There is no doubt that quantum mechanics is a strong and successful theory – so far, all its predictions have been held, and scientists can build strong techniques based on them. However, understanding what tells us about the nature of reality and how we experience it is difficult. The physicists and philosophers have been wrestling with it for a century, as they heated some early ambiguity, but there are still some conceptual problems. The intuitive nature of quantum physics makes it fertile ground for misunderstanding. Here, six physicists explore the principles of extensive myths on quantitative history, theory and applications.
Maria Villaris: Did quantum physics travel through time possible?
If you are following quantum science ads in the past few years, you may think experiences have been able to send quantum particles in time. But despite exciting theoretical proposals and experimental studies, this has not been achieved (yet).
The idea depends on the exploitation of the quantum “episodes of time”-virtual fluctuations in the time of space that allow the partner, or anything else, to get out of the episode early on what was the case. These rings can be found in the universe, for example through tunnels in space tissue.
A century of quantum physics
Modern proposals were based on quantum space transportation from Qubits, where the Qubit condition is transferred from one location to another, without moving physically between them. This can be done using a banging pair of Qubits, one in each site.
However, to avoid violating basic principles, such as the lack of a faster connection than light, the immediate quantitative transport can be successful at most only quarter of time. For the rest, the recipient needs to correct Qubit remote transport using information from the sender. But researchers are looking into an alternative approach, where they ignore these failed cases, while preserving only a successful quarter.
This selective version of remote transport was proposed as a model because the quantity that allows time to travel. This universe can automatically ignore physics laws that ignore any contradictory result from something that changes the past. By following a similar protocol, but instead, manually ignore certain measurement results, the researchers achieved a quantitative feature in the field of measurement (the science of procedure to make accurate measurements).
Experimental results look identical to those that will come from a real -time ring, but behavior is designed from quantum tangles. Therefore, no one has already sent a particle to the past yet. But the general theory of relativity allows travel through time – quantum models provide promising ways to solve their paradoxes. Thus, quantum mechanics can make travel through time possible – but I need to read a paper sent from the future to make sure.
Estelle Inac: Can quantum computers guarantee faster accounts?
The promise of quantum computers and their capabilities to solve a set of intensive calculation problems – from how quantum behavior of electrons affects chemical reactions to improve methods of logistical services – motivated a prosperous industry that attracts billions of dollars in investor money. With the growth of excitement, as well as a misunderstanding about how quantum computers work, and why it is likely to be strong and fast in conducting mathematical operations and what may be their limits. It is one thing to have a quantum computer, but it is another to extract the correct answer for a complex account of it. This will not simply speed up every existing application – we are unlikely to need a “word” word “or” enlargement of quantity “. Instead, they are promising tools to explore very complex systems.
Sometimes quantum devices are said to provide energy and speed by relying on quantum parts, which are 0 and 1 at the same time; On the contrary, classic bits are either 0 or 1. This is misleading. What is happening instead is that Qubit is present in the overheat of classic cases 0 and 1. And each time a measurement is made, it has a possibility of measuring either 0 or 1.
Could the universe be a giant quantitative computer?
When you put many Qubits together, say N Among them, to form a quantum computer, its quantum overlap extends over the same sports space as 2N Classic bits and this is often referred to as a quantum parallel with si -speed. When making a quantitative account, the system takes out one case of these 2N Possible.
The account should be repeated several times (though less than 2N Times, which will be impossible when N Great) to build a probability image of the system: the result gives you the highest probability of the correct answer. This general expenses can reduce the advantages of quantum computers on classic computers. The algorithms that increase the possibility of obtaining the correct results (most likely) from each mathematical process is very important.
There are other restrictions on quantum computers, which are very fragile cases and need to protect them from interactions with their environment, which can be disrupted. Researchers explore smart ways to do this through error algorithms.
Consequently, quantum computers are actually powerful machines that depend on quantum and parallel overlap – but innovations are also needed in algorithms, devices and programs to harness their full potential.
Sabine Hosnviller: Did Einstein reject the idea of tangle?
You may have heard that what Albert Einstein refers to as “nervous work at a distance” is technically known as “tangle”, and that he insisted that tangle could not be present. No right.
“Leading Work” quotation is a direct translation of German phrase Long nervous effectHe wrote by Einstein in the 1947 letter to his colleague physicist Max. He was referring to an idea that has long been interesting – how to explain the measurement process in quantum mechanics, which he described earlier as a “strange work mechanism for a distance” (G 2006).
Sports, the measurement process in quantum mechanics is immediate. Say you want to measure the location of the particle. Before doing this, equations allow the particle to be in several places at the same time. Watch it or measure it, and suddenly in only one place.
Do not believe that noise-quantum technology can not solve the problems of the real world
This issue appears to be suddenly verified by uncertainty when you notice it is known as the measuring problem. The update occurs faster than light, apparently violates Einstein’s relativity theory, which says there is no signal that can exceed the speed of light. Of course, Einstein did not like him. For this reason, with the physicists Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, Einstein argued in 1935 that quantum mechanics should be “incomplete” theory (A. Einstein And others. physics. pastor 47777; 1935), Where the measurement is merely a probability description of the basic material reality.
In the same year, Erwin Schrödinger formulated the term “tangle” to describe the relationship between two or more people with incomplete knowledge. You can, for example, have a samian, one on the left and one on the right, each of them can have a case (usually the physicists consider the “rotating” property, but it can be something else, such as momentum) from +1 or -1, and both values must be added to 0. Therefore, either the left particle may rotate -1 and the other on the right rotation +1, or the other way.
In the experiment, you can turn one particle rotation, say the left particle, even without knowing what is. If it is -1, it is now +1; If it is +1, it is now -1. If you do this, what happens to the particle on the right side? nothing. The other particle itself has not changed, and the two particles are still tangled – only the relationship between them has changed. You have changed a tangled system to a different interlocking system as well. There is no “nervous work” in tangle, and there is no exchange of information faster than the speed of light.
I think the reason why some physicists get this is that in their paper in 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen used what we now call “interlocking particles” to clarify the problem with the immediate update of a system of measurement. The two concepts – measurement and intertwining – are intertwined, so to speak.
Einstein has never claimed that tangles, or quantum physics itself are wrong. What he did is questioning the physical interpretation of the measurement: It seems that the quantum system is present in many possible possible cases, but its updates are made for a different case once it is noticed. This is a case that is still not resolved.
Clarification: Sandro Rybak
Norma Sanchez: Is it not possible to reconcile general relativity with quantum physics?
Physicists have invented two great theories to understand reality. The general theory of relativity dominates how things occur on large standards, such as the universe. Quantum mechanics, at the same time, cover the forces the size of the atom or smaller. Many physicists manipulate that they may never be reconciled – although we do not have a real indication that it is not possible. In the past few years, it gives me progress and the possibility of new notes, such as gravitational waves, the hope that we will not need a completely new theory to include both.
In their current form, these theories produce images that are completely incompatible with each other, impractical or incomprehensible. Gravity, for example, is well explained by the general theory of relativity as a curvature of the place in the presence of huge bodies. But since these formalities are particles to be a non -zero mass that focuses on one point (with zero size), their followers on standards without the offspring would make gravity countless, which is meaningless.
The principle of “quantum” that says why the atoms are the same
There were many attempts to reconcile the two frames. One of them is the theory of strings-in which particles and powers arise from small-dimensional “chains” vibrations. But this theory faced problems: it does not explain the noticeable expansion of the universe, or its structure, and has not been supported by any experiences directly. Other methods that start with classic attractiveness and try to “determine”, not also succeeded.