bounced around to determine its direction and speed (abstract)."

38 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Magic words... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

    You had me at "laser chopsticks".

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Magic words... by vandoravp · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Laser chopsticks" sounds way cooler than "optical tweezer" from TFAbstract. They should've gone with that in the paper.

    2. Re:Magic words... by infinite9 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Laser chopsticks suck. They keep cooking your sushi before you can get it to your mouth.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    3. Re:Magic words... by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bhey alfo burn your mouf.

    4. Re:Magic words... by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Funny

      You had me at "laser chopsticks".

      Interesting... How do you suppose laser chopsticks would compare to, say, a laser spanner, or a sonic screwdriver?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    5. Re:Magic words... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

      They would clearly be more "chopsticky".

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Magic words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Laser chopsticks! It dices, cut, cooks and fries! Call now and receive a free shark!

      Made in China!

    7. Re:Magic words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You typed that with your mouth?!

      Ouch!

    8. Re:Magic words... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do not look at chopstick with remaining eye.

    9. Re:Magic words... by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cleans your teeth, though..

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    10. Re:Magic words... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then the eyes caught fire.
      And the fire caught your hair.
      Until the firefighters caught your smoldering remains in a urn.

      Now it’s your turn. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    11. Re:Magic words... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Master Miyagi: Man who catch dust-sized glass sphere with laser chopsticks accomplish anything.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    12. Re:Magic words... by treeves · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fire-breathing Dragon Naturally Speaking!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  2. To avoid confusion by CorporateSuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Laser chopsticks were invented to keep chow mein hot until the end of the meal.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    1. Re:To avoid confusion by IQgryn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Funny mod doesn't grant any karma, so people will sometimes mod something they enjoy Insightful even if it isn't.

  3. Infinite Improbability Drive by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    How will the Infinite Improbability Drive work now? It depended on Brownian motion. Now probability can never come off 1:1 and it'll never work!

    We must discover time travel immediately so we can go back and stop these researchers immediately! I mean, sooner!

    Tomorrow is Towel Day! We cannot allow a travesty like this to stand.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    1. Re:Infinite Improbability Drive by sorak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So are you suggesting that the infinite probability drive is improbable? Maybe it can run off of it's own improbability.

  4. But is it infinitely improbable? by wiredog · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the way that a nice cup of tea is?

  5. Keep in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When people say "impossible" they generally mean "not possible given what I currently understand about XYZ"

    Unless Einstein explicitly said "this will not be possible, ever"

    I mean, heck the article demonstrates this itself:

    "In 1907, Einstein likely did not foresee a time when dust-sized particles of glass could be trapped and suspended in air by dual laser beam “optical tweezers.”"

    I'm sorry but: No freaking shit. In 1907 I doubt many people would have foreseen that

    1. Re:Keep in mind by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      "In 1907, Einstein likely did not foresee a time when dust-sized particles of glass could be trapped and suspended in air by dual laser beam "optical tweezers.""

      I'm sorry but: No freaking shit. In 1907 I doubt many people would have foreseen that

      Warning: Do not attempt to foresee any more laser-related developments with remaining eye.

    2. Re:Keep in mind by jackchance · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm pretty sure that they didn't measure the position and momentum to better than half of Planck's Constant.

      --
      1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
    3. Re:Keep in mind by Ossifer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Looking at pictures of Einstein, I don't think he knew what "tweezers" meant...

    4. Re:Keep in mind by Jherico · · Score: 4, Informative

      Heisenberg was talking about subatomic particles, not specks of dust. Its basically a consequence of not being able to measure both the speed or position of a subatomic particle without affecting the other property. The more accurately you measure one, the less you know about the other. While this principle does apply to macroscopic objects like dust particles, the level of uncertainty about the size and position of something macroscopic (even something as small as a dust particle) is vanishingly small (like on the order of the width of an atom).

      --

      Jherico

      What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

  6. What an idiot by ayahner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ha. Einstein. What an idiot.

    1. Re:What an idiot by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah he's no Einstein, that's for sure.

  7. This Einstein Fella is a Hack by PatTheGreat · · Score: 5, Funny

    This Einstein fella - I keep on hearing about how he's been proven wrong or might be proven wrong or how people are picking his ideas apart. It's like he hasn't even SEEN a modern physics paper in like, the last 50 years.

    --
    Google: "All your data are belong to us."
    1. Re:This Einstein Fella is a Hack by ImprovOmega · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, and when was the last time he published anything? I doubt he'll make tenure at this rate.

  8. Slightly Squiffy Reporting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Einstein only said it was impossible from a tecnical point of view. Given he used brownian motion as direct evidence for the atomic/molecular nature of matter I am pretty sure he appreciated that with future technology it may be possible to do this kind of experiment...

  9. Did they *really* prove they exactly measured it? by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the glass bead were moving in such a way that was too subtle for them to measure, would they even know they couldn't measure it? What if Einstein was right and was simply implying that the movements eventually broke down so far that they were unobservable (similar to Planck's work)?

  10. Impossible for his time by repepo · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA doesn't refute any of Einsteins conclusions about Brownian motion. It only shows that it was something impossible to do at Einsteins time. What a cheap way to grab attention!

  11. This doesn't break the uncertainty principle. by raving+griff · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've seen a couple of comments (more than one thread or else I would have posted a reply there) that seem to suggest that this breaks quantum physics by accurately predicting the speed and direction of particles, but it should be noted that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to accurately calculate both the velocity and its position. Speed and angle are components of velocity, therefor the only conclusion of this experiment is that velocity can be calculated under these conditions.

    1. Re:This doesn't break the uncertainty principle. by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's correct. What's at issue here is a matter of engineering, not physics.

      Physicists reserve "impossible" for the truly mathematically unavoidable, while engineers expand it to the wildly impractical. When you say something "is" true, you're speaking in the former sense. When you say you "believe" something to be true, as Einstein did, you're speaking in the latter sense.

      So it's not overthrowing any physical principles. It's merely confirming something else Einstein said: the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

    2. Re:This doesn't break the uncertainty principle. by mortonda · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's merely confirming something else Einstein said: the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

      I don't know.... Einstein might want to revise that statement... he never had a chance to try to follow Lost

  12. Re:New unit of size.... by misosoup7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since when is 'dust' a unit of size?

    Since they made chopsticks out of monochromatic light.

  13. Re:Did they *really* prove they exactly measured i by Zantetsuken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly - they went and spouted "Oh, look at us, we disproved (Great Person X)'s work!" when all they really did was use selective reading and ignore the other half the book about the Uncertainty Principle

  14. Dumb summary by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you read the PhysicsWorld article, you'll see it actually says:

    But he believed that it would be impossible in practice to track this motion, given the incredibly short timescales over which the Brownian fluctuations take place

    Ahhh... still don't have the original source quotation from Einstein here, but it sounds like Einstein believed it was "impossible in practice" - in other words, that the technology didn't exist at that time to measure rapid fluctuations over microsecond or even nanosecond time scales, and maybe he couldn't even imagine such technology existing.

    So he never actually said he thought it was beyond the physical limits of the universe. There was no proof or physical law involved.

    Now call me up when somebody figures out how to move matter or information faster than the speed of light (i.e. group velocity greater than c). Einstein really did believe that was *impossible*.

  15. Based on Research by Steven Chu, et. al. by borroff · · Score: 3, Informative

    One thing interesting that isn't mentioned specifically: This work, using "optical tweezers", is based on research done by Nobel Laureate Steven Chu's group at Berkeley. Dr. Chu also happens to currently be the US Secretary of Energy.

    No job too big, no job too small, Steve Chu does 'em all.

  16. Nature of Brownian Motion by vdorie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Brownian Motion is a mathematical construct, which, among other things, is nowhere differentiable (almost surely). You can pin a BM down into sets with high probability, but no, you can't really predict it. It is merely used to *model* the movement of a particle in a fluid, it is not actually the process by which the molecules move. Indeed, "such a path represents the motion of a particle that in its wanderings back and forth travels an infinite distance in finite time. [BM] does not in its fine structure represent physical reality." (Billingsley, "Probability and Measure"). At least the science is interesting.