Experiment Proves Two Counterintuitive and Contradictory Quantum Effects

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The advice that a watched pot won't boil may ring true in your kitchen, but in the quantum realm, anything goes. Recent experiments by Mark Raizen and his colleagues at the University of Texas have demonstrated that frequent measurements can slow down or speed up the rate at which particles in a quantum system decay from high- to low-energy states. The work therefore confirms two contradictory predictions made 20 years apart. In 1977, E.C. George Sidarshan and Baidyanaith Misra of the University of Texas proposed that continuous measurements would gum up quantum decay, an effect they named after Zeno, the 5th-century philosopher famous for his paradoxes of motion. Just last year, Abraham Kofman and Gershon Kurizki of the Weizmann Institute argued for an opposite, anti-Zeno effect.

To explore these predictions in the lab, Raizen's team trapped sodium atoms in a light wave. This system, left to its own devices, slowly decays as individual atoms escape by way of tunneling through what should be an insurmountable energy barrier. But the researchers noticed that the tunneling rate slowed dramatically when they measured the system every millionth of a second. When they then measured the system every five millionths of a a second, the tunneling rate increased. "The Zeno effect has until now only been seen in very simple systems, and the anti-Zeno effect has never been seen," Kofman told Nature Science Update. "It's an outstanding experiment, in the spirit of the original proposal of the Zeno effect."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe