Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality

KentuckyFC writes "One of the central concepts in quantum theory is wave-particle duality — that every object can be thought of as a particle and a wave. Indeed every object has a quantum wavelength associated with it and so can form a quantum superposition with itself. That's easy to demonstrate with fundamental particles such as photons and electrons by passing a beam of them through a double slit and watching the interference pattern that forms on the other side. In this way, physicists have observed the interference patterns associated with atoms and even molecules such as buckyballs. Now, a group at the University of Vienna has observed the interference pattern formed by the quantum superposition of molecules containing over 800 atoms, or around 5,000 protons, 5,000 neutrons and 5,000 electrons. That's the most macroscopic occurrence of wave-particle duality ever observed, they say."

58 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Whatever by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wake me up when they can find the wavelength of a Turtle, because quantum theory holds that the universe is made of picoturtles. Why should anyone believe quantum "science"?

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
    1. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Picoturtles? What about the femtoturtles? It's turtles all the way down!

    2. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      don't forget ninjaturtles.

    3. Re:Whatever by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone believe quantum "science"?

      For starters, no picoturtles.

    4. Re:Whatever by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't forget the four elephants on the back of the turtle holding the world up. It's like you people had never taken a science class before.

    5. Re:Whatever by Orne · · Score: 1

      Picoturtles or it didn't happen.

    6. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This close enough?

    7. Re:Whatever by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're so smart, what do _you_ think the turtle's gender is?

    8. Re:Whatever by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Octarine

    9. Re:Whatever by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Dude, that's a COLOR, not a gender!!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    10. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the science works. So you should start learning to eat turtle, beginning with your own words..

    11. Re:Whatever by narcc · · Score: 1

      Again, you display your gross ignorance of basic science!

      Colors *are* genders.

    12. Re: Whatever by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      The equation is irrelevant. The Chelonian Uncertainty Principle demonstrates that the more accurately you know the momentum of a turtle, the less accurately you know its position. Since any usefully accurate value for its quantum wavelength would need very high accuracy for its momentum, you would never be able to find the turtle for which you had made your calculations, especially since they can look just like little rocks under the water and are naturally given to hiding.

      The Turtle Moves!

    13. Re:Whatever by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Almost. It's a Quantum Logo program. Where you have commands like

      simultaneously:
        20% forward 10
        30% backward 20
        50% turn 30

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    14. Re: Whatever by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, you are confused. this is not the size of an object, but uncertainty in position. for a turtle at normal velocities, and for your body, that "de Broglie" wavelength is quite small

    15. Re: Whatever by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      but it is turtles all the way down, so like electrons, we really only observe a turtle-shaped hole in the sea of turtles

  2. Not enough by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Funny

    I won't be happy until they get a whole cat to exist in superposition.
    Then a lab assistant.
    THEN THE WORLD!

    1. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks like we're going to need another Timmy!

    2. Re:Not enough by mark-t · · Score: 2

      If they can really do that, they will have invented a teleporter.

    3. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about politicians? Thats and entire person who can take dual positions and only pick a single position based on the audience.

    4. Re:Not enough by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are lots of pictures of coherent cats on the internet. Unfortunately as soon as somebody looks at them, they immediately collapse into a picture of a lolcat.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Not enough by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a politician that is coherent?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Not enough by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      THEN THE WORLD!

      Greg Egan did it.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:Not enough by mark-t · · Score: 1

      why would a teleported cat have to be a copy? This experiment strongly implies that macroscopic objects have a superposition just as much as atomic particles do... the question becomes, however... how do we manipulate it? Basically, increasing the probability of something being at one location high enough that it just is there instead of wherever the heck it was.

    8. Re:Not enough by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm suggesting that the concept of "destroying the original half" would be meaningless in this case, since the half of the entangled system that you are moving is just as much half of the original as the destroyed half was.

  3. Can you do this in reverse? by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 1

    I mean, their current setup is displaying an interference pattern.

    But how about doing it in reverse. Start from existing interference pattern, and go through all possible molecules until you find the one which matches the same interference pattern?

    1. Re:Can you do this in reverse? by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more like getting teleportation working. if we know the interference pattern, can we use that info to construct the molecule?

    2. Re:Can you do this in reverse? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the interference pattern is determined by the mass and velocity of the particle. Because of this the pattern would not be unique to any one particle.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  4. Vortices in Superfluids beats this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vortices in superfluids 3He or 4He are an expression of the wave-function.

    Experiments have been done up to 70 Mol, that is a lot more that 800 atoms.

    1. Re:Vortices in Superfluids beats this by hubie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are some really interesting experiments going on these days with QM behavior of macroscopic objects (micrometer-scale). I've seen descriptions of MEMS cantilevers built and they measure its vibrational modes, and these guys describe how they did it using reflected laser light. The trick is to cool the device to get rid of the phonons and detect when it falls into the ground state.

  5. My evil twin by PPH · · Score: 1

    Wait. I'm the evil one. Never mind.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. So by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

    What does this mean?

    1. Re:So by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      It means that people can be amazed by just about anything.

    2. Re:So by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
      It means they accomplished a completely new demonstration of what that they can not even begin to explain, except mathematically of course.

      .
      The mathematics is merely a statistical description of the observations, not details on the mechanism for the underlying process. Please wake me when they describe the actual underlying process.

    3. Re:So by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's the political holy grail! They will be able to vote yes and no at the same time.

    4. Re:So by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      It's the political holy grail! They will be able to vote yes and no at the same time.

      Politicians are already in a superposition of their principles - the measurement of what those principles are depends entirely on the who the observer is doing the measuring.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:So by daknapp · · Score: 1

      The mathematics is merely a statistical description of the observations, not details on the mechanism for the underlying process. Please wake me when they describe the actual underlying process.

      Um, no. Ever hear of Bell's inequality?

    6. Re: So by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      That's just not true. There isn't a generally accepted interpretation of the math. About the most accepted is probably the Copenhagen interpretation, which basically says the math works, and that's the most we can expect. But it's FAR from generally accepted, and the other theories are all fairly quirky.

    7. Re: So by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

      Yes, it describes a test of the nature of entanglement. It is not a physical description or even a theory of how entanglement happens in the physical world. It provides no physical explinations, but rathet excluding some,and adding to the current mystery.

    8. Re:So by Musc · · Score: 1

      This is an argument I've had in the past.
      If taken a little further, it leads to the question: will science ever end?

      At one point, we just knew that matter was made out of small things we called atoms.
      We asked what are atoms made of, and we learned they are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
      We ask what are protons and neutrons made of, and we found quarks.
      What are quarks made of? I don't know, because I'm not a physicist. Maybe someone else can answer that for me.

      But what are electrons made of? Science has shown that they are not made of anything, they are elementary particles.
      They exist, and they have wave properties, and we know a lot about them and their energy states, but they exist like a law of nature, not because of some underlying mechanism or because they are made of smaller things bundled together.
      You have to just accept it and move on with your life.

      Back to your premise. Wake you when they describe the actual underlying process? What if it is just a law of nature? Even if there is some underlying process, maybe we will never have the resources to discover it because we would need energies we can never achieve.

      Not every question has an answer, as much as we would like to think otherwise.

      --
      Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
    9. Re:So by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      That was greatness. Bravo!

    10. Re:So by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What are quarks made of? I don't know, because I'm not a physicist. Maybe someone else can answer that for me.

      Currently, quarks are assumed to be elementary particles, just like electrons.

      But what are electrons made of? Science has shown that they are not made of anything, they are elementary particles.

      Actually no. Experiments have not shown any evidence for them not to be elementary. However, it is impossible to conclusively show that they are elementary. After all, they might have a substructure which only can be seen at energies beyond those delivered by our current accelerators,

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  7. useless by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    good grief, what use is a teleporter just for cats?!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:useless by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Finally they can stop scratching at doors until you let them through. Best invention ever!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:useless by mmell · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried herding them (or programmers)?

    3. Re:useless by dissy · · Score: 1

      good grief, what use is a teleporter just for cats?!!

      Imagine: It's 3am on a Wednesday night. You are up on the Internet arguing with a troll.
      Suddenly you press a large jolly and candy like button on your cat teleporter, and without warning a thousand terrified cats materialize directly above the troll and rain down upon him like the clawing and hissing metric ton of fur it is.

      <Nathan Explosion> Release The Kitties!

  8. Re:Nothing new by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Informative

    They just observed what we already know.

    No. They observed what we already expected. Our currently best theories predicted it. But then, our then-best theories didn't predict the null result of the Michelson-Moreley experiment, or the photoelectric effect. We don't really know it until we tried.

    Note that there are theories which postulate a modification of quantum mechanics for sufficiently large objects as solution to the measurement problem. Therefore measurements like this can indeed differentiate between competing theories. Although I think you'd need to test even larger objects to test those theories.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  9. Pics by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Pics or it did or didn't happen.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. Oblig. SMBC by jimbodude · · Score: 1
  11. Particle, wave, Nobel prizes...a family affair by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    love this one:
    "In 1906, J.J. Thompson had received the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are particles;
    in 1937 he saw his son awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are waves.
    Both father and son were correct, and both awards were fully merited."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Paget_Thomson

  12. Re:Nothing new by Kjella · · Score: 1

    I feel this is a rather underestimated aspect of deductive logic that all science is based on, nobody knows that the "laws" of nature that we know them are universally valid. Even if you're doing a high school experiment it is "new" science, maybe things are different today than they were yesterday. You don't expect them to be, but in theory they might be. Every step of the way from confirming gravity for atoms to gravity for galaxies is valuable, expanding the experimental proof of an apparently correct formula or discovery is the dull legwork of science. It's of course particularly interesting when you can extrapolate beyond what's tested before, but even interpolation has a value. You tend to assume that anything between two extremes that follow the same formula to also follow the same formula, but it is only assumption not proof.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  13. Re:It's a generational thing by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    yes most marriages until recently were single slit experiments, but now we allow double-slit marriages

  14. Chickens. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Physicists have evidence of the Wave-Particle Duality of Macroscopic Chickens in Minecraft.

  15. Re:Dick by Papaspud · · Score: 1

    on bandstand....

    --
    Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
  16. Re:Sing Soft kitty! by camperdave · · Score: 1

    "We did not need to open it to know there was all kinds of dead cat in there". - Penny

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  17. Wave-particle duality is not the interesting bit by quax · · Score: 1

    But quantum decoherence is, i.e. how the wave nature is actually suppressed in our macroscopic world.

    QM offers up the Ehrenfest theorem to explain how we get there, but this theorem is not completely consistent. So gaining an experimental leg up on this process, that the Copenhagen Interpretation just swept under the rug as 'Quantum State Collapse', is what makes experiments with ever larger quantum systems so interesting.

  18. Re:Wave-particle duality is not the interesting bi by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like decoherence. Which certainly explains why the interference disappears, but does not explain why we see a single, definite result. That is, it explains why the stripes in the double-slit experiment vanish, but it doesn't tell us why we get dots.

    Anyway, you don't need to have a macroscopic object to destroy interference. Already entanglement with another microscopic object is sufficient to make interference effects disappear. All which macroscopic objects add is that decoherence becomes practically unavoidable, and in addition uncontrollable, so you cannot recover your interference pattern later (as in the quantum eraser setting, where the "erasure" part is possible exactly because the information is in well-controlled degrees of freedom).

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  19. Re:Wave-particle duality is not the interesting bi by quax · · Score: 2

    Indeed, the understanding of decoherence has fortunately made great strides since Bohr and Heisenberg coined the Copenhagen Interpretation, and we have a much better understanding of how the interference 'dissipates'.

    You are exactly putting the focus on the remaining most intriguing puzzle, why do we experience a single reality? I.e. only see one moon, as Einstein put it. To me it seems there's a deep link between decoherence and entropy lurking in there, something, that despite all the QIS progress, we still don't quite capture.