QUANTUM MECHANICS
Clipped from various 'net sources.
.
Quantum mechanics says that matter and energy can appear spontaneously out of the vacuum of space, thanks to something called a quantum fluctuation, a sort of hiccup in the energy field.
. . There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence.
. . But there's a problem. If these other universes exist, there's no way for us to detect them.
. . Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University: Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, "You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist." When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. "In my view, you're into metaphysics."
. . Some theorists have speculated that gravitational energy from other universes might leak into ours, and that someday we might figure out how to detect it. But even the most open-minded cosmologists say that's a long shot at best.
. . (Ekpyrosis means "conflagration" in ancient Greek --disastrous fire or conflict.)
. . The building blocks of the Ekpyrotic theory are derived from Superstring theory. Superstring theory requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. In most formulations, 10 dimensions are required. In the mid 1990s, Petr Horava (Rutgers) and Ed Witten (IAS, Princeton) argued that, under certain conditions, an additional dimension opens up over a finite interval. Six dimensions are presumed to be curled up in a microscopic ball, called a Calabi-Yau manifold.
. . The ball is too small to be noticed in everyday experience, and so our universe appears to be a four-dimensional (three space dimensions and one time dimension) surface embedded in a five-dimensional space-time. This five-dimensional theory, called heterotic M-theory, was formulated by Andre Lukas (Sussex). Ovrut and Dan Waldram (Queen Mary and Westfield College, London). According to Horava-Witten and heterotic M-theory, particles are constrained to move on one of the three-dimensional boundaries on either side of the extra dimensional interval.
. . Our visible universe would be one of these boundaries; the other boundary and the intervening space would be hidden because particles and light cannot travel across the intervening space. Only gravity is able to couple matter on one boundary to the other sides. In addition, there can exist other three-dimensional hyper-surfaces in the interval, which lie parallel to the outer boundaries and which can carry energy.
. . These intervening planes are called "branes", short for membranes. The collision that ignites the hot Big Bang phase of the ekpyrotic model occurs when a three-dimensional brane is attracted to and collides into the boundary corresponding to our visible universe.
.
Quantum Astronomy:
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
By Laurance R. Doyle
Astronomer, SETI Institute
Nov 18, 04
In scientific circles, we are perhaps used to thinking of the word "principle" as "order", "certainty", or "a law of the universe". So the term "uncertainty principle" may strike us as something akin to the terms "jumbo shrimp" or "guest host" in the sense of juxtaposing opposites. However, the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of quantum physics initially discovered through somewhat classical reasoning --a classically based logic that is still used by many physics teachers to explain the uncertainty principle today.
. . This classical approach is that if one looks at an elementary particle using light to see it, the very act of hitting the particle with light (even just one photon) should knock it out of the way so that one can no longer tell where the particle actually is located --just that it is no longer where it was.
. . Smaller wavelength light (blue, for example, which is more energetic) imparts more energy to the particle than longer wavelength light (red, for example, which is less energetic). So using a smaller (more precise) "yardstick" of light to measure position means that one "messes up" the possible position of the particle more by "hitting" it with more energy. While his sponsor, Nehls Bohr (who successfully argued with Einstein on many of these matters), was on travel, Werner Heisenberg first published his Uncertainty Principle Paper using this more-or-less classical reasoning just given. (The deviation from classical notion was the idea of light comes in little packets or quantities, known as "quanta", as discussed in article one). However the uncertainty principle was to turn out to be much more fundamental than even Heisenberg imagined in his first paper.
. . Momentum is a fundamental concept in physics. It is classically defined as the mass of a particle multiplied by its velocity. We can picture a baseball thrown at us at 150 kph having a similar effect as a bat being thrown at us at 15 kph; they would both have about the same momentum although they have quite different masses. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle basically stated that if one starts to know the change in the momentum of an elementary particle very well (that is usually, what the change in a particle’s velocity is) then one begins to lose knowledge of the change in the position of the particle, that is, where the particle is actually located. Another way of stating this principle, using relativity in the formulation, turns out to be that one gets another version of the uncertainty principle. This relativistic version states that as one gets to know the energy of an elementary particle very well, one cannot at the same time know (i.e., measure) very accurately at what time it actually had that energy. So we have, in quantum physics, what are called "complimentary pairs." (If you’d really like to impress your friends, you can also call them "non-commuting observables.")
. . One can illustrate the basic results of the uncertainty principle with a not-quite-filled balloon. On one side, we could write "delta-E" to represent our uncertainty in the value of the energy of a particle, and on the other side of the balloon, write "delta-t", which would stands for our uncertainty in the time the particle had that energy. If we squeeze the delta-E side (constrain the energy so that it fits into our hand, for example) we can see that the delta-t side of the balloon would get larger. Similarly, if we decide to make the delta-t side fit within our hand, the delta-E side would get larger. But the total value of air in the balloon would not change; it would just shift.
. . The total value of air in the balloon in our analogy is one quantity, or one "quanta", the smallest unit of energy possible in quantum physics. You can add more quanta-air to the balloon (making all the values larger, both in delta-E and delta-t) but you can never take more than one quanta-air out of the balloon in our analogy. Thus "quantum balloons" do not come in packets any smaller than one quanta, or photon. (It is interesting that the term "quantum leap" has come to mean a large, rather than the smallest possible, change in something, and the order of the dictionary definitions of "quantum leap" have now switched, with the popular usage first and the opposite, physics usage second. If you say to your boss, "We’ve made a quantum leap in progress today", this can still, however, be considered an honest statement of making absolutely no progress at all.)
. . When quantum physics was still young, Albert Einstein (and colleagues) would challenge Nehls Bohr (and colleagues) with many strange quantum puzzles. Some of these included effects that seemed to imply that elementary particles, through quantum effects, could communicate faster than light. Einstein was known to then imply that we really could not understand physics correctly for such effects to be allowed to take place, for, among other things, such faster-than-light connectedness would deny the speed-of-light limit set by relativity. Einstein came up with several such self-evidently absurd thought experiments one could perform, the most famous being the EPR (Einstein, Podolski, Rosen) paradox, named after the three authors of that paper, which showed that faster-than-light communication would appear to be the result from certain quantum experiments, and therefore argued that quantum physics was not complete -–that some factors had to be, as yet, undiscovered. This led Nehls Bohr and his associates to formulate the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum physics reality. This interpretation, (overly simplified in a nutshell), is that it makes no sense to talk about an elementary particle until it is observed because it really doesn’t exist unless it is observed. In other words, elementary particles might be thought of not just as being made up of forces, but that some constituents of it that must be taken into account are the observer or measurer as well, and that the observer can never really be separated from the observation.
. . Using the wave equations formulated for quantum particles by Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born was the first to make the suggestion that these elementary particle waves were not made up of anything but probabilities! So the constituents of everything we see are made up of what one might call "tendencies to exist" which are made into particles by adding the essential ingredient of "looking." Looking as an ingredient itself, it must be noted, took some getting used to!
. . There were other possible interpretations we could follow, but it can be said that none of them was consistent with any sort of objective reality as Victorian physics had known it before. The wildest theories could fit the data equally well, but none of them allowed the particles making up the universe to consist of anything without either an underlying faster-than-light communication (theory of David Bohm), another parallel universe branching off ours every time there is a minute decision to be made (many worlds interpretation), or the "old" favorite, the observer creates the reality when he looks (the Copenhagen Interpretation).
. . Inspired by all these theories, a physicist at CERN in Switzerland named John Bell came up with an experiment that could perhaps test some of these theories and certainly test how far quantum physics was from classical physics. By then (1964), quantum physics was old enough to have distinguished itself from all previous physics to the point that physics before 1900 was dubbed "classical physics" and physics discovered after 1900 (mainly quantum physics) was dubbed "modern physics." So, in a sense, the history of science in broken up into the first 46 centuries (if one starts with Imhotep who built the first pyramid as the first historical scientist) and the last century, with quantum physics. So, we can see that we are quite young in the age of modern physics, this new fundamental view of science. It might even be fair to say that most people are not even aware, even after a century, of the great change that has been taking place in the fundamental basis of the scientific endeavor and interpretations of reality.
. . John Bell proposed an experiment that could measure if a given elementary particle could "communicate" with another elementary particle farther away faster than any light could have traveled between them. In 1984, a team led by Alain Aspect in Paris did this experiment and indeed, this was undeniably the apparent result. The experiment had to do with polarized light. For illustrative purposes, let’s say that you have a container of light, and the light is waving all over the place and --if the container is coated with a reflective substance, except for the ends-- the light is bouncing off the walls. (One might picture a can of spaghetti with noodles at all orientations as the directions of random light waves.) At the ends we place polarizing filters. This means that only light with a given orientation (say like noodles that are oriented up-and-down) can get out, while back-and-forth light waves (noodles) cannot get out. If we rotate the polarizers at both ends by 90 degrees, we would then let out back-and-forth light waves, but now not up-and-down light.
. . It turns out that if we were to rotate the ends so that they were at an angle of 30 degrees to each other, about half of the total light could get out of the container --one-fourth from one side of the bottle and one-fourth through the other side. This is (close enough to) what John Bell proposed and Alain Aspect demonstrated.
. . When the "bottle" was rotated at one end, making a 30-degree angle with the other side so that only half the light could escape, a surprising thing happened. Before any light could have had time to travel from the rotated side of the "bottle" (actually a long tube) to the other side, the light coming out of the opposite side from the one that was rotated changed to one-fourth instantaneously (or as close to instantaneous as anyone could measure). Somehow that side of the "bottle" had gotten the message that the other side had been rotated faster than the speed of light. Since then, this experiment has been confirmed many times.
. . John Bell’s formulation of the fundamental ideas in this experiment have been called "Bell’s Theorem" and can be stated most succinctly in his own words; "Reality is non-local." In other words, not only do the elementary particles that make up the things we see around us not exist until they are observed (Copenhagen Interpretation), but they are not, at the most essential level, even identifiably separable from other such particles arbitrarily far away. John Muir, the 19th Century naturalist once said, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." Well, he might have been surprised how literally --in physics as well as in ecology-- this turned out to be true.
. . In the next essay, we will combine the uncertainty principle with the results of Bell’s Theorem and increase the scale of the double slit experiment to cosmic proportions with what Einstein’s colleague, John Wheeler, has called "The Participatory Universe." This will involve juggling what is knowable and what is unknowable in the universe at the same time.
.
Continue to the next QUANTUM file.
If you got here from the HOME PAGE, click on
"minimize" or "eXit". (upper right browser buttons)
If you didn't: the site.)