The framework might also provide inspiration for experimentalists working on condensed matter. Rob Myers, a string theorist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, says that he expects it to be relevant to an area called quantum quenches, in which quantum systems evolve in isolation from the environment and are then kicked out of equilibrium by an action of the experimentalist. Condensed-matter physicists have developed several quantum systems — including cold-atom traps and superconducting circuits — that can be used to test this idea.
Although the authors lay out their solution in only one dimension, Myers expects that the approach will readily generalize to describe real experiments in three dimensions. But he cautions that the paper represents only a first step. “To really see the impact of this work, that will take a while,” he says.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on October 30, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentBridging a 100 year old theory to a theory that has yielded nothing of practical value is a great way to continue wasting resources on roads that lead nowhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe protons were upset enough before quantum came along...leave them alone, admit you fell off the path somewhere, go back to a more promising idea and stop making fools of yourselves.
Never have to wait long before some idiot comes along and says essentially that the world should take his word for it that the scientists are all wrong. Thanks for your contribution. You have made the world a much better place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ owlafaye - You're claiming quantum mechanics has "yeilded nothing of practical value"? Man, you are a tool of the highest order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts a matter of your understanding of the word "practical".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysicists and their theories are at loggerheads with each other. You might say they always have been but in the past it led to great revelations and progress.
We are going nowhere towards the discovery of free energy solutions and travel amongst the stars.
Most physicists no longer have a "holy grail" relevant to humanity. Directed energy matters lay on the laboratory floor.
Leedskalnin, Tesla and other brillant men were ignored by the rapaciousness of people like Westinghouse...once their research and goals are claimed and enhanced on by todays scientists, we might just get somewhere.
Quantum mechanics only leads to answers that needed no question. They chase foolishness.
There is another scientific path to knowledge.
You speak as if, at present, every application of quantum mechanics is known - that there will never be a need to further study a certain science that works yet clashes with another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it's not like the world is short on physicists. People can specialize; can pursue seemingly pointless goals for the purpose of finding out why - much like mathematics.
It is foolish to discard knowledge when it exists and no one knows why.
You haven't actually said what that path is, other than something about upset protons which I'm assuming isn't a literal description. If you have a self consistent framework with testable theories you should follow that path yourself and report on where it leads you. Or you could pay others to follow that path on your behalf. Your current approach is unlikely to succeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny theory that appears to constructs a mental bridge that allows us to understand why our current theories seem to be in conflict is worth exploring. To me it is a forgone conclusion that the information we have at this point in time is just a glimpse of Reality. What lies in wait beneath and teases us with small bits of information about its true nature does not purposely hide from us. It simply is. We are curious, and want to know what drives everything, but unfortunately our vision of everything is not really everything, and so we interpret according to our perceptions. In a strange way we may be trying to go down the road with the cart before the horse. It may be that we will solve the true nature of the riddle by observing how the riddle affects its surroundings, but I suspect that any true understanding of how the riddle is constructed will only come once we understand the riddle itself. Mathematics may well describe the effects but in order for it to describe what produces the effects it must be “proven mathematically” that such a result is unique. This will always be open to attack based on the fact that “sample size” cannot be ignored as a determining factor with regard to the uniqueness of the result. Having said this, at our current stage of development, Mathematics and its underlying Logical framework would appear to be the best tools we have and may in fact lead us to our Eureka moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsense. I suppose you don't consider the transistor to be practical. The transistor could not have been invented without quantum mechanical solid state physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisowlafaye sez: "We are going nowhere towards the discovery of free energy solutions and travel amongst the stars".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink about that before you bother to respond.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. It would be best for you to attempt to get some sort of basic notion of quantum mechanics before you decide it is a waste of resources. You might start with history. When you mentioned, "Bridging a 100 year old theory to a theory that has yielded nothing of practical value..." I was a bit perplexed but the rest of your rant made it clear that you consider general relativity to be the older theory but you are wrong. When general relativity gets to be 100 years old in a few more years I’m sure SA will have a nice article to commemorate the event. Perhaps you could investigate quantum mechanics to find out just what that theory has contributed to both physics and chemistry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe protons were upset? It must be because, despite their attraction, they could never get together with the electrons. Poor things, they're lovelorn victims of their own quantum chaperone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrouble is that if they ever did get married, it would end in an ultraviolet catastrophe. We all know that.
owlafaye said, "Leedskalnin, Tesla and other brillant men were ignored by the rapaciousness of people like Westinghouse..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNikola Tesla was ignored by George Westinghouse??? You need to review the history.
owlafaye > dunning-kruger
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeedskalnin, Tesla and other brillant men were ignored by the rapaciousness of people like Westinghouse...once their research and goals are claimed and enhanced on by todays scientists, we might just get somewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.naijacenter.com
Bravo, M Tucker! What more need be said? I think quantum mechanics has helped illuminate the path to greater discovery and development and has many very practical uses in our pursuit of higher technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn accurate knowledge of history and a deep knowledge of the subject matter is obviously in your grasp. I,for one, appreciate your opinion and the way you addressed the matter above!
C'mon guys - There's an old saying, something like "Only an idiot would argue with an Owlafaye."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no fool like an Owlafaye.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a take off on the old expression,
"There's no fool like an old fool."
D.A.W.
Durgadas Datta suggested to use polar coordinates in all mathematical frame work of revised relativity and revised quantum physics of new atomic model of balloon inside balloon charge theory with neutrons at common center but no requirement of weak and strong forces . He also said gravity is the result of mono magnetic coupling at molecular reaction of matter which also on polar coordinates taking time out of dimension but entropical gradient flow can be a better frame work for Dr.Franks new ideas and I support his work in the direction of new physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe computer you're writing your moronic statements on would not exist without the discoveries of quantum mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe is alluding to the theory that Tesla had some magical scientific insight that is separate from current scientific knowledge. He fails to realize that the state of the Universe is singular. There are not two separate rule books. The entire point of unified theory is wasted on such people. He no doubt aspires to ride a unicorn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheory,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe mathematics of disassembling fundamental particles using string theory and General Relativity suggests that as forces of gravity increase incrementally on a particle it breaks the Particle down into ever smaller Pieces. Black Holes which create a spinning space time environment allows Particles to breakdown completely into individual component pieces. Using immense gravitational forces it completely disassembles a Particle piece by piece until gravity has disassemble the Particle to it's final Piece, a Vibrational wavelength String identity. The reverse would be true for Particles reassembling as gravitational forces recede the Particle creates and opposite force equal to the original force that disassembled it. The Particle can only reassemble in the same order it disassembled. Further, as a Black Holes Tail grows longer it reaches the end of it's momentum and reverse gravity of the pieces of the Particle want to snap back together and unravel unleashing an exposion of energy. This reassembling of the Particles pieces causes a release of energy that expands until each piece of the Particle finds it's exact match to it's original position perfectly. The "Inflation" would create a new Universe with the same laws of physics as the Parent Universe this could allow the Combining of General theory of Relativity and String theory?
@ owlafaye
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see... You think someone (you, or government, maybe) should tell people what to research, and not let them choose for themselves; you rail against capitalists like Westinghouse who gave us AC power, without which you wouldn't even be able to write this, and you want things to be "free". I wonder which political party you're from.
His ignorance has nothing to do with politics. You sound just as bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it very interesting that SciAm offers the chance to print the article, and it (the paper) comes out with a square in the middle to remind you to subscribe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmberto Eco (Apocalittici e integrati, 1964) helps me to understand the intelligent discussions here posted (I am not being sarcastical). I've tried to stay in the middle, but being a paid-by-the-hour high school professor in Mexico's most important university, has made me feel in the flesh the corruption in the academic world, and what it takes to become a sacred cow. This distrust makes me remain among not the stars, but the Apocalittici.
owlfaye is not that far off the mark. First off GR theory and the BBT are incompatible, in that a particle cannot exist within spacetime smaller than its wave length. And BBT was first put forth by Georges Lamaitre of the Catholic Church which really should set off alarm bells. Cern is a joke and will only reveal smaller so-called matter. Any kid who has played with explosives knows the bigger the bang the smaller the bits left over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for quantum mechanics, there is much going on that is misleading to say the least particularly within the language of QM.Language is greatly affected by environment and so too is the reverse. What is a subatomic particle? |Let's look at the phrase. subatomic=smaller than an atom////particle=the smallest bit of matter=atom therefore a subatomic particle is the equivalent of a subatomic atom. What this phrase does is impart properties of the physical universe to the non-physical universe. For everything at the quantum level is energy. It is the paradigm of Newtonian thinking being applied to an Einsteinian reality of quanta.At the subatomic, all is energy vibrating enharmonically creating the structures of the universe, including matter. What we perceive as the universe visually exists on an infinitesimal sliver of em waves.Known matter in the known universe only takes up 5%, the rest is theoretical dark e/m.
What has been most disappointing in the replies owlfaye received has been the insults. Why? Because he dissents against popular opinion. This is shameful. Attacking the person and not the theory is not the path of an open mind and particularly of those truly in the knowing. I too dissent against many of the popular opinions of physicists.Newton and Einstein came up with good tools for measuring events or effects, but did little to explain true cause and effect of the universe. As for most of the technological wonders of today, they mostly came from Tesla's 700 technical patents. Microwaves,tvs,amplifiers all happen due to magnets. Every structure in the universe has magnetic fields, and even an electron has a neg charge and the nucleus a pos charge, just like magnetic poles. And one could say that the very nature of the relationship between an electron and its nucleus is magnetic.
I look forward to your comments.
Peace
I am more concerned with understanding of the General Relativity because logical incompleteness of Newton's laws of motion leads to the general relativity. This was stated by Dennis Sciama in the preface if his small but interesting book, about 35 years ago. That motivated me to do research in the teaching / learning of circular motion and other related topics. My work shows that the present way of teaching circular motion has some serious logical flaws and this is why physics is unpopular among students. For more information read my letter in CHANGE, May-June 2008, p. 5, http://changemag.org/Archives/ or feel free to contact me using dvsathe@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou cannot bridge the theories with math at the moment, when both theories give the different results for the same quantity already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, the general relativity predicts, all massive objects would collapse into singularities. Wheeler's geon concept was abandoned just with respect to finding, all objects formed with space-time curvature only are predestined to end with pin-point singularity with no mercy, when only general relativity was taken into account.
But the quantum mechanics predicts instead, all objects are formed with quantum wave packets, which do expand into infinite volume in accordance to Schrodinger equation solution for free particle.
There is a new interpretation about light from Mercurius passing the sun: According to the principle of least action photons from Mercurius will choose a path with as big steps (oscillations with low frequency) as possible and a minimum of these. Everybody agrees that near mass the unit of length becomes smaller and thus the distance larger. Einstein assumed a hundred years ago, before quantummechanics was known, that the second has longer duration near mass. If he were right then that photon from Mercurius would follow to the distant observer a hyperbolic route (although proceeding in own geometry along a straight line; this may be understood with help of "curvature of space"). To many this is difficult to grasp so I try some more explanation: If Einstein were right the observer on Earth would see the photon when Mercurius had got out of the sun's "shade" already. It would be like the sun pushed away the photon. We know that photons are attracted by mass and that the observed route is a parabole! Thus the second is faster near mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is in agreement with fast processes at the Big Bang and excludes existence of black holes (about which devouring things Scientific American likes to talk very much); there are just big masses.
From where did I get this information? (For more see www.janjitso.blogspot.com).
...By passing from identi cation to Dirichlet bound-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisary conditions on four small circles, discarding the interior disks, and passing from Dirichlet to identi cation conditions on two circular boundaries, we interpolate continuously between quantum mechanics on two spheres and quantum mechanics on a torus plus four disks....
No general relativity is mentioned here...
yeah sure it's fairly simple math. fermat's last theorem is also a simple equation from high school algebra. it just took over 300 yrs to solve it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue/fundamental reality will always be constrained by the Uncertainty Principle. Quantum Mechanics/Physics is a theory least accessible to our perception, yet it has passed all Scientific Method tests to yield the most consistent accuracy of all time. We can't change fundamental 'reality', only our perception of it changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe happy !
For some people, everything is politics, especially if they can impute some nefarious intentions to other people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, bucketofsquid, you are the only one who thought owlafaye was joking. This ridiculous statement really says it all, "Bridging a 100 year old theory to a theory that has yielded nothing of practical value is a great way to continue wasting resources on roads that lead nowhere." But he continued with and even more ridiculous rant a few posts down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe seems only capable of making outlandishly absurd and obtuse statements so I must make assumptions but the quote above seems very clear, he believes general relativity to be much more practical and older than quantum theory. From establishing the dual nature of light, wave and particle, to the Bohr quantum model of the atom, to explaining emission and absorption spectra of the elements, to the photoelectric effect (the paper that won Einstein the Nobel Prize), and many more besides, all predated Einstein’s 1915 presentation of general relativity to the Prussian Academy. I expect SA to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the publication of Einstein’s general relativity theory in 2016. Quantum theory has, as others here have already said, made many practical contributions. A few others I might mention would be the MRI and superconductivity. I am unconvinced that general relativity is more accessible but I don’t see the point in making an argument for or against that. I also do not see owlafaye’s comments as political, simply ignorant of the vast contributions quantum theory has made and an intense disinterest in examining the history or even the science at even the most basic level.
owlafaye "Bridging a 100 year old theory ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKnow a troll when you see one.
Balachandran & al.'s 1995 article here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9503046
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum mechanics is everywhere. It solves all problems if we know how to apply it. It unifies all branches of physics, theoretical chemistry and biology. It is the most beautiful and powerful mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisS. N. Tiwary, Director
Ex-V. C. (act.)
Quantum mechanics is everywhere. It solves all problems if we know how to apply it. It unifies all branches of physics, theoretical chemistry and biology. It is the most beautiful and powerful mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisS. N. Tiwary, Director
Ex-V. C. (act.)
The real character in the paper is Zhaoxi Xiong, a name mentioned in passing. How about recognizing this humble undergraduate rather than trying to impress us with the achievements of the other two authors, who by themselves were unable to come up with this breakthrough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I feel owlafaye's comment to be grossly off-base, to imply that we know enough to be certain that interstellar travel is impossible or that our current understanding of conservation law is absolute is roughly in the same ballpark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Then What's response, "To me it is a forgone conclusion that the information we have at this point in time is just a glimpse of Reality," is a much wiser point of view. The inflated sense of absolute knowledge that prohibits considering certain things to be possible is historically what has always stood in the way of discovery. This does not imply that we should just blindly accept ideas as worth pursuing simply because we have some quixotic desire to believe them true. However, quantum entanglement seems to violate principles we thought could never be violated. So did Einstein's theories and quantum physics. Nevertheless, they all built on evidence and well-reasoned modifications of existing theory rather than some form of baseless faith and/or religious zeal.
Owlafaye's comments appear to me to reflect this kind of zeal with no support cited. This is a sufficient basis for dismissing them. I don't find jahtez' response to be in principle any different in his absolute prohibitions than Owlafaye's unsupported zeal to violate them.
Yes! Your GPS navigator wouldn't work without its taking into account both General and Special Relativity, the former because of the relative positions within the earth's gravitational field of the satellites and your navigator and the latter because of their relative velocities. Yet we went to the moon with calculations based on Newtonian Mechanics for two reasons:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The relatively small space-time domain involved for this particular purpose
2. The adequacy of the much simpler Newtonian calculations.
ALL physics missed the boat 100 years ago regarding energy. We are throwing our funds in a sinkhole that yields mostly irrelevant results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a 15 year old girl with only the basic knowledge of physics and I can already say that you have no clue what you're talking about sir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a 15 year old girl with only the basic knowledge of physics and I can already say that you have no clue what you're talking about sir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this