Slashdot Mirror


How Curved Spacetime Can Be Created In a Quantum Optics Lab

KentuckyFC writes: One way to explore the link between quantum mechanics and general relativity is to study the physics that occurs on a small scale in highly curved spacetimes. However, these conditions only occur in the most extreme environments such as at the edge of black holes or in the instants after the Big Bang. But now one physicist has described how it is possible to create curved spacetime in an ordinary quantum optics lab.

The idea is based on optical lattices, which form when a pair of lasers interfere to create an eggbox-like interference pattern. When ultracold atoms are dropped into the lattice, they become trapped like ping pong balls in an eggbox. This optical trapping technique is common in labs all over the world. However, the ultracold atoms do not stay at a fixed location in the lattice because they can tunnel from one location to another. This tunneling is a form of movement through the lattice and can be controlled by changing the laser parameters to make tunneling easier or more difficult.

Now, a physicist has shown that on a large scale, the tunneling motion of atoms through the lattice is mathematically equivalent to the motion of atoms in a quantum field in a flat spacetime. And that means it is possible to create a formal analogue of a curved spacetime by changing the laser parameters across the lattice. Varying the laser parameters over time even simulates the behavior of gravitational waves. Creating this kind of curved spacetime in the lab won't reveal any new physics but it will allow researchers to study the behavior of existing laws under these conditions for the first time. That's not been possible even in theory because the equations that describe these behaviors are so complex that they can only be solved in the simplest circumstances.

89 comments

  1. Damn by necro81 · · Score: 1

    Stop making my brain hurt!

    1. Re:Damn by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not meant to be brain hurting territory.

      It's like how zero gravity isn't possible on earth, but if you take a plane, and fly it in a parabolic curve matching G, the inside operates a lot like zero gravity.

      This is like that, but for arbitrarily curved space-time, instead of zero G.

    2. Re:Damn by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stop making my brain hurt!

      I think that's the point. It's too complex to model but if you have a playground that you can
      play with you can explore interactions without having to do a ton of math.
      Most people can't grasp certain complex stuff. Even something as simple as combining
      green light and red light to make yellow confuses people as it goes against their grade school intuition.
      Allow people to get a chance to play with it in a lab and then it just clicks.

    3. Re:Damn by JonahsDad · · Score: 1

      Stop making my brain hurt!

      It will have to come out.

    4. Re:Damn by mmell · · Score: 2

      Fry: Usually on the show, they came up with a complicated plan, then explained it with a simple analogy.

      Leela: Hmmm... If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and configure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.

      Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!

      Fry: Of course! It's all so simple!

    5. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sometimes thinking "outside the box" solves things that would be near impossible.
      For example, collecting elephants is usually hard, they are big and weight too much.
      Here's a problem easy to solve using the correct tools; a jar with lid, binoculars and a pair of tweezers.
      If done correctly, the problem of elephant collection becomes easy.
      First find an elephant (the hardest part of the collection process).
      Once located, look at the elephant through the wrong end of the binoculars, you will see that the elephant becomes very small.
      Pick it up carefully with the tweezers and place into the jar.
      Remember to put the top back on the jar so the collected elephants don't jump out.
      Complex problem made simple !

    6. Re:Damn by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I spent two weeks teaching relativity and quantum mechanics to an illiterate redneck.
      It only took two weeks.
      Next week, I teach a vocal class for pigs.
      I get paid a subsidy and hope to be very annoying.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    7. Re:Damn by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Green light + red light = black light.

      How do you think we made the Jimi Hendrix posters on the walls of our rooms glow so brightly, back in the 70s, when UV fluorescent technology was prohibitively expensive for those of us in junior high?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Damn by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'm crushing your head! I'm crushing your head, silly little anonymous coward guy!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Damn by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      It's not meant to be brain hurting territory.

      It's like how zero gravity isn't possible on earth, but if you take. . . p>

      Its funny, as I understand it zero gravity isn't really possible anywhere inside our universe. In things like parabolic dives or orbital trajectories there is no change in actual gravity, the vehicle is merely accelerating to compensate. One of the main reasons why you cant do sensible gravity engine research within about 1 to 2 Earth diameters of the planets surface.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    10. Re:Damn by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Green light + red light = black light.

      How do you think we made the Jimi Hendrix posters on the walls of our rooms glow so brightly, back in the 70s, when UV fluorescent technology was prohibitively expensive for those of us in junior high?

      Um, No, It's yellow. Also, you're referring to a UV light which is a specific frequency of light. Combining the visual attributes
      of light doesn't change the underlying frequency. You can't create ultraviolet light by combining visible light.

  2. "ordinary" quantum optics lab by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Because there's one on every block! 7-11 has real competition now!

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:"ordinary" quantum optics lab by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Eh, it's the kinda thing any physics department at a doctorate granting university would have. As opposed to a cyclotron, or other sorts of high-energy physics tools.

  3. But is it worth doing? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    OK, so they found something that, according to their models, is a model for curved spacetime. Why not just use the original model?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:But is it worth doing? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Because you only have to mathematically prove the model, then you can run arbitrarily complex pragmatic experiments on it. Rather than proving the arbitrarily complex thing you're testing.

  4. Need more explination of the tunneling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he can control the tunneling of entire atoms hasn't he just invented a teleporter?

    1. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      That's not what quantum tunneling is. Tunneling has to do with the phase-state of particles, and how it implicates their ability to cross force barriers that should reverse them under classical understanding.

      It's a bit like if your car blinked into and out of existence every couple seconds, you could sometimes drive through a brick wall.

    2. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      The zero point field?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    3. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Argh, it's like I've been sucked into Star Trek, and everyone just uses science terms for whatever, as if they're all related.

      No. Not the zero point field. Not at all.

    4. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Well duh. Zero point devices are for powering the Atlantis.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooo, they're for powering Dr. Freeman through environmental puzzles and occasionally lobbing saw blades.

    6. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you need the blinking in an out of existence analogy, as that is kind of wrong on some level and may confuse things.

      Tunneling just comes from the wavefunction of a particle not stopping completely when there is a barrier. The wavefunction doesn't sharply turn off, it (typically exponentially) drops off within the barrier. The wavefunction in a sense is proportional to the chances of where you find the particle. If the barrier is not too thick, then there will still be a bit of that wavefunction on the other side of the barrier, and hence a chance to find or interact with the particle there.

      This contrasts with a classical particle, that if a barrier were big enough that the particle didn't have enough energy to get over, you could be certain it didn't cross the barrier. If you had some dog wearing a bell, and it was a dark, moonless night so you could only hear and not see him, you wouldn't know exactly where he was. If you put him in a pen with 5 ft tall fencing, and know he can only jump 4 ft, can assume he is in the pen when you hear ringing come from the pen. If you put him in a pen with a 3 ft fence, there is a chance he jumped over it an is on the near but outside the pen. Quantum mechanics would mean having a dog that can literally tunnel, that no matter how high the fence is, there is a chance he got on the other side. The thicker the fence or walling around the pen though, the less likely he'll tunnel far enough to get out.

    7. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I feel that analogy might just be more complicated than the actual math.

    8. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      or Syndrome, defeating the Incredibles.
      Anyway, I'm not aware of many other instances where particles wink in and out of existence (virtual particles)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    9. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that quantum tunneling more has to do with quantum level stuff having a chance to appear any where in the universe, but has a much higher chance of appearing near its current location. If a location is impossible to get to via classical means, that doesn't stop the fact that the particle may just appear where by chance.

      My very layman's understanding that may be quite wrong. Yes? No?

    10. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You even provided a car analogy...

      Pearls before swine, I guess.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Need more explination of the tunneling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a particle has a chance of being found anywhere, although practically speaking, that chance gets essentially impossible far away except in certain situations. In the same way, a magnetic field extends infinitely far, but you're unlikely to impact things kilometers away with a magnetic field created in something small enough to be hand held (except, e.g. for cases like a radio or light wave, and then usually in specific direction).

      A barrier still lowers the chance you find a particle on the other side of it, and exponentially so for thicker barriers.

      near its current location

      This is awkward or incorrect though, as you can't talk about a particle's "current location" unless you measured it. And if you just measured it, it has zero probability of being elsewhere (errors aside). The smearing out of location in QM isn't just a measurement error, but fundamental to how things work in QM. The particle doesn't have a well defined position without a measurement or interaction that forces it to a certain location. Probably the best you could say is "far from its most likely position" or "far from its last know position", although there are situations of the latter where you would expect things to end up far away.

  5. Overweight by vortex2.71 · · Score: 2

    Since all mass curves spacetime I can curve spacetime simply by existing and being a bit overweight. Its just too bad that I'll have to wait until 2015 for the nobel prize!

    1. Re:Overweight by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Since all mass curves spacetime I can curve spacetime simply by existing and being a bit overweight. Its just too bad that I'll have to wait until 2015 for the nobel prize!

      Alas, you only get the prize if you manage to curve spacetime either more or less than what would ordinarily result from your particular fatness.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Overweight by Matheus · · Score: 1

      "Hey Baby! My space-time curvature deviates from the standard model... wanna come back to my place and distort physics??"

  6. Don't leave us hanging! by Chelloveck · · Score: 1, Funny

    C'mon, get to the important part. How long until this gives us warp drive or a time machine?

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    1. Re:Don't leave us hanging! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      I've calculated it's precisely the day after you die, which is also when immortality is invented. Tough break, duder.

    2. Re:Don't leave us hanging! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Never. This is is only building a model for something which might not even exists (GR may lose to quantum effects in extremely curved spacetime)

      Title is even wrong, curved spacetime is NOT created by the hypothesised experiments.

    3. Re:Don't leave us hanging! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it ever gives us a time machine the answer to your question is plausibly 'yesterday'.

      Also depending on exactly how time dilation works in conjunction with warp drives that answer might also be 'yesterday'.

  7. mathematically equivalent ? by ardmhacha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, a physicist has shown that on a large scale, the tunneling motion of atoms through the lattice is mathematically equivalent to the motion of atoms in a quantum field in a flat spacetime.

    mathematically equivalent ?

    So they haven't created curved spacetime in a Quantum Optics Lab. They have done something that is a model of how they think curved space time would behave.

    1. Re:mathematically equivalent ? by apraetor · · Score: 1

      Yes! I was checking to make sure someone pointed that out, the headline is demonstrably incorrect.

    2. Re:mathematically equivalent ? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      While we are at it, remember that scientists have recently shown that black holes don't have to exist and may not exist. Further, the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory for the evolution of the Universe discounts the need for a big bang.

      Interesting surely, but this theory is trying to build upon two theories that have some very good scientific competition.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:mathematically equivalent ? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      Which is why this line was included in the description:

      "Creating this kind of curved spacetime in the lab won't reveal any new physics but it will allow researchers to study the behavior of existing laws under these conditions for the first time."

    4. Re: mathematically equivalent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they have no way of knowing if their new trick is actually a valid model of a curved spacetime, which we don't even know if it exists or not. Curved spacetime had hardly been proven, we just have mathematical models that seem to correlate to our observations, but those observations could easily be explained by other potential realities like just plain mutual attraction. Hell, even time itself hasn't been proven. There is so much stuff that we have no idea about how it works, and now they have an analog to an unproven model that they're going to use to try to study a reality that the unproven model is meant to describe. This is not good science.

    5. Re: mathematically equivalent ? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      At the risk of being snarky, you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. So why did you bother with the post?

  8. I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one look forward to our Wormhole X-treme overlords, and as a respected Slashdot poster can be useful in rounding up slaves to toil in their underground optics labs.

    1. Re:I, for one by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Except that they will only be tiny little blobs of quantum stuff.

  9. Analogue by Katatsumuri · · Score: 2

    Related news: How faster-than-light travel can be created in a reflected sunlight spot.

  10. Sad by jschmuck · · Score: 0

    This is potentially amazing stuff, yet given the negative quality of the feedback here, one can only hope the Spacetime curve hits home and you all end up in the Nexus, happily ever after...

  11. Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see them try to keep curved spacetime OUT of a lab.

    1. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spacetime is always locally flat ... for varying definitions of locally.

    2. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Spacetime is always locally flat ... for varying definitions of locally.

      A distinction that makes no difference. It's also always locally curved, for other definitions of "locally".

    3. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A distinction that makes no difference.

      No, it is rather important to general relativity with impact on the types of measurements you can do in various situations.

      It's also always locally curved, for other definitions of "locally".

      Yes, for wrong definitions. Curvature is a global property, not local.

    4. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd like to see people try to keep pedantry off of slashdot!

    5. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by tri44id · · Score: 2

      Fundamental to general relativity is the principle of equivalence, which equates gravity in one reference frame to uniform acceleration in another one. It's why old-school space stations are big wheels -- they create gravity without using mass, by spinning. In the right coordinate system - one that rotates relative to the lab - the ultracentrifuge in a biochemistry lab creates a highly curved spacetime equivalent to 6 times the gravity at the surface of a white dwarf. (2 million g vs 350,000 g).

      Curved optical spacetime analogs are not so special, after all, then. But they don't have the issues with angular momentum, nonuniformity that centrifugal gravity has, so they could make answering certain questions easier.

      --
      Taxation without representation is tyranny! Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands & Pacific Territories!
    6. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rotating frame is not a uniform acceleration though, and local measurements can detect that a frame is a rotating. That is not creating a curved spacetime at all. Likewise, a high acceleration doesn't necessarily mean high curvature, as the acceleration is a local measurement, while curvature is not. The curvature is more akin to the rate change of the force over distance.

    7. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      How should I mod this? It deserves a downvote, but it is not flamebait, not overrated (rated 0) nor a troll. It's not even redundant.

      It's just plain wrong.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    8. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I meant to attach that comment to the grandparent. The comment to which I replied was the correct one.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    9. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      A distinction that makes no difference. It's also always locally curved, for other definitions of "locally".

      How should I mod this? It deserves a downvote, but it is not overrated (rated 0), not flamebait, nor a troll. It's not even redundant.

      It's just plain wrong.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      It's also always locally curved, for other definitions of "locally".

      Yes, for wrong definitions. Curvature is a global property, not local.

      Hate to break it to you but every property is 'local' in general relativity, even the speed of light. In any absolute frame GR defines the speed of light as variable or non-defined.

      If you want to replace general relativity with an absolute frame physics you need three things -
      - An absolute frame - an FTL 3D hyperspace with an FTL Simultaneity backbone.
      - To restrict the maximum size of dimensional time and 4D space time to quantum scales.
      - The third thing is that you need to build a complete new FTL based physics to replace general relativity and quantum mechanics..
      Easy eh ... (the hardest part is designing a new mathematics that can work with non-finite contexts. .)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    11. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It's just plain wrong.

      Really? Can you demonstrate to us how it is wrong?

      GP's comment, to the effect that space is always locally flat "for some definition of locally" is a kind of a joke. His comment itself implies that if you increase the scale, it isn't flat.

      And it isn't. The more you increase the scale, the more "non-flatness" you will observe, due to large masses. Even where it isn't tightly curved, it will be at least slightly curved by some mass in your universe.

      Flatness only occurs on a relatively small scale, away from masses. If you were in a spaceship, far from the solar system, you still wouldn't observe "flat" space, because YOU and your spaceship are curving it.

      It's all relative. But again, that's what GP is saying. It's nowhere near "flat" here on Earth, for example. The curvature is what is keeping you from floating away.

    12. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes, for wrong definitions. Curvature is a global property, not local.

      No. Curvature is a local property. It is what creates gravity, according to Einstein.

      In "the vastness of space", as the saying goes (I mean far out, not in orbit), you feel only micro-gravity. Because you are far from significant masses. But here on Earth, for example, you experience the sensation of gravity. Because that gravity is local to Earth.

      On other scales, say very small compared to a human, it can "look" flat again.

      So it all depends on scale. For some definitions of "locally", you will see flat spacetime. For other (real) definitions of locally, you will see curved spacetime.

    13. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curvature is a local property

      This is flat out wrong, you can't measure curvature with local only measurements. You need multiple measurements at different locations to measure curvature.

      It is what creates gravity, according to Einstein.

      Yes... but that doesn't make it a local property. Look at the Einstein field equations, it is not a matter of curvature equals force, but turns out that roughly equal to the derivative of the classical potential, so you end up with a differential equation relating curvature to the forces you experience. You need to know the curvature in the area all around you to work out the forces, so it is not a local property.

      For other (real) definitions of locally,

      Local has a specific definition in mathematics and GR, just acting like you think that is not real doesn't change that your definition is wrong.

    14. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any absolute frame GR defines the speed of light as variable or non-defined.

      There is so much wrong in such a short sentence considering GR doesn't define any absolute frame and the speed of light being constant is an axiom of GR.

    15. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Hi Jane. After some deliberation I see that you are in fact correct. I apologize for the comment, and I encourage those with mod points to downvote GPP (my post):
      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    16. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it was wrong... the idea that spacetime is locally flat is a rather important distinction and central to several concepts in general relativity.

    17. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only local that is meaningful in General Relativity is a local section of the fibre bundle, or alternatively in the limit where spacetime intervals go to zero. In _that_ local, the design of General Relativity holds that the Poincaré symmetry group applies, for compatibility with Special Relativity . However, in a more modern understanding of GR, one can have an extended Poincaré symmetry group that admits a "democracy" of causal cones, with the caveat that you have to choose a toolset which admits FTL *or* SR, but not both (although you can find correspondences between deformations of SR that are compatible with FTL in some contexts and which in principle could work with other things built on SR such as the Standard Model).

      The weak field limit, in which spacetime is _approximately_ flat, is what you are describing when you talk about "other scales".

      "You feel only micro-gravity" -- well, no, you experience the Universality of Free Fall, a postulate of General Relativity which you will have trouble retaining with an expansive definition of local in "locally flat space" (cf analyses of various flat theories of gravity under the PPN formalism). Generally problems arise with things such as the angle of light bending, which in GR goes d \phi = 4m / R and in theories with non-local flatness they go d \phi -> 0. This applies to the geodesics available to you, too.

      Finally, curvature *is* gravity in the GR model. Curvature arises from the distribution of matter. That's really all the EFEs say. Exact solutions of the EFEs are global solutions, determining the metric tensor at every point in spacetime. So curvature is, indeed, a global property of spacetime.

    18. Re:Headline Is Missing The Word "Highly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The curvature is what is keeping you from floating away."

      Since you're talking GR, the curvature is seen in the directional bias of the geodesics realistically available to you (and to most of the molecules in the atmosphere near you). What's keeping you from "floating away" from the Earth is that you are unlikely to produce enough acceleration to access geodesics that don't point Earthwards. In lay terms, you probably can't jump up with enough power to access geodesics that do not return you eventually to the Earth's surface (and indeed ultimately to the centre of mass of the planet if it weren't for that pesky matter blocking your path).

      At the top of your jump when you transition into free fall, your accelerometer will transition from pointing downwards to pointing nowhere. At that point you are on a geodesic. (But it is also perfectly reasonable to take a you-centric view and conclude that you aren't moving, the planet is rushing back to you, and supporting this view,: an accelerometer used by someone at rest on the surface near your landing point will point down. Absent interactions with the atmosphere, your accelerometer will remain pointing nowhere until you and the surface meet again, no matter whether the top of your jump was one metre, ten metres, or a million metres. At that point your geodesic has been intercepted by the surface, you are no longer in free fall, and are no longer travelling on a geodesic).

      "Flatness only occurs on a relatively small scale, away from masses".

      Well away from dense matter in inter-galactic-cluster space, spacetime is ENORMOUSLY curved thanks to the metric expansion of space.

      In mere interstellar and intergalactic space (assuming you're in a cluster), spacetime is *approximately* but not actually flat.

      In the solar system it is pretty strongly curved. The Earth is in free fall, and is mainly on geodesics (plural because it's complicated by interactions with other bodies in the solar system) that are nearly spacelike circular around the solar system's centre of mass. If you were to find yourself somewhere one 1 AU from the centre of mass but seeing the centre of the galaxy (or stars of the celestial equator, or some other distant reference) holding still, you would find yourself in free fall on a geodesic that will be intercepted by the impassable (and very hot) layers of the sun.

      Now, it is perfectly reasonable -- and in many cases entirely sensible -- to use a system of coordinates that absorb some of the real curvature to give you a _pseudo_-Minkowski spacetime to do calculations in. Whenever SR is used in explaining or predicting laboratory experiments, that is effectively what is being done, from a GR perspective. (However, because of the energies involved in particle accelerator experiments, the geodesics available to the particles themselves have only the weakest directional biases towards the centre of mass of the earth - the other four forces are much stronger constraints on where e.g. collision daughter products will travel in free fall, so one can use a gravity-less theory of relativity, i.e. SR, without introducing significant error).

  12. Of note is the physicist's name, Dr Peabody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the name of his laser contraption is "The Way-Back Machine". It didn't mention his trusted assistant.

  13. Please don't break the space–time continuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to have to memorize a bunch of new kings.

  14. What equations? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    Creating this kind of curved spacetime in the lab won't reveal any new physics but it will allow researchers to study the behavior of existing laws under these conditions for the first time. That's not been possible even in theory because the equations that describe these behaviors are so complex that they can only be solved in the simplest circumstances.

    Are they talking about general relativity equations?

    1. Re:What equations? by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      Are they talking about general relativity equations?
      That's included, but I think the article and summary are actually getting it right for once. The equations in question are ones that reconcile GR with Quantum Mechanics, and that, in general, means variations on various String or Brane Theories, and quite possibly specifically Supersymmetry, if that's not being completly discarded by the researchers just because CERN is finding preliminary evidence that the simplest and lowest energy Supersymmetry model doesn't work. It's possible some alternatives to those models can also be tested and refined or dismissed, but either way, we really are looking at math where complexity increases result time very, very rapidly. Here's a link for an example of some math used for both Supersymmetry and more general String Theory calculations - If you look at the section specifically about "Stringy theories" calculations, there's a good example of a formula that's obviously, by simple inspection, prone to grow very quickly with added terms for more complex situations, and there's some other quite good examples in the lead up to that section.

      Lie superalgebras of string theories
      http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/97...

      (Note: Paper is 22 pages in PDF, and is NOT behind a paywall).

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    2. Re:What equations? by amaurea · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly what is being referred to here. The Einstein Equation is a horrible differential equation which can only be solved analytically for a few idealized cases. However, they can be solved numerically (taking several thousand CPU hours for a common case like two colliding black holes, I think). So it's not quite right to say that we can't solve them in complex circumstances - only that's it's quite slow.

      While quantum mechanics is involved in setting up this analogy (e.g. to describe the atoms it uses as building blocks), the thing that is being simulated is classical general relativity. This has nothing to do with quantum gravity, be that string theory or other candidates. So the sibling poster is confused.

      I haven't read the paper in detail, but I wonder about the accuracy of this analogy. Much like numerical simulations, this analogy approximates spacetime by using discrete elements, in this case a grid of atoms trapped by lasers. I'm not sure how large optical lattices are nowadays, but the few numbers I've found seem to have hundreds of lattice points. If that's representative, that's a very low number, far worse than numerical simulations. I therefore suspect that numerical simulations of comparable (i.e. very low) accuracy would be fast enough as to make the lattice approach pointless. But perhaps optical lattices will improve faster than our computers (or perhaps I'm wrong about lattice sizes).

  15. Shitty title, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's "simulate", not "create"

  16. Wording by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    ordinary quantum optics lab

    Something about the wording in that phrase gives me the urge to search Instructables for a how-to...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Wording by Livius · · Score: 1

      We're so used to breakthroughs only coming from the extraordinary quantum optics lab.

  17. Chevron 7 Locked by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Komptria!
    Indeed.
    Jaffa kree!
    Sha'kaaaaaaaaaaaa.
    If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago.
    Does it say "Colonel" anywhere on my uniform?

    1. Re:Chevron 7 Locked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What do you mean? 'this isn't a real show' Am I getting paid real money?"

  18. Re:Please don't break the space–time continu by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I don't want to have to memorize a bunch of new kings.

    Grow a pair and move to the US of A.
    Here, the only king you need to memorize is the Almighty Dollar.

  19. Yawn unreadable linkspam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A site with original content would be nice. Reinvented-wheel-infused js-infested wordsoup shaken out of someone else's publications really isn't my cup of tea.

  20. not so accurate headline by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So they made an analog that pretty well simulates curved spacetime. It's not actually curved spacetime. And here I was hoping the iPhone 7 would run off of a Stargate SG1 Zero Point Module made out of infinitely bent space :(

    1. Re:not so accurate headline by PPH · · Score: 1

      And here I was hoping the iPhone 7

      Will curve its localized space-time if you put it in your back pocket and sit on it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Expect wild deviations from theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect there will be wide variations from theory in the results of this experiment. There have been multiple measurements of ether drift over the last century that show that space does not simply curve, it flows. All arguments against the ether drift measurements of Dayton Miller are fishy: Those that say the measurements were caused by heating ignore the fact that the heating cycle would not coincide with an ether drift measurement of absolute spatial velocity. Those that claim that the statistical significance requirements were not met do not account for the other measurements using different techniques and that statistical significance calculations have not changed in the past century.

    Google: Sarg Modern Ether Drift Experiments.

  22. Physical vs Non Physical by Drethon · · Score: 1

    Not sure the best terms for this but... I've noticed a lot of non physical theories (space time, dark matter(though this is only non physical in the sense we haven't seen it yet), dark energy) require manipulation of physical materials to produce the expected results. I still wonder if we will eventually see these theories get an actual physical source. Just my bent $0.02.

  23. Sheldon?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that you, Sheldon??

  24. No eggs where damaged during this experiment by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Which is kind-of-a shame, since I'd have liked them, sunny side up.

  25. big picture by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    The equations that describe these behaviors are so complex it can only mean that they're not seeing the big picture (whatever that is).

  26. Bull crap science! I do this in my microwave oven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, just kidding....I thought somebody might get a laugh out of somebody comparing a high tech optical lab to a common microwave oven :-)

  27. Wrong links! by amaurea · · Score: 1

    Oops, I somehow used the wrong link twice there. I'll try again:
    The innocent-looking but really horrible Einstein equation, and how to solve it numerically on your friendly local supercomputer.

  28. Best summary of this result by quax · · Score: 1

    Really excellent succinct and easy to follow summary.

    And that on /. of all places, where article summaries usual go to die.

  29. Obligatory Abstruse Goose by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    "Hey Baby! My space-time curvature deviates from the standard model... wanna come back to my place and distort physics??"

    Go for it, but be careful what you say about your partner's space-time curvature.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  30. Me too. by strack · · Score: 1

    I can create inaccurate headlines that model what a exciting story would look like, in a lab. Its not a actual exciting story, but then neither is this.