There is probable no other scientific theory that is as good supported as quantum mechanics. For nearly 100 years now, it has repeatedly been confirmed alongside highly precise experiments, yet physicists nevertheless aren't solely happy. Although quantum mechanics describes events at the microscopic grade real accurately, it comes upwards against its limits alongside larger objects - specially objects for which the forcefulness of gravity plays a role. Quantum mechanics can't depict the behavior of planets, for instance, which remains the domain of the full general theory of relativity. This theory, inwards turn, can't correctly depict small-scale processes. Many physicists hence dream of combining quantum mechanics alongside the theory of relativity to shape a coherent worldview.
 |
| What does a physicist encounter when he examines a quantum object? The same as the observer of the physicist - or simply the opposite? [Credit: Philip Burli/Visualeyes International] |
But how is it possible to combine 2 theories that, despite both describing the physical processes inwards their domains real accurately, differ so greatly? One possibility is to conduct quantum physics experiments alongside increasingly larger objects inwards the promise that discrepancies volition eventually seem that betoken to possible solutions. But physicists must run inside tight constraints. The famous double-slit experiment, for instance, which tin terminate hold upwards used to present that solid particles simultaneously conduct similar waves, can't hold upwards performed alongside everyday objects.
Thought experiments, on the other hand, tin terminate hold upwards used to exceed the boundaries of the macroscopic world. That's exactly what Renato Renner, Professor for Theoretical Physics, too his one-time doctoral pupil Daniela Frauchiger accept at nowadays done inwards a publication that appears inwards Nature Communications mag today. Roughly speaking, inwards their idea experiment, the 2 consider a hypothetical physicist examining a quantum mechanical object too and so job quantum mechanics to calculate what that physicist volition observe. According to our electrical current worldview, this indirect observation should yield the same effect as direct observation, yet the pair's calculations present that just this is non the case. The prediction as to what the physicist volition let on is exactly the contrary of what would hold upwards measured directly, creating a paradoxical situation.
No uncomplicated solutions
Although the idea experiment is only at nowadays existence officially published inwards a scientific journal, it has already snuff it a theme of give-and-take amidst experts. As the publication procedure was repeatedly delayed, diverse other publications are already addressing the findings - itself a paradoxical situation, Renner notes.
The virtually mutual initial reaction of his colleagues inwards the patch is to enquiry the calculations, Renner says, but so far, no ane has managed to disprove them. One reviewer conceded that he had meanwhile made 5 attempts to let on an mistake inwards the calculations - without success. Other colleagues presented concrete explanations as to how the paradox tin terminate hold upwards resolved. Upon closer inspection, though, they ever turned out to hold upwards advertizing hoc solutions that don't genuinely gear upwards the problem.
Perplexing conclusions
Renner finds it remarkable that the number manifestly polarises people. He was surprised to banker's complaint that roughly of his colleagues reacted real emotionally to his findings - in all likelihood due to the fact that the 2 obvious conclusions from Renner's too Frauchiger's findings are as perplexing. The ane explanation is that quantum mechanics is apparently not, as was previously thought, universally applicable too thus can't hold upwards applied to large objects. But how is it possible for a theory to hold upwards inconsistent when it has repeatedly been so clearly confirmed yesteryear experiments? The other explanation is that it is manifestly non only politics that suffers from a lack of clear facts, but also physics, too that at that topographic point are other possibilities likewise what nosotros deem to hold upwards true.
Renner has difficulties alongside both of these interpretations. He rather believes that the paradox volition hold upwards resolved inwards another way: "When nosotros facial expression dorsum at history, at moments similar this, the solution oftentimes came from an unexpected direction," he explains. The full general theory of relativity, for instance, which solved contradictions inwards Newtonian physics, is based on the realisation that the concept of fourth dimension as it was usually understood dorsum too so was wrong.
"Our undertaking at nowadays is to examine whether our idea experiment assumes things that shouldn't hold upwards assumed inwards that form," Renner says, "and who knows, possibly nosotros volition fifty-fifty accept to revise our concept of infinite too fourth dimension in ane lawsuit again." For Renner, that would definitely hold upwards an appealing option: "It's only when nosotros fundamentally rethink existing theories that nosotros arrive at deeper insights into how nature genuinely works."
Source: ETH Zurich [September 18, 2018]
Sumber http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com
Buat lebih berguna, kongsi:
