“In a few years, all the great physical constants will have been approximately estimated, and . . . the only occupation which will then be left to the men of science will be to carry these measurements to another place of decimals.” As we enter the 21st century amid much brouhaha about past achievements, this sentiment may sound familiar. Yet the quote is from James Clerk Maxwell and dates from his 1871 University of Cambridge inaugural lecture expressing the mood prevalent at the time (albeit a mood he disagreed with). Three decades later, on December 14, 1900, Max Planck announced his formula for the blackbody spectrum, the first shot of the quantum revolution.

This article reviews the first 100 years of quantum mechanics, with particular focus on its mysterious side, culminating in the ongoing debate about its consequences for issues ranging from quantum computation to consciousness, parallel universes and the very nature of physical reality. We virtually ignore the astonishing range of scientific and practical applications that quantum mechanics undergirds: today an estimated 30 percent of the U.S. gross national product is based on inventions made possible by quantum mechanics, from semiconductors in computer chips to lasers in compact-disc players, magnetic resonance imaging in hospitals, and much more.

This article was originally published with the title 100 Years of Quantum Mysteries.

4 Comments

1. 1. anet 07:30 AM 7/11/09

   can the concept of morphogenic resonance have something to offer a theory of everything, with particular regard to vibrations? how many dimensions are there; are polarisation and time really dimensions?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Eureka999 04:35 PM 6/27/10

   Well 100 years on, it is quite possible that we might have cracked quantum physics.
   
   It is necessary to go a lot smalletr than the electron in actual fact 10 to the 20 orders of magnitude smallerthan the electron. then the equations of quntum physiscs can be derived from first principles and all that quntum weirdness dissappears. And we get enegy equivalence from first principles. See:The formulation of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Sdrac 11:28 PM 10/19/10

   In order to understand quantum physics rather quantum universe; first of all we must know the precise definition of time. Also; we must know what space is and how physically space and time are related to each other. And then there comes the requirement of definition of energy.
   In the blog “http://philosophieuniversology.blogspot.com” I have given detailed answers to the following questions from my own point of view–
   1. What is time and space?
   2. How and why time dilates both theoretically and practically?
   3. How and why gravitational time dilation occurs?
   4. How and why length contracts?
   5. Why and how time and volume are quantized?
   6. Relationship between time and space.
   7. Relationship between kind of a substance and its natural velocity.
   8. What is energy? And; what is relative energy?
   9. And at last, the explanation of the entire Universe and its phenomena at quantum level.
   I have a constructive approach to the study of the universe whereas today’s scientists have a destructive approach that is breaking a particle into a simpler one. The latter way has its own limitation that is in that way we can not observe the usual properties of a substance because of the changes which the substance undergoes under different conditions.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. jamesroy 01:07 AM 9/4/11

   I read in a book "problems in classical physics fixed by quantum physics " if one applied the physics to the motion of an electron around an atom, one would find that the electron would very quickly (in less than a nanosecond) spiral into the nucleus, which would mean that all atoms in the universe are unstable!". This is one critical problem lurked in the theories which needed to be fixed. and quantum physics did it. Is it so, can't we consider that gravity of nucleus is keeping the electron drawn to nucleus, while inertia makes it go straight, resulting in a circular orbit, similar to planets.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this