Many physicists have prophesied that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the disruptive process of decoherence, or any number of other phenomena would foil the miniaturization of electronics and the construction of quantum computers. None of these impediments has ever materialized. Quantum theory, far from imposing limits, has opened up new ways of harnessing nature and expanding our worldview.

Listen to this Podcast

12 Comments

1. 1. jctyler 08:17 AM 9/10/12

   "Is the Uncertainty Principle Overrated?"
   
   Definitely yes.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. toffer99 in reply to jctyler 09:25 AM 9/10/12

   I'm not so sure.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. TomLWaters 11:13 AM 9/10/12

   I read this article in the print edition and found it more annoying than illuminating. Although the information about recent developments in quantum computing was interesting, I found the somewhat whiny attempt to use these developments to argue against the classical interpretation of the epistemological implications of QM to be unnecessary, uninformed, and unconvincing. None of the modern developments described contradicts the philosophical position of the Copenhagen interpretation, and the basic strangeness of QM remains as uncanny and intriguing as it always has. If the writers want to argue for a return to materialist realism in interpreting QM, that is certainly their prerogative. But such an argument would have to directly engage the *philosophical* questions raised by QM, not simply wave some new technological accomplishments in the air and keep repeating (without actual logical argument) how philosophically foolish the founders of the science were.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. SteveinOG 12:21 PM 9/10/12

   Does this mean we're uncertain about the uncertainty principle? Now I'm confused...or am I?
   
   (just a repeat of a comment posted elsewhere)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. jctyler in reply to toffer99 07:57 PM 9/10/12

   maybe you're right

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. tfbouk 04:12 PM 9/14/12

   Of course he is right! Nothing has happened to change the intrinsic value of the uncertainty principle. Philosophers and popular science writers love it and physicists ignore it. The Copenhagen Interpretation is window dressing. It makes no significant predictions and it is precisely because of it irrelevance that it maintains it's position. There are other interpretations of QM which produce the same results without the philosophical baggage but nobody really cares. The point of this article is that philosophy does not have physical relevance. Any one still believe in Aristotle's teachings?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. tfbouk 05:39 PM 9/14/12

   You are confusing the Quantum Theory with it's interpretation. When Heisenberg created his matrix mechanics the theory of non-relativistic QM (NRQM) was essentially complete. It became more user-friendly when Schroedinger made it a theory based on differential operators but, as he demonstrated, it did not change the essentials of matrix mechanics in any way. This structure has been built on to achieve the excellent results that you cite. However, matrix mechanics predates the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) and is completely independent of it. When Heisenberg showed his results to Bohr, Bohr said that an explanation for this behavior had to be found and he created one. There was no deep philosophical problem in the mathematics of either Heisenberg or Schroedinger, the philosophical difficulties lie in the CI.
   Also Bohm demonstrated in the '50s that a formulation of NRQM was possible that did not relie on the CI. His formulation followed the straight statistical approach of Statistical Mechanics and it's mathematical structure is completely equivalent with those above. So my point was not that QM is irrelevant, only that the CI is.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. jctyler in reply to tfbouk 06:33 PM 9/14/12

   Aristotle's teachings were great at the time! Also, in his time philosophy and science were twins, now they're separated at birth. Or maybe they still work together albeit more subtly and the present rather lamentable state of philosophy correctly reflects the present rather lamentable state of science? Maybe we need a modern Aristotle? But would modern science even listen? Or - understand? I doubt the latter, too much nombrilism.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. kenkoskinen 10:49 PM 9/14/12

   I listened to the audio tape twice. Ekert only expressed his doubts about QM limitations and added some hopes about progressing and future developments in QM information technology. He did not make any sort of case for anything he said. There is little here to agree or even disagree with.Perhaps he has clarified his stance elsewhere? I think this tiny piece is highly hyped as a "Quantum Buzzkill." It is more like nothing at all about almost nothing about QM.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. Gaspar_Ramsey 11:57 PM 9/14/12

    I wasted four or so minutes listening to this ramble, and the jist of it was, "Oh well, nothing is proven." No theorems to test, no startling mathematical attacks, just barely comprehensible mutterings about the unfairness of it all and the vague hope that the Multiverse might be kinder in the future.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. debu 08:37 AM 9/15/12

    Atomic model revised by Durgadas Datta is the new tool in quantum physics. He said two balloons --one negative outer and one positive inner with neutrons at common center is accepted model to day. Only assumption is that balloon films adjusts to have constant charge per unit area and as such balloon radius will change with the number of electrons or protons. As per his theory electrons and protons are spread out charge and not bullet like as described by BOHR in solar system like model. The vibration of both these spherical membranes and adjustment of radius give quantum effects in radiation and as such scattering. Einsteins photoelectric explanation is incorrect by assuming photons.Read the theories of Durgadas Datta to understand more . Quantum physics also require a overhaul.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. nirmalgopa 11:21 AM 9/15/12

    There is no question of uncertainty, the certainty is the base of physics. I calculated and explained about the uncertainty principle in my book Complete Unified theory (pages- 424, 1998), page – 155 t0 157 and 327. I calculated the internal functions of matter that what way the particle can liberate energy. This principle is applicable from particle to all fields up to universe. There are no questions of wrong philosophy. We should obey the real rule of nature. ----- Nirmalendu Das, Email: nirmalgopa@gmail.com

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this