Author Topic: Uobičajena interpretacija Hajzenbergovog principa neizvesnosti pogrešna?  (Read 41023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ukronija

  • Guest
Daj, ne zezaj, Meho. Nijedna teorija dosad nije objasnila zašto. Samo - kako.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Nisam siguran da razumem šta hoćeš da kažeš. Misliš na neko metafizičko "zašto"? Na primer, Njutnova teorija objašnjava gravitaciono privlačenje između tela koja imaju masu i pokazuje "zašto" jabuka padne sa drveta, pa posle nje idu i detaljnije teorije koje pojašnjavaju prirodu gravitacionog polja, sa sve krunom u vidu Higsovog bozona (kvantne čestice koja "nosi" masu) i što se tiče "zašto" u nekom praktičnom smislu tu nemamo mnogo nedoumica jer ove teorije objašnjavaju uzrok i posledicu. Ali neko može da pita "A ZAŠTO je to baš tako? Zašto su to baš te vrednosti (npr. snaga gravitacionog privlačenja opada sa kvadratom razdaljine), zašto se gravitaciona sila po telu raspoređuje na baš ovakav način itd." i to su legitimna pitanja koja dalje teorije mogu ili ne moraju da razjasne. No, nisam siguran da li je to pitanje koje ti tu postavljaš ili pitaš o nekakvom prauzroku itd. Jer na to drugo pitanje nisam siguran da postoji jednoznačan odgovor. Ima ono antropičko načelo: kosmos je ovakav kakav je jer mi, ovakvi kakvi smo možemo tako da ga percipiramo. Nekom drugom, sa drugačijom fiziologijom je kosmos drugačiji.

U tom smislu, kvantna mehanika je takva kakva je jer je naša percepcija takva kakva je, koristimo određene metode da posmatramo kvantne fenomene i vezani smo za njih već svojom fiziologijom (da smo svi slepi, recimo, svetlost nam verovatno ne bi bila principijelni metod istraživanja fenomena).

Malo konfuzno odgovaram jer nisam siguran šta je pitanje, jelte.  :lol: Hoću reći, kvantna teorija daje dovoljno dobro "zašto" u smislu da kaže "pretpostavka je da ovaj sistem ovako funkcioniše jer su ovo njegova fundamentalna pravila" a onda se to eksperimentalno dokazuje. No, pitanje "zašto" su to fundamentalna pravila sistema (zašto logaritamske funkcije opisuju način formiranja puževe kućice, zašto oblici snežnih pahuljica prate fraktalna pravila) mi deluje kao pitanje iz domena metafizike i kao da traži prauzrok koji svemu daje viši, čak duhovniji smisao, a nisam siguran da se ove druge nauke smeju time baviti.

Ukronija

  • Guest
domena metafizike i kao da traži prauzrok koji svemu daje viši, čak duhovniji smisao, a nisam siguran da se ove druge nauke smeju time baviti.

Pa naravno da smeju. Moraju. Krajnja misija svih nauka bi trebalo da bude odgovor na fundamentalno pitanje - zašto, kroz objašnjenje - kako. Ne staje se kod - kako, pa se to kako menja sa svakim uočavanjem novog fenomena, ili se novi fenomen jednostavno nazove - izuzetkom. Ja shvatila da je nauka smešna još kada mi je u osnovnoj školi pružila model atoma. I ja sada treba da verujem da elektroni kruže oko jezgra od protona i neutrona zato što im se tako sviđa? I dokle ide to rasitnjavanje čestica? Do tehnikvarkova (više nije ni Higsov bozon)? :lol:

Ako ima nečeg u intuitivnom shvatanju sveta, meni je moje uvek govorilo da je sve što, kao, znamo jednostavno tragično pogrešno. Kao, osmislili smo fiziku, objasnili fenomene, izašli malo u svemir, i cela fizika na zemlji pala je u vodu. Pa smo onda smislili paralelnu fiziku koja važi za svemir. Aha. Ili ima beskonačno mnogo fizika, ili postoji jedna. Dve, jedna na zemlji i jedna u ostatku svemira su izuzetno egocentričan koncept.

To je isto kao kada ljudi u potrazi za životom na drugim planetama traže planete sa vodom, a intuitivno mi govori da su različiti sistemi mogli da razviju takve oblike "života" koje ne samo da ne možemo da pojmimo, već se nalaze u pet, šest, pedeset dimenzija. A isto tako kao što su bića na zemlji "našla način" da koriste kiseonik i da se u njihovim telima odvija reakcija i korišćenje tog kiseonika za životne procese, tako su i druga bića tamo negde mogla da "pronađu" način da udišu metan, azot, pesak ili da ne udišu ništa. Mislim, ubi nas ego.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Ne znam, nisam dovoljno filozofije nauke pročitao da bih ovde smeo da polemišem na tako visokom nivou. Ono malo epistemologije što sam u prolazu zakačio raspravlja o znanju i njegovom odnosu prema istini ali, Rasel pogotovo, se najviše bavio kvalitetom znanja (da li nešto "znaš" ako ne znaš da ga diskurzivno objasniš itd.) Ovo što ti pričaš, opet ću reći, tu već zalazimo u metafizičke vode i pošto je dobar deo prirodnih nauka koje poznajem zasnovan na određenom broju aksiomatskih načela, mislim da one sebi ne stavljaju u opis posla iznalaženje apsolutne istine. Već, ako smem ja da ovako superlaički "objašnjavam" nauku, najboljeg opisa stanja stvari uz dostupna sredstva. A podrazumeva se da će se taj opis menjati kako sredstva postaju iterativno bolja. Opet, aksiomi se uglavnom ne menjaju niti se (uobičajeno) traži da se oni obrazlažu, oni se doživljavaju kao ti neki fundamentalni principi naše percepcije stvarnosti i verovatno ne možemo da izađemo iz njih.

U tom smislu, nisam siguran šta želiš da kažeš ovim za kruženje elektrona oko jezgra. Postoje precizni matematički modeli kojim se opisuje atom i ti modeli uglavnom nisu zasnovani na planetarnom modelu (on se u osnovnoj i srednjoj školi koristi kao aproksimacija dovoljna za taj nivo rasprave, ali niko se ne pravi kao da je to najnoviji, najsvežiji naučni model) već govore o dualnoj, čestično-talasnoj prirodi ovog fenomena i tu kvantni fenomeni dolaze do izražaja. Uvođenjem Šredingerovog modela "zvanično" je napušten Njutnov model kojim je do tada aproksimativno opisivana priroda stvari na tom nivou i pošto su kvantnomehanički fenomeni po prirodi različiti od makromehaničkih, poseglo se za diferencijalnim računom. Naravno, što se dublje išlo u istraživanje kvantnih modela, stvari su sve složenije ali, fundamentalno Šredingerove postavke još uvek važe i eksperimentalno se potvrđuju. Naravno da će, možda, sa daljim istraživanjem doći do toga da na nekom još sitnijem nivou više ne važi šredingerovsko opisivanje i shvatanje stanja, kao što je njegovo shvatanje ukinulo njutnovsko na svom nivou, ali ja zaista ne znam ništa o tome da bih mogao da raspravljam.

Takođe, nisam uopšte siguran ni šta misliš kada kažeš da u svemiru važi jedna fizika a na Zemlji druga. O čemu pričamo? Podela na kvantnu i klasičnu mehaniku postoji ali ona važi i u svemiru i na Zemlji i tiče se talasnih svojstava čestica koje dolaze do izražaja tek kada imamo veoma male čestice, ali ovo ne znači da čestice veličine mene ili tebe nemaju svojstva talasa, samo da su ta svojstva, ako smem ovako ultralaički da se izrazim, ekstremno neizražena  :lol: :lol: :lol: Dakle, ne znam na koje dve fizike misliš. Možeš da pojasniš?

I, ne mislim da je "ego" u pitanju kada pričamo o tome da mi život prevashodno tražimo u vodi i u procesu oskidacije, već opet pre to antropičko načelo: ako je sve što znamo o životu došlo sa ove planete, onda je logično da ćemo u okvirima modela koje razumemo i umemo da objasnimo raspravljati i o životu negde tamo. Naravno, naučna fantastika ali i klasična kosmologija uveliko raspravljaju o drugim oblicima života, ali postoje određeni modeli koji se ponavljaju u vrlo različitim okruženjima na Zemlji pa ima smisla da smatramo da bi mogli statistički biti solidno zastupljeni i izvan Zemlje.

Ukronija

  • Guest
O čemu pričamo?

Ej, nemam pojma, Meho. Ja reko da podržim topik, da Zorannah ne dobije primat na forumu.  :lol:

Smisliću odgovor u narednim danima.  xremyb

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Pa, dobro, ako je jedna uspešna fešn blogerka podsticaj da se ovde priča o fizici, onda je sve u redu i Alah je dobro obavio svoj posao  :lol:

milan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 1.673
OBOZAVAM Mehove "ultralaicke" postove!!!! :)

Ukronija

  • Guest
Aha.  :lol: Pogotovo ovaj deo:

Podela na kvantnu i klasičnu mehaniku postoji ali ona važi i u svemiru i na Zemlji i tiče se talasnih svojstava čestica koje dolaze do izražaja tek kada imamo veoma male čestice, ali ovo ne znači da čestice veličine mene ili tebe nemaju svojstva talasa, samo da su ta svojstva, ako smem ovako ultralaički da se izrazim, ekstremno neizražena  :lol: :lol: :lol:

 xcheers

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Evo još malo kvantnih zavrzlama. Kvantna upletenost (da li se ovako prevodi Quantum Entanglement?) preživljava i prelazak horizonta događaja, pokazuju eksperimenti, koji, naravno, nisu rađeni putem ulaska u crnu rupu, već u laboratoriji, simulirajući uslove crne rupe kolko god se najbolje moglo. Tekst je pun grafikona, slika i videa pa samo ostavljam link.



Gravity's Most Extreme Effects Can Now Be Tested In A Laboratory

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Ja ovo ništa ne razumem. Ima li neko ko ovo može da rastumači primatu mog tipa? Mislim, dok priča o jezgrima atoma i njihovom obliku, u redu je. Ali onda kada lakonski ustvrdi da to znači da možda nikada nećemo ovladati putovanjem kroz vreme (u nekom drugom smeru od uobičajenog, jelte) - tu me potpuno izgubi. WTF?


Physicists just confirmed a pear-shaped nucleus, and it could ruin time travel forever


Quote
Physicists have confirmed the existence of a new form of atomic nuclei, and the fact that it’s not symmetrical challenges the fundamental theories of physics that explain our Universe.
But that's not as bad as it sounds, because the discovery could help scientists solve one of the biggest mysteries in theoretical physics - where is all the dark matter? - and could also explain why travelling backwards in time might actually be impossible.
"We've found these nuclei literally point towards a direction in space. This relates to a direction in time, proving there's a well-defined direction in time and we will always travel from past to present," Marcus Scheck from the University of the West of Scotland told Kenneth MacDonald at BBC News.
So let’s back up here, because to understand this new form of atomic nuclei, you have to get to know the old ones first. Until recently, it was established that the nuclei of atoms could be one of just three shapes - spherical, discus, or rugby ball.
These shapes are formed by the distribution of electrical charge within a nucleus, and are dictated by the specific combinations of protons and neutrons in a certain type of atom, whether it’s a hydrogen atom, a zinc atom, or a complex isotope created in a lab.
The common factor across all three shapes is their symmetry, and this marries nicely with a theory in particle physics known as CP-Symmetry. CP-symmetry is the combination of two symmetries that are thought to exist in the Universe: C-Symmtery and P-Symmetry.
C-Symmetry, also known as charge symmetry,  states that if you flip an atomic charge to its opposite, the physics of that atom should still be the same. So if we take a hydrogen atom and an anti-hydrogen atom and mess with them, both should respond in identical ways, even though they have opposite charges.
P-Symmetry, also known as Parity, states that the the spatial coordinates describing a system can be inverted through the point at the origin, so that x, y, and z are replaced with −x, −y, and −z.
"Your left hand and your right hand exhibit P-Symmetry from one another: if you point your thumb up and curl your fingers, your left and right hands mirror one another," Ethan Siegel from It Starts With a Bang explains.
CP-Symmetry is a combination of both of these assumptions. "In particle physics, if you have a particle spinning clockwise and decaying upwards, its antiparticle should spin counterclockwise and decay upwards 100 percent of the time if CP is conserved," says Siegel. "If not, CP is violated.”
The possibility that the Universe could actually violate both C-Symmetry and CP-Symmetry is one of the conditions that have been proposed to explain the mystery of antimatter in the Universe. But proving that would mean the Standard Model of Physics needs a serious rethink.
According to the laws of physics, at the time of the Big Bang, equal amounts of matter and antimatter had to have been created, but now, billions of years later, we’re surrounded by heaps of matter (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma), but there appears to be almost no naturally occurring antimatter.
"This is a puzzling feature, as the theory of relativistic quantum mechanics suggests we should have equal amounts of the two," mathematician Gianluca Sarri from Queen's University Belfast in the UK writes for The Conversation. "In fact, no current model of physics can explain the discrepancy."
Okay, so back to our atomic nuclei shapes. Most of our fundamental theories of physics are based on symmetry, so when physicists at CERN discovered an asymmetrical pear-shaped nucleus in the isotope Radium-224 back in 2013, it was a bit of a shock, because it showed that nuclei could have more mass at one end than the other.
Now, three years later, the find has been confirmed by a second study, which has shown that the nucleus of the isotope Barium-144 is also asymmetrical and pear-shaped.
"[T]he protons enrich in the bump of the pear and create a specific charge distribution in the nucleus," Scheck told the BBC. "This violates the theory of mirror symmetry and relates to the violation shown in the distribution of matter and antimatter in our Universe."
While physicists have suspected that Barium-144 has a pear-shaped nucleus for some time now, Scheck and his team finally figured out how to directly observe that, and it turns out its distortion is even more pronounced than predicted.
So what does all of this have to do with time travel? It's a pretty out-there hypothesis, but Scheck says that this uneven distribition of mass and charge causes Barium-144's nucleus to 'point' in a certain direction in spacetime, and this bias could explain why time seems to only want to go from past to present, and not backwards, even if the laws of physics don't care which way it goes.
Of course, there's no way of proving that without further evidence, but the discovery is yet another indication that the Universe might not be as symmetrical as the Standard Model of Physics needs it to be, and proving that could usher us into a whole new era of theoretical physics.
The study has been published in Phyiscal Review Letters, and can be accessed for free at arXiv.org.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Quantum teleportation was just achieved over more than 7 km of city fibre


Quote
  Quantum teleportation just moved out of the lab and into the real world, with two independent teams of scientists successfully sending quantum information across several kilometres of optical fibre networks in Calgary, Canada, and Hefei, China.
The experiments show that not only is quantum teleportation very much real, it's also feasible technology that could one day help us build unhackable quantum communication systems that stretch across cities and maybe even continents.
Quantum teleportation relies on a strange phenomenon called quantum entanglement. Basically, quantum entanglement means that two particles are inextricably linked, so that measuring the state of one immediately affects the state of the other, no matter how far apart the two are - which led Einstein to call entanglement "spooky action at a distance".
Using that property, quantum teleportation allows the quantum state of one particle to be transferred to its partner, no matter the distance between the two, without anything physical passing between them.
That's not like the teleportation you see in sci-fi shows like Star Trek - only information can be sent via quantum teleportation, not people.
What it is, though, is a great way to create an unhackable, totally encrypted form of communication - just imagine receiving information that can only be interpreted once you know the state of your entangled particle.
In the latest experiments, both published in Nature Photonics (here and here), the teams had slightly different set-ups and results. But what they both had in common is the fact that they teleported their information across existing optical fibre networks - which is important if we ever want to build useable quantum communication systems.
In fact, quantum teleportation has been achieved over greater distances in the past - in 2012, researchers from Austria set a record by teleporting information across 143 km of space using lasers, but that technology isn't as useful for practical networks as optical fibre.
To understand the experiments, Anil Ananthaswamy over at New Scientist nicely breaks it down like this: picture three people involved - Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
Alice and Bob want to share cryptographic keys, and to do that, they need Charlie's help. Alice sends a particle to Charlie, while Bob entangles two particles and sends just one of them to Charlie.
Charlie then measures the two particles he's received from each of them, so that they can no longer be differentiated - and that results in the quantum state of Alice's particle being transferred to Bob's entangled particle.
So basically, the quantum state of Alice's particle eventually ends up in Bob's particle, via a way station in the form of Charlie.
The Canadian experiment followed this same process, and was able to send quantum information over 6.2 km of Calgary's fibre optic network that's not regularly in use.
"The distance between Charlie and Bob, that's the distance that counts," lead researcher of the Canadian experiment, Wolfgang Tittel, from the University of Calgary in Alberta, told New Scientist. "We have shown that this works across a metropolitan fibre network, over 6.2 kilometres, as the crow flies."
The Chinese researchers were able to extend their teleportation further, over a 12.5 km area, but they had a slightly different set-up. It was Charlie in the middle who created the entangled particles and sent one to Bob, instead of the other way around.
This resulted in more accurate communication, and could work best for a quantum network where a central quantum computer (Charlie) communicates with lots of Alices and Bobs around a city. But the Calgary model could spread even greater distances, because Bob could work like a quantum repeater, sending the information further and further down the line.
The downside to both experiments was that they couldn't send very much information. The Calgary experiment was the fastest, managing to send just 17 photons a minute.
And while many people assume that quantum teleportation would result in faster communication, in reality, decrypting the quantum state of the entangled particle requires a key, which needs to be sent via regular, slow communication - so quantum teleportation wouldn't actually be any faster than the internet we already have, just more secure.
But the fact that both teams were able to use existing telecommunications infrastructure to achieve such long-distance teleportation at all is a huge deal - and something that hasn't been done outside of the lab before.
It's going to take a lot more tweaking and investigation before it's something that we can use in our daily lives, but we're definitely getting closer.
 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Theory challenging Einstein's view on speed of light could soon be tested

Quote
The newborn universe may have glowed with light beams moving much faster than they do today, according to a theory that overturns Einstein’s century-old claim that the speed of light is a constant.

João Magueijo, of Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe when the temperature of the cosmos was a staggering ten thousand trillion trillion celsius.

It is a theory Magueijo has being developing since the late 1990s, but in a paper published on Monday he and Afshordi describe for the first time how scientists can finally test the controversial idea. If right, the theory would leave a signature on the ancient radiation left over from the big bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background that cosmologists have observed with satellites.

“We can say what the fluctuations in the early universe would have looked like, and these are the fluctuations that grow to form planets, stars and galaxies,” Afshordi told the Guardian.

The speed of light in a vacuum is considered to be one of the fundamental constants of nature. Thanks to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, it was stamped in the annals of physics more than a century ago at about 1bn km/h. But while general relativity is one of the cornerstones of modern physics, scientists know that the rules of today did not hold at the birth of the universe.

Magueijo and Afshordi came up with their theory to explain why the cosmos looks much the same over vast distances. To be so uniform, light rays must have reached every corner of the cosmos, otherwise some regions would be cooler and more dense than others. But even moving at 1bn km/h, light was not travelling fast enough to spread so far and even out the universe’s temperature differences.

To overcome the conundrum, cosmologists including Stephen Hawking have proposed a theory called inflation, in which the fledgling universe underwent the briefest spell of the most tremendous expansion. According to inflation, the temperature of the cosmos evened out before it exploded to an enormous size. But there is no solid proof that inflation is right, and if so, what sparked such a massive period of expansion, and what brought it to an end.

Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory does away with inflation and replaces it with a variable speed of light. According to their calculations, the heat of universe in its first moments was so intense that light and other particles moved at infinite speed. Under these conditions, light reached the most distant pockets of the universe and made it look as uniform as we see it today. “In our theory, if you go back to the early universe, there’s a temperature when everything becomes faster. The speed of light goes to infinity and propagates much faster than gravity,” Afshordi said. “It’s a phase transition in the same way that water turns into steam.”

Scientists could soon find out whether light really did outpace gravity in the early universe. The theory predicts a clear pattern in the density variations of the early universe, a feature measured by what is called the “spectral index”. Writing in the journal Physical Review, the scientists predict a very precise spectral index of 0.96478, which is close to the latest, though somewhat rough, measurement of 0.968.
Science can never prove the theory right. But Afshordi said that if measurements over the next five years shifted the spectral index away from their prediction, it would rule out their own theory. “If we are right then inflation is wrong. But the problem with inflation is that you can always fine tune it to fit anything you want,” he said.
David Marsh, of the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at Cambridge University, is not giving up on inflation yet. “The predictions of inflation developed by Stephen Hawking and others more than 30 years ago have been tested by cosmological observations and faced those tests remarkably well. Many scientists regard inflation as a simple and elegant explanation of the origin of galaxies in the universe,” he said.
And while other theories might also look promising, Marsh said there were elements of Afshordi and Magueijo’s that were not well understood. “It remains to be seen how robust the predictions are when all the theoretical issues have been addressed,” he said.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Quantum Leap: Researchers Send Information Using a Single Particle of Light



Quote
According to research published Thursday in Science, physicists at Princeton University have designed a device that allows a single electron to pass its quantum information to a photon in what could be a big breakthrough for silicon-based quantum computers.
"We now have the ability to actually transmit the quantum state to a photon," said Xiao Mi, a graduate student in Princeton's Department of Physics. "This has never been done before in a semiconductor device because the quantum state was lost before it could transfer its information."
The device designed by the Princeton researchers is the result of five years of research and works by trapping an electron and a photon within a device built by HRL laboratories, which is owned by Boeing and General Motors. It is a semi-conductor chip made from layers of silicon and silicon-germanium, materials that are inexpensive and already widely deployed in consumer electronics.
Across the top of this wafer of silicon layers were laid a number of nanowires, each smaller than the width of a human hair, which were used to deliver energy to the chip. This energy allowed the researchers to trap an electron in between the silicon layers of the chip in microstructures known as quantum dots.
The electrons function as the smallest units of data used in computing which are known as bits. In a regular computer, a bit can have one of two values: either a 0 or a 1. But in a quantum computer, the smallest units of data are known as qubits, which can have a value of both 0 and 1 simultaneously. The ability to manipulate data as qubits in a quantum computer will allow for faster computing because the machine can calculate many problems simultaneously instead of one at a time.
“In our device, the state of the qubit is encoded in the position of the electron,” Jason Petta, a professor of physics at Princeton, told Motherboard. “The electron is trapped in a double well potential where the electron can occupy the left well, the right well, or be in a superposition state: both left and right at the same time. The information is therefore stored in the position of a single electron.”
The thing about quantum information, however, is that it is extremely fragile. Indeed, just measuring a quantum state can corrupt it, so figuring out a way to pass information from electron to electron without destroying it in the process was no small task.
The researchers settled on photons as the medium of exchange between electrons since they are less sensitive to disruption from their environment and could potentially be used to carry quantum information between quantum chips, rather than within the circuits on a single quantum chip. The ability to scale up this device would mean that photons could be used to pass quantum information from electron to electron in order to form the circuits for a quantum computer.
"Just like in human interactions, to have good communication a number of things need to work out —it helps to speak the same language and so forth," said Jason Petta, a professor of physics at Princeton. "We are able to bring the energy of the electronic state into resonance with the light particle, so that the two can talk to each other."
Following their successful experiment, the Princeton researchers hope to fine tune their device so that it is also able to electrically manipulate the spin of the trapped electrons giving them even greater control over the exchange of information between qubits.
“Our next step is to couple spin to light,” said Petta. “The spin of the electron, or its magnetic moment, has some advantages, as the spin state of an electron in silicon can remain coherent for a much longer time. So in principle, one can perform many gate operations electrically before the spin superposition state collapses.”
   

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Physicists Find That as Clocks Get More Precise, Time Gets More Fuzzy



Quote
  Time is weird – in spite of what we think, the Universe doesn't have a master clock to run by, making it possible for us to experience time differently depending on how we're moving or how much gravity is pulling on us.
Now physicists have combined two grand theories of physics to conclude not only is time not universally consistent, any clock we use to measure it will blur the flow of time in its surrounding space.
Don't worry, that doesn't mean your wall clock is going to make you age quicker. We're talking about time keepers in highly precise experiments here, such as atomic clocks
A team of physicists from the University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences have applied quantum mechanics and general relativity to argue that increasing the precision of measurements on clocks in the same space also increases their warping of time.
Let's take a step back for a moment and consider in simple terms what physicists already know.
Quantum mechanics is incredibly useful in describing the Universe on a very tiny scale, such as sub-atomic particles and forces over short distances.
As accurate and incredibly useful as the mathematics supporting quantum mechanics might be, it makes predictions which seem counter-intuitive to our everyday experiences.
One such prediction is called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which says as you know one thing with increasing precision, measurement of a complementary variable becomes less precise.
For example, the more you pinpoint the position of an object in time and space, the less certain you can be about its momentum.
This isn't a question of being clever enough or having better equipment – the Universe fundamentally works this way; electrons keep from crashing into protons thanks to a balance of 'uncertainty' of position and momentum.
Another way to think of it is this: objects with ultra-precise positions require us to consider increasingly ridiculous amounts of energy.
Applied to a hypothetical timepiece, splitting fractions of a second on our clock makes us less certain about the clock's energy.
This is where general relativity comes in – another highly trusted theory in physics, only this time it is most useful in explaining how massive objects affect one another at a distance.
Thanks to Einstein's work, we understand there is an equivalence between mass and energy, made famous in the equation (for objects at rest) as Energy = mass x speed of light squared (or E=mc^2).
We also know time and space are connected, and that this space-time can be affected as if it was more than just an empty box; mass – and therefore energy – can 'bend' it.
This is why we see cool things like gravitational lensing, where massive objects like stars and black holes dimple space so much, light can both travel straight and yet bend around them.
It also means mass can affect time through a phenomenon called gravitational time dilation, where time looks like it is running slower the closer it gets to a gravitational source.
Unfortunately, while the theories are both supported by experiments, they usually don't play well together, forcing physicists to consider a new theory that will allow them both to be correct at the same time.
Meanwhile, it's important that we continue to understand how both theories describe the same phenomena, such as time. Which is what this new paper does.
In this case, the physicists hypothesised the act of measuring time in greater detail requires the possibility of increasing amounts of energy, in turn making measurements in the immediate neighbourhood of any time-keeping devices less precise.
"Our findings suggest that we need to re-examine our ideas about the nature of time when both quantum mechanics and general relativity are taken into account", says researcher Esteban Castro.
So how does this affect us on a day-to-day level? Like a lot of theoretical physics, probably not much at all.
While quantum mechanics technically applies to 'big' things, don't worry, setting your stop-watch to read fractions of a second isn't going to open a worm-hole on your wrist – these findings would only become significant for clocks in highly precise experiments far more advanced than those currently being developed.
But getting a better understanding of how these time pieces work, in theory at least, will ultimately help us better understand the Universe around us. And one day perhaps grasp the nature of time itself.
This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.024
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

ЖивОзбиљан

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.364
Zato Flat Earth teoretičari sve jasno objasne!
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.161
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Physicists Discover a Possible Break in the Standard Model of Physics



Quote
Physicists from UC Santa Barbara and elsewhere discovered a phenomenon that doesn't follow one of the basic assumptions held by the Standard Model of Physics, after the teams reviewed three separate experiments.




Breaking the Lepton Universality In order to make sense of the physical world, scientists have worked hard to discover theories and principles that govern the physics of matter. This is what’s called the Standard Model of Physics, which includes all the laws and principles concerning matter in all its forms and sizes. Bascially, the Standard Model applies to even particle physics. Or so it should.
Scientists from the University of California at Santa Barbara (USCB) and colleagues from various other institutions have recently discovered that there might be a break in the application of the Standard Model, particularly with a fundamental principle called the lepton universality. Their discovery comes from reviewing the data from three separate experiments conducted in the United States, Switzerland, and Japan.


https://youtu.be/V0KjXsGRvoA




But before we jump into the details of the study published in the journal Nature, a little backgrounder is in order. The lepton universality is an assumption concerning elementary particles called leptons, which don’t undergo strong interactions. Supposedly, lepton universality asserts that the interactions of these particles are the same, regardless of differences in masses and decay rates. The three experiments reviewed in the studies are charged leptons, which are electrons, muons, and the heavier taus.
 Challenging the Norms of Physics All three experiments revealed that taus actually decay faster than the standard model predicts. The surprising thing was the data which came from the LHCb experiment at CERN in Switzerland, the BaBaR detector of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in California, and the Belle experiment in Japan challenged lepton universality at four standard deviations. This means that there’s a 99.95 percent certainty that this data is accurate, according to the USCB team.
“The tau lepton is key, because the electron and the muon have been well measured. Taus are much harder because they decay very quickly,” USCB’s Franco Sevilla said in a press release. “Now that physicists are able to better study taus, we’re seeing that perhaps lepton universality is not satisfied as the Standard Model claims.”


Initial reading into these results would seem to indicate that there is indeed a deviation from the Standard Model of particle physics. This could mean that an entirely different model of physics is needed to explain the peculiar behavior of the tau particle. In other words, new physics is required. That’s not a simple thing, as these principles often correlate with one another. A change in one could affect the others.
Sevilla admitted that they aren’t entirely sure yet how this would play out. “We’re not sure what confirmation of these results will mean in the long term,” he explained. “First, we need to make sure that they’re true, and then we’ll need ancillary experiments to determine the meaning.”




https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7657/full/nature22346.html

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Quantum mechanical particles travel backwards, study confirms
 
Quote
July 18 (UPI) -- A team of particle physicists and mathematicians have confirmed all quantum mechanical particles move backwards -- in the opposite direction of the force acting upon them. The phenomenon is called "backflow."
Until now, scientists had only observed the counterintuitive movement among "free" quantum particles -- particles free from any active forces. In the newest experiments, researchers showed quantum particles move in reverse even when pushed by an active force.
Scientists used advanced mathematical analysis to confirm the presence of backflow. Though the phenomenon is ubiquitous, it is a very weak force and hard to measure. Small or not, understanding the effect is essential to designing technologies that take advantage of quantum mechanics.
"We have shown that backflow can always occur, even if a force is acting on the quantum particle while it travels," Henning Bostelmann, a mathematician at the University of York, said in a news release. "The backflow effect is the result of wave-particle duality and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and it is already well understood in an idealised case of force-free motion."
Researchers published their findings this week in the journal Physical Review A.
"As 'free' quantum particles are an idealized, perhaps unrealistic situation, we have shown that backflow still occurs when external forces are present. This means that external forces don't destroy the backflow effect, which is an exciting new discovery," said Daniela Cadamuro, a researcher at the Technical University of Munich. "These new findings allow us to find out the optimal configuration of a quantum particle that exhibits the maximal amount of backflow, which is important for future experimental verification."
 






Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Zaista elegantan i razumljiv tekst čak i za mene koji sam bez ikakve škole.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Da vidimo sad ovo:

Physicists can predict the jumps of Schrodinger's cat (and finally save it)

Evo i studije:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1287-z

Quote
In quantum physics, measurements can fundamentally yield discrete and random results. Emblematic of this feature is Bohr’s 1913 proposal of quantum jumps between two discrete energy levels of an atom1. Experimentally, quantum jumps were first observed in an atomic ion driven by a weak deterministic force while under strong continuous energy measurement2,3,4. The times at which the discontinuous jump transitions occur are reputed to be fundamentally unpredictable. Despite the non-deterministic character of quantum physics, is it possible to know if a quantum jump is about to occur? Here we answer this question affirmatively: we experimentally demonstrate that the jump from the ground state to an excited state of a superconducting artificial three-level atom can be tracked as it follows a predictable ‘flight’, by monitoring the population of an auxiliary energy level coupled to the ground state. The experimental results demonstrate that the evolution of each completed jump is continuous, coherent and deterministic. We exploit these features, using real-time monitoring and feedback, to catch and reverse quantum jumps mid-flight—thus deterministically preventing their completion. Our findings, which agree with theoretical predictions essentially without adjustable parameters, support the modern quantum trajectory theory5,6,7,8,9 and should provide new ground for the exploration of real-time intervention techniques in the control of quantum systems, such as the early detection of error syndromes in quantum error correction.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Ovaj tekst je vrlo zanimljiv osim što uopšte ne objašnjava šta bi bio "mirror universe" ili barem "mirror particle".


Scientists are searching for a mirror universe. It could be sitting right in front of you.

Tako da, evo vikipedije da se pripomogne:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.267
Scientists unveil image of quantum entanglement for the first time ever 
 
Quote

 The photo depicts two photons interacting and sharing physical states for a brief instant -- an event that occurs regardless of the actual distance between the particles.
 
(...)
 
A camera capable of detecting photons was then set to snap a photo when it identified one photon entangled with another.
 

 
Da, ni ja nisam siguran kako "fotografišete" fotone, but here we are...