Slashdot Mirror


'Zeno Effect' Verified: Atoms Won't Move While You Watch (cornell.edu)

An anonymous reader writes: One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can't change while you're watching it – has been confirmed in an experiment by Cornell physicists. Graduate students Yogesh Patil and Srivatsan Chakram created and cooled a gas of about a billion Rubidium atoms inside a vacuum chamber and suspended the mass between laser beams (abstract).

In that state the atoms arrange in an orderly lattice just as they would in a crystalline solid. But at such low temperatures the atoms can "tunnel" from place to place in the lattice. The famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that position and velocity of a particle are related and cannot be simultaneously measured precisely.

The researchers observed the atoms under a microscope by illuminating them with a separate imaging laser. A light microscope can't see individual atoms, but the imaging laser causes them to fluoresce, and the microscope captured the flashes of light. When the imaging laser was off, or turned on only dimly, the atoms tunneled freely. But as the imaging beam was made brighter and measurements made more frequently, the tunneling reduced dramatically.

29 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. On pot watching and atomic motion... by JJJJust · · Score: 4, Funny

    I watched a pot once... it boiled anyways.

    1. Re:On pot watching and atomic motion... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My pot just went up in smoke

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re: On pot watching and atomic motion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I smoke my pot and forgot what my experiment was.

  2. Missed opportunity by SofiKadaj · · Score: 5, Funny

    Weeping Atoms dept

  3. So which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it the laser or is it the looking? Sounds to me like you found an effect triggered by the laser over a certain intensity, as, the way I read it, under that intensity everything works just great, even if you enter a staring contest.

    1. Re:So which one is it? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Now that a good protocol has been established, it should be relatively simple to shut down the mystical kooks once and for all. Or validate them.

      Run the experiment under intense laser and observe the atoms with your eyeballs. Then run it again with same intensity laser, but do not observe it, don't even record it for future use. Compare the amount of tunneling for both.

      The problem so far as I can see has been that quantum physicists didn't say "shooting photons on an experiment changes the results", which is what most people are thinking. They said "observing" it changes the results. But they're are not the same thing.

    2. Re:So which one is it? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It really is the same thing. When you look at the world around you, you're using the sun to shoot photons at everything which then bounce off the object into your eyes.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    3. Re:So which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when do the science news articles let what the scientists actually did prevent them from using catchy headlines?

      And they didn't check that because is pretty well established that the human is not the important part of the observation, but it is entirely the interaction of the system under consideration with something outside of the system being modeled (e.g. the laser light source). The whole popsci woo about quantum mechanics depending on an observer implying there is something special about humans is bunk, and comes from people not understanding what observation means in the context of quantum mechanics.

    4. Re:So which one is it? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How would they know what the atoms do without observing them?

      Check back later, and see how many tunneled while they weren't looking. If they tunneled, they will be in a different location.

      If they find there was tunneling while they weren't looking, that is pretty strong evidence that we are living inside a simulation. The universe behaves differently if we are not looking, so that God can save computing resources. There is no point in calculating details that no one will see. Just like the way OpenGL can skip the shading of hidden polygons.

    5. Re:So which one is it? by fisted · · Score: 2

      If they find there was tunneling while they weren't looking, that is pretty strong evidence that we are living inside a simulation.

      I doubt it. It's still kind of looking if you arrange for it to do something that you can look at later to indirectly observe what went on when you weren't looking.

    6. Re:So which one is it? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      pretending its some mental thing where if a PERSON observes it, that locks it down.

      This is not an invention of "the media". Many famous physicists have hypothesized that consciousness causes collapse, and this has never been conclusively falsified.

    7. Re: So which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Observing at small scales is not a passive activity. You have to inject energy into the system to make an observation. That injection of energy alters the system. So the universe does know when you are actively looking at it. Think of looking as not just looking with eyes passively but also shining a high energy flashlight in the direction of looking.

    8. Re:So which one is it? by just+another+AC · · Score: 2

      No it's not the same. You don't choose to inject extra photons into the system as part of using your eyes (you don't control the sun... I hope).

    9. Re:So which one is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not really. It just means reality doesn't conform to your classical notion of particles and 3D space-time. Why that is, no one really knows. But, the math works -- quantum mechanics, I mean. Essentially, nothing at the subatomic particle scale has a defined size or specific position in three dimensions. Things only appear to interact at specific locations. The more interactions at one location, the less likely a quanta or "particle" is to interact somewhere else. This is the basis of the particle/wave duality. If you're looking, observing, interacting, measuring, etc... things interact at a defined location and act like classical particles. If you let the system be and check its final interactions with surrounding objects, you pick up a wave-like probability function and/or pattern of interactions.

      If your "we don't render that because you don't see it" assumption were true, then we would not see particle/wave duality. With a 2 slit experiment, we get an interference pattern when not looking, but 2 lines when we do look. It's actually more work to compute the interference pattern than to compute 2 lines. That wouldn't make any sense if the goal is to conserve computing power. There are multiple instances of this. Waves and their interactions are inherently more computationally intensive than simple particle interactions.

    10. Re:So which one is it? by lhowaf · · Score: 2

      Wow, I've long thought religion was arrogant with the whole I'm-so-special-my-soul-must-last-forever thing. This the-universe-is-a-simulation-for-my-benefit thing takes that to whole other level.

  4. Won't move while you watch? by willworkforbeer · · Score: 2

    So, it's the "DOT Road Crew Effect."

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:Won't move while you watch? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Won't move while you watch?

      My wife can tell you I don't move when I watch football. Does that count as the Zeno Effect?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Won't move while you watch? by willworkforbeer · · Score: 2

      That would be the Dorito Effect.

      The Dorito Interial Reference Frame: all other reference frames are unobserved until half time.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  5. Important distinction: Obervable vs watching... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The important thing about being 'observed' is if it has an effect on something else - such as the photons from the laser used to record it.

    What is most certainly does NOT mean is that it does anything because a human consciousness is watching the process. A robot or mote of dust could have been 'observing' it (and in effect WAS), and the same effect would happen.

    That's what I strongly dislike about the terminology around 'observer' effects. It makes people evoke touchy-feely human awareness stuff, when it's really just referencing microscale interaction events. What matters is that if events occur which COULD matter outside the system, like photons bouncing against the atom, then that's an 'ovservable' event in the context.

    In the microscopic landscape of these experiments, we're a distant afterthought - a bacterium would be almost too big to sensibly consider - and trillions of bacteria would barely be observable to us. In other words, it's really not about US, to any sensible interpretation. Psuedoscience is all about us - keep that in mind when you see the sales pitches, as they'll be using the bad interpretation all the time they can.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Important distinction: Obervable vs watching... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole point of Schroedinger's cat is that the entire setup - radioactive element, poison phial, cat - can all be in a superposition until we open the box.

      In real life, of course, the surrounding environment interacts with the box in more ways than just light, all of which would collapse the wavefunction before we opened the box. But that's not the point of the thought experiment.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Important distinction: Obervable vs watching... by narcc · · Score: 2

      You've missed the point. There are competing theories, the one you dismiss without justification is among them. What you believe or what you want to believe isn't relevant. To merely assert knowledge, like you do here, on no other basis that the idea makes you uncomfortable is irrational. It's exactly what you see from creationists and other similar groups.

  6. It's nothing to do with "you" by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can't change while you're watching it

    Ah, stop right there.

    Before the quantum kooks crawl out of the woodwork, the atoms don't stop moving because "you" (click-bait headline alert) are watching. They "stop moving" because they are being continuously "measured" (interacted with in ways that stop them going all quantum-y) by lasers.

    A conscious observer is not required. And if you turn off the laser that's doing the measuring, peering through the window at the atoms with your actual peepers isn't going to stop them tunneling anywhere.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:It's nothing to do with "you" by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Put another way, imagine the universe is a simulation. The programmer didn't want to waste CPU cycles simulating every single atomic particle, so when no meaningful atomic-scale interactions are occurring, the simulation uses a simpler statistical model instead.

      When the laser light is striking the atoms in the lattice, the interactions between the light and lattice force the simulation to model every individual atom and photon. So each them are modeled precisely, and no tunneling occurs.

      When the laser light is not striking the atoms in the lattice, there's no need to model every (non-)interaction and the simulation reverts to a statistical model. When the laser is turned on again you can locate the position of every atom again. Since the original lattice arrangement was not "saved", the simulation has to generate a new arrangement of atoms in the lattice. This new arrangement is statistically identical to the original, but little details like the positions of individual atoms are not identical. The misplaced atoms appear to have "moved", and we call those movements "tunneling".

      Have fun sleeping tonight. -- The Matrix

    2. Re:It's nothing to do with "you" by S48D31F68E4S2 · · Score: 2

      There's no need to imagine anything unusual at all actually. There are no shortcuts taken when the atoms aren't observed, and by "observed" we mean interacted with by our external stimuli, i.e. our laser. When not interacted with, or more appropriately, "interfered" with, the atoms' tunneling behavior proceeds as normal. It's a real and ongoing physical process (not an optimization such as a simulation CPU saving measure). But since any attempt to observe the atoms directly cause the tunneling behavior to cease, tunneling remains something out of the realm for us to observe directly. For example, take a bullet in mid flight. Our eyes cannot see it due to a motion processing limitation within our brains. In order for us to observe it directly, we must probe for it (think of the laser) by using a solid object placed in what we calculate to be the bullet's trajectory based on a slew of factors. Once we "probe" for the bullet, sure enough it stops and we can see it, but its motion is lost. There's nothing mysterious about this - at the atomic level, all we have are brick walls. Now, tunneling may not be the same as motion, but simply because we cannot directly observe it does not mean it's not a real physical process and just an implementation trick to save on CPU cycles.

  7. Re:Surprised? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think it's the QM equivalent of confirming the light goes out when you close the fridge door.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  8. Re:Atoms are like deers in the headlights. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    I'll hold one still, then when I nod my head, you hit it with the hammer.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Frozen by dhaen · · Score: 4, Funny

    My wife can freeze thing just by looking..

  10. Stupid summary by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    The word "watching" invokes just observing passively without doing anything to disturb the system. Here they are continually measuring it by firing lasers. So when they were passively watching things were changing. When they fired all those lasers the activity stopped. So all they proved was, "if you fire lots of lasers at the mass, you can change its behavior".

    Only outcome of this experiment was that they will publish a paper with huge list of authors and a minor finding. Now a days many particle physics papers have more authors than there are words in the paper.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Stun Gun by Art3x · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's because you set your lasers to stun.