Quantum Stew: How Physicists Are Redefining Reality's Rules

New York Times ^ | October 16,2001 | GEORGE JOHNSON

[gcruse]

Ping for entanglement.

[gcruse]

Ping for entanglement.

[gcruse]

Ya gotta love it, creating matter out of nothing!!!

I may be getting dopey, but where does the article say that?

[longshadow]

QM bump.

[JMJ333]

Thanks! I enjoyed the article. I got hammered about 6 months ago because of something I said on a post about Einstein's theories --brb

[RadioAstronomer]

Cool!!!! Will look and thanks for the ping!

[What about Bob?]

I may be getting dopey, but where does the article say that?

It doesn't.

[Senator Pardek]

The dummin down of America.

[Chemist_Geek]

The practice is paying off with a deeper understanding of reality's rules. In Mr. Tompkins's time, the difference between the mysterious quantum realm and the hard-edged world of everyday life was assumed to be simply a matter of size. Much beyond the magnitude of an atom, as quantum effects faded, objects took on definite positions in space and time. In recent years the situation has revealed itself as somewhat more subtle. Whether an object is dominated by quantum fuzziness has less to do with how big it is than with how well it can be shielded from outside disturbances — tiny vibrations, bombarding air molecules or even particles of light.

No, size isn't the issue!

Get your mind out of the gutter. I'm discussing quantum mechanics here.

A single system, if excited to a sufficiently high quantum number, will exhibit classical behavior. For an example, solve the standard harmonic oscillator for a quantum number of 200. If you've got a sufficiently large number of identical systems, then you'd get classical behaviour as well, if one took the average of some simultaneous measurement on all of them.

[Chemist_Geek]

BTW, I wasn't addressing my comments to you, gcruse. The author of the piece needs to take some P-Chem classes.

[gcruse]

A single system, if excited to a sufficiently high
quantum number, will exhibit classical behavior.

Okay.  But isn't the goal to go the other way?
That is, have macrosystems exhibit quantum
behavior?  Dumb question, prolly.

[gcruse]

BTW, I wasn't addressing my comments to you, gcruse.
The author of the piece needs to take some P-Chem classes.

Hey, talk to me anytime. I loves to learn. :)

[Tallmadge]

Remember the old bumpersticker "Honk if you passed P. Chem." :)

If my old prof. explained one more variation of the Ideal gas law, I think I might have strangled him. :)

[tuesday afternoon]

NewScientist ran an article a while back that "proved" thoughts create existemce. Something like that. Lagrangian, laplacian, something like that.

This is like telling a joke and forgetting the punchline.

[PatrickHenry]

From the article:

Because of their quantum nature, atoms (like the particles they are made of) act like waves. The slower they move, the more stretched-out they become, dropping in pitch like a musical note sliding down the scale.

Why do I always find crap like that in articles written for a popular audience. If it isn't crap, I'm really missing something.

[Physicist]

What they're trying to say is that the Compton wavelength of an object is inversely proportional to its momentum.

[longshadow]

Why do I always find crap like that in articles written for a popular audience. If it isn't crap, I'm really missing something.

An example of outcome-based journalism, I guess.

"Physicist" has already, and thankfully, spared my from trying to explain what the author really meant. Funny, isn't it, that his "explanations" are invariably more succinct and precise than the original "quote" that he is explaining.

Now, if I only knew what a "Compton wavelength" is, I'd be all set .... I guess looking that up is a reasonable exercise for the student.