Single-Particle Interference for BIG objects-what does it mean for a lay person?

In summary, a new member shared their fascination with the single particle interference experiment and was excited to learn that it also applies to macroscopic objects. They asked about the implications for the layperson and if it could mean we can exist in two places at once. Experts responded that there is a huge difference between quantum particles and classical objects and that such behaviors are not easily replicated in our everyday world. They also discussed the misconception perpetuated by the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" and emphasized the importance of experimental evidence in physics. Finally, they mentioned the experiment with a 1 mm oil droplet that showed classical physics can produce quantum-like effects.
  • #1
Viva-Diva
20
0
Hi All,

I am a new member and not a physicist. A long time back a physicst friend of mine told me about the single particel inteference experimnet and I was fascinated.

Today I learned that this exist even for macroscopic objects. http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html

Whay could this mean for the layperson...that we can exist in two places at once!? That we are waves too? So teleporting can actually be a reality??

Please excuse me if my questions are stupid (the last time I did physics was in high school)

Please enligtem me, your explanations will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks:-)
Viva-Diva
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Any one able to help me out please ?

thanks
Vica-Diva
 
  • #3
There is a HUGE difference between what quantum particles can do, and what you and I (classical objects) can do. If such quantum behavior are that easy to occur, we would have seen it easily by now, and it would not be so strange.

It also means that many pseudoscience and mystical claims using quantum mechanics as a justification are also bogus, because no such connection has been established.

So don't worry yourself over such things. Just look at your world. Nothing has changed.

Zz.
 
  • #4
but a Silicon dot is BIG...it is 10 million times bigger than a quantum object.
Please don't burst my bubble...:-) I am so happy thinking what all would be possible after this great discovery!

if it applys to a big macroscopic object...why wouldn't it apply to us?
 
  • #5
Viva-Diva said:
but a Silicon dot is BIG...it is 10 million times bigger than a quantum object.
Please don't burst my bubble...:-) I am so happy thinking what all would be possible after this great discovery!

if it applys to a big macroscopic object...why wouldn't it apply to us?

Then would you like to try tunneling through a wall, or interfering with yourself?

Zz.
 
  • #6
Tuneeling through a wall would be a great idea:-)
 
  • #7
Viva-Diva said:
Whay could this mean for the layperson...that we can exist in two places at once!?


Yes, macroscopic objects can exist in two places at once. Or they can be in a superposition of two very different states, such as "alive" and "dead" states of the famous Schroedinger cat. However, this state superposition exists only before the measurement is done. When we actually measure things we find them either "here" or "there" and we find them either "alive" or "dead". We never find them in the superposition state.

Eugene.
 
  • #8
Thanks Eugene,

I don't understand what you mean by 'before' measuremnet is done. Before measurement is done, there are infinite possibilities where an object can be because we don't even know.

But apparently in this particular experimnet, they showed tghat particels exist in 2 places after measurement was done. Isn't it?

I apologise if my questions seem too stupid.

tahnks
Viva-Diva
 
  • #9
Viva-Diva said:
I don't understand what you mean by 'before' measuremnet is done. Before measurement is done, there are infinite possibilities where an object can be because we don't even know.

That's right. We don't even know. That's why there is nothing mysterious in quantum-mechanical superposition.

Viva-Diva said:
But apparently in this particular experimnet, they showed tghat particels exist in 2 places after measurement was done. Isn't it?

I can't comment about this particular experiment with droplets. I would need to read beyond this press-release to understand what was actually done there. However, in the classic double-slit experiment with electrons or photons the particles never exist in 2 places after the measurement. Each particle hits the scintillating screen or the photographic plate in one place. So, the measurement of the particle position is unambiguous. The entire "controversy" is about what the particle was doing while we were not watching. Did the particle pass through one slit or through both slits? These are metaphysical questions, because they ask about something we did not observe. As you correctly pointed out, one can answer "I don't know" or "I don't care" and be done with it.

Eugene.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Eugene,

Thanks again. Do you guys believe in metaphysics?
Have you seen the movie, "what the bleep do we know?" (a very very badly amde film, but the content of it was very interesting nevertheless).

What do you physicits tink of such stuff?

Viva-Diva
 
  • #11
Viva-Diva said:
Have you seen the movie, "what the bleep do we know?" (a very very badly amde film, but the content of it was very interesting nevertheless).

What do you physicits tink of such stuff?
It's crap. Almost pure nonsense. Including a very misleading presentation of quantum mechanics.
 
  • #12
But ALL of them were scientist and doctors , some from Harvard and Stanford.
 
  • #13
Viva-Diva said:
Eugene,

Thanks again. Do you guys believe in metaphysics?
Have you seen the movie, "what the bleep do we know?" (a very very badly amde film, but the content of it was very interesting nevertheless).

What do you physicits tink of such stuff?

In my opinion, physics is an experimental science. The role of theoretical physics is to predict results of experiments. We really shouldn't ask for more than that. We shouldn't give too much credence to our theoretical models and "mechanisms" which go beyond observable effects and try to say what the system is "actually" doing while we are not watching. Such models and "mechanisms" can be successful mathematical tools, but it would be unwise to assign any physical meaning to them.

For example, the most precise and comprehensive description of quantum effects is provided by state vectors and Hermitian operators in the Hilbert space. However, nobody can seriously believe that the Hilbert space is a physical entity.

Eugene.
 
  • #14
Viva-Diva said:
Hi All,
I am a new member and not a physicist. A long time back a physicst friend of mine told me about the single particel inteference experimnet and I was fascinated.

Today I learned that this exist even for macroscopic objects. http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html

This experiment shows that classical physics can produce effects which we usually
expect only from quantum mechanical systems. A particle (a 1 mm oil droplet) diffracted
via it's wavefunction. Quite interesting though. Regards, Hans
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Viva-Diva said:
But ALL of them were scientist and doctors , some from Harvard and Stanford.
Only one of them was a quantum physicist. What he said was OK. But it was not directly related to the rest of the movie.
 
  • #16
ZapperZ said:
Then would you like to try tunneling through a wall, or interfering with yourself?
I would!
To show that the interpretation of QM I adopt is correct.
(That physical objects, both microscopic and macroscopic, are not their wave functions.)
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Throwing a baseball in the air is quantum mechanics, and so is eating a sandwich. When we are children we learn to generally understand a lot of these particular experiments in quantum mechanics. What we did not notice as children is that there are certain behaviors that are very subtle in high energy experiments (like throwing a ball or eating a sandwich) which become more clear when we do low energy experiments (like slowly rotating a dish of super cold helium or noting the individual photons striking a detector).

Classical mechanics is an estimate of the average behavior of a lot of low-energy interactions acting in unison. The total energy is high, but each separate interaction is low energy. We see that the low energy interactions don't follow that "average" behavior described by classical mechanics.

Any experiment demonstrating a behavior of quantum mechanics that seems odd to us (because we didn't notice it as children) will involve very low energy. There are some experiments that produce results that can be seen with the naked eye, so to speak. Quantum vortices, and interference patterns of individual particles, are two examples. So no matter how clever your contraption (and we've no idea how to make one yet), the only way to take advantage of, for example, quantum tunneling on a macroscopic scale (cause tunneling to work in unison for a lot of particles) would be to cool all the particles in the entire experiment WAY down. Next, we'd have to somehow individually associate every particle in the subject to be transported with a position in the destination. Then we'd have to figure out a way to cause all the particles to tunnel at the same time. In other words, it ain't going to happen real soon.
 
  • #18
Hans de Vries said:
This experiment shows that classical physics can produce effects which we usually expect only from quantum mechanical systems. A particle (a 1 mm oil droplet) diffracted via it's wavefunction.

Hans,

Did you not mean "macroscopic physics"?
Since I understood from this paper that quantum behaviour was observed for a macroscopic object, but I think it was not classical physics.

Or maybe I did not understand correctly this article, as I think it was not very clear.
 
  • #19
lalbatros said:
Hans,

Did you not mean "macroscopic physics"?
Since I understood from this paper that quantum behaviour was observed for a macroscopic object, but I think it was not classical physics.

Or maybe I did not understand correctly this article, as I think it was not very clear.
You understood correctly, the paper deals with a quantum macroscopic object. It is "classical" only in the sense that at such large macroscopic scales one naively expects classical behavior.
 
  • #20
lalbatros said:
Hans,

Did you not mean "macroscopic physics"?
Since I understood from this paper that quantum behaviour was observed for a macroscopic object, but I think it was not classical physics.

Or maybe I did not understand correctly this article, as I think it was not very clear.

This experiment is entirely classical physics: A 1 mm oil droplet which bounces on
a liquid surface because the liquid bath is vibrating vertically. The bouncing droplet
creates a circular wavefunction. When the droplet + wave function are sent through
a split then a diffraction pattern appears which is similar to what we see in quantum
mechanics.

Regards, Hans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918202711.htm
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Para...-Observed-in-a-Macroscopic-System-37815.shtml
 
  • #21
Dear people...thanks for all your replies..but did you forget that I am a layperson :-)
 
  • #22
Hans de Vries said:
This experiment is entirely classical physics: A 1 mm oil droplet which bounces on
a liquid surface because the liquid bath is vibrating vertically. The bouncing droplet
creates a circular wavefunction. When the droplet + wave function are sent through
a split then a diffraction pattern appears which is similar to what we see in quantum
mechanics.

Regards, Hans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918202711.htm
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Para...-Observed-in-a-Macroscopic-System-37815.shtml

I guessed correctly that I need to better understand this paper.
However, I expect it now to be a kind of analogy, probably just as deep as the wave equation of this system.
I wonder how the particle-side of the duality has been introduced in the interpretation of this experiment.

If I buy a copy, I will specially read about the differences between this system and quantum system, as mentioned in the abstract.
After all, if there are such differences, why would this system be in any way relevant for quantum mechanics?
Waves have never been a conceptual problem in quantum mechanics ... only the duality is difficult for our macroscopic nature.
Or would this be the key for a real understanding of quantum mechanics?

I just found that this paper is freely available: http://docto.ipgp.jussieu.fr/IMG/pdf/Couder-Fort_PRL_2006.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #23
lalbatros said:
I guessed correctly that I need to better understand this paper.
However, I expect it now to be a kind of analogy, probably just as deep as the wave equation of this system.
I wonder how the particle-side of the duality has been introduced in the interpretation of this experiment.

If I buy a copy, I will specially read about the differences between this system and quantum system, as mentioned in the abstract.
After all, if there are such differences, why would this system be in any way relevant for quantum mechanics?
Waves have never been a conceptual problem in quantum mechanics ... only the duality is difficult for our macroscopic nature.
Or would this be the key for a real understanding of quantum mechanics?

I just found that this paper is freely available: http://docto.ipgp.jussieu.fr/IMG/pdf/Couder-Fort_PRL_2006.pdf

This is a beautiful experiment. Probably the most beautiful I've seen on the subject of interference patterns. I'm still reading it and it very well may be key to understanding what REALLY happens when photons, electrons, etc pass through slits, as opposed to "wavefunction collapse" hoopla. One thing to note as you read is the difference between the waves being discussed. Particularly:
- The droplet is always a particle
- It interacts with it's environment through the wave-like disturbance
- It's interaction with it's environment determines it's trajectory
- It's path through the slit determines where it ends up on the detector
- Not all paths have the same probability, with the probabilities matching the classical single slit diffraction pattern.
- knowing the path of the particle does not in any way affect the result!
- The particles are localized throughout the experiment

The results of this paper are frightfully close to Randell Mills' explanation of the double slit experiment in his CQM theory.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Very interesting and inspiring experiment. Thanks for renewing this thread, mn4j. I'd have nearly missed it. I'm wondering if this can be related to multi-particle wave functions. Too bad they didn't explain the math of their simulations a bit more. I hope this can be found in their references.
 
  • #25
mn4j said:
The results of this paper are frightfully close to Randell Mills' explanation of the double slit experiment in his CQM theory.

I think nobody's afraid of a comedian...
 
  • #26
OOO said:
I think nobody's afraid of a comedian...

Seriously,
check out his explanation of double-slit diffraction by electrons and see if it isn't very similar to what is happening here.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/AVI/DoubleSlit.avi [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
OOO said:
... Too bad they didn't explain the math of their simulations a bit more. I hope this can be found in their references.

I would also be interrested on running that on my PC or in changing the model.
I would also like to compare it to the Bohm view of the Schrodinger equation.
And I would like to see if entanglement could benefit from such a point of view.

However, the paper explains the model rather clearly, but without the equations.
The main point is the transfer of momentum from the wave to the particle that is linked to the slope of the surface where the particle hits it.
What is missing is an explanation of the the wave generated at that moment.

Another point which is not clear for me is how the damping is compensated by the excitation.

So, if you find a (free) link to the full details and maybe to a source code, I would be quite interrested.
 
  • #28
Certainly we can draw pictures, create machines (which is what this experiment is--a machine), and write computer simulations that mimic somebody's idea of what QM behavior is, whether right or wrong. However, we need to remember that such machines are contrived. By that, I mean we intentionally designed the machine to partly mimic some conception we have about QM, whether it is right or wrong. I believe these experimenters realized this, as we see in their disclaimer near the end of the paper. Once the machine is built and works, we should be careful not to presume it can teach us something. The same could be said for a computer program. If I write a program (create an experiment, design a machine) that demonstrate my interpretation of QM, then I can't point to the program and say, "See, I was right! --and look what else it reveals!". I'm not saying it never will--I'm just saying we have to remember it was contrived to accomplish some purpose.
 
  • #29
fleem said:
Certainly we can draw pictures, create machines (which is what this experiment is--a machine), and write computer simulations that mimic somebody's idea of what QM behavior is, whether right or wrong. However, we need to remember that such machines are contrived. By that, I mean we intentionally designed the machine to partly mimic some conception we have about QM, whether it is right or wrong. I believe these experimenters realized this, as we see in their disclaimer near the end of the paper. Once the machine is built and works, we should be careful not to presume it can teach us something. The same could be said for a computer program. If I write a program (create an experiment, design a machine) that demonstrate my interpretation of QM, then I can't point to the program and say, "See, I was right! --and look what else it reveals!". I'm not saying it never will--I'm just saying we have to remember it was contrived to accomplish some purpose.

This is exactly why I wrote "Bohm view" and not "Bohm theory".
But this doesn't mean the Bohm view is useless or not interresting.
Simply, as it stands now, it is totally equivalent to the Schrodinger equation and it provides no simplification in the understanding.
But it is interresting.

That's also why I would like to know if we could go for entanglement in the same way.
 
  • #30
mn4j said:
Seriously,
check out his explanation of double-slit diffraction by electrons and see if it isn't very similar to what is happening here.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/AVI/DoubleSlit.avi [Broken]

I believe you. Only I'm not willing to read something from someone who writes loads of BS, even if he were right in this special case. Apart from the mathematical details I think you could also dream "explanations" for it by looking up into the clouds. I'd consider this accidental knowledge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
fleem said:
Certainly we can draw pictures, create machines (which is what this experiment is--a machine), and write computer simulations that mimic somebody's idea of what QM behavior is, whether right or wrong. However, we need to remember that such machines are contrived. By that, I mean we intentionally designed the machine to partly mimic some conception we have about QM, whether it is right or wrong. I believe these experimenters realized this, as we see in their disclaimer near the end of the paper. Once the machine is built and works, we should be careful not to presume it can teach us something. The same could be said for a computer program. If I write a program (create an experiment, design a machine) that demonstrate my interpretation of QM, then I can't point to the program and say, "See, I was right! --and look what else it reveals!". I'm not saying it never will--I'm just saying we have to remember it was contrived to accomplish some purpose.

This is a very good point. The experiment can certainly not teach us new physics. The interesting thing about it is, that it is at all possible to contrive such a relatively complicated and nonlinear system to behave in some respect like a quantum system. This leads one to think that there probably could be some hidden (and presumably rather simple) math behind it, that shows us how quantum field theory could be reformulated (regardless whether it has something to do with Bohm or not) to make way for new physics without sacrificing QFT's tremendously accurate predictions. That's the reason why I was asking primarily for the math.
 
  • #32
lalbatros said:
However, the paper explains the model rather clearly, but without the equations.
The main point is the transfer of momentum from the wave to the particle that is linked to the slope of the surface where the particle hits it.
What is missing is an explanation of the the wave generated at that moment.

Another point which is not clear for me is how the damping is compensated by the excitation.

Did you understand what role the "Faraday instability" plays in the experiment ? Does it help only in enabling the droplet to jump up and down indefinitely or does it also take part in the generation of the waves or the so-called "walkers" ?

As to the "main point": I think one of the main points is that the waves emitted from the droplet interact with it at some later time. I don't understand how this should work (apart from reflection at the boundaries, which is trivial). Is the droplet faster, is the wave faster ?
 
  • #33
OOO said:
I believe you. Only I'm not willing to read something from someone who writes loads of BS, even if he were right in this special case. Apart from the mathematical details I think you could also dream "explanations" for it by looking up into the clouds. I'd consider this accidental knowledge.

Any open minded physicist will take Mills more seriously, when an experiment appears to validate his theory, even if he were a liar and a fraud, which is hardly the case with Mills. Mills explanation of electron diffraction predates this experiment.

I Chapter 8 of his book (Page 341), Mills says the following:
Randell Mills said:
In the case of photon diffraction, the far field interference pattern given by Eqs. (8.22-
8.23) is due to conservation of angular momentum of the photon interaction with the slits. The
pattern is not due to constructive and destructive inference of photon electric fields. Photons can
not be created or destroyed by superimposing. If this were true, it would be possible to cool a
room or to cloak an object by illumination. Constructive and destructive interference violates the
first and second laws of thermodynamics1. The correct physics is based on conservation of the photon angular momentum and photon energy.
The incident photons have a size compare to their wavelength as given in the Equation of
the Photon section. A diffraction pattern is observed when the slit dimensions are comparable to
the photon wavelength. The physical basis of the mechanism is that each photon interacts with
the slit apparatus to give rise to an electron or polarization current. Each photon is reemitted,
and the regions of high and low intensity due to more or less photons impinging at locations of
the detector are generated as the number of photons diffracted become large. The pattern is based
on conservation of the momentum of the slit-source currents and re-emitted photon distribution.
Here, in the case of each incident and diffracted photon, the transverse displacement is related to
the change in the transverse component of the angular momentum of the photon. The
corresponding pattern is representative of the aggregate momentum distribution of slit-apparatus
current induced by many photon interactions.
The same physics of momentum conservation in
the electric and magnetic radiation fields determines the radiation pattern of a multipole source as
given in the Excited States of the One-Electron Atom (Quantization) section.

You can not simply write it off as BS. This experiment directly illustrates something very similar to what Mills is talking about. In the article the authors suggest that to their knowledge no known theory exists to explain what they observed. Mills theory appears to explain just that, but they were not aware of it. Methinks you should take Mills more seriously than you do. The guy is not stupid.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
mn4j said:
Any open minded physicist will take Mills more seriously, when an experiment appears to validate his theory, even if he were a liar and a fraud, which is hardly the case with Mills. Mills explanation of electron diffraction predates this experiment.

I Chapter 8 of his book (Page 341), Mills says the following:


You can not simply write it off as BS. This experiment directly illustrates something very similar to what Mills is talking about. In the article the authors suggest that to their knowledge no known theory exists to explain what they observed. Mills theory appears to explain just that, but they were not aware of it. Methinks you should take Mills more seriously than you do. The guy is not stupid.

You're citing this as if it was the Holy Bible. I've had the questionable chance to take a look at his book as well and to be honest, I haven't read more than about 5 pages in it when it became clear to me that something's not quite right with this guy. Then I skimmed through the rest of this book and this further confirmed my suspicion. I admit that this kind of judgement is superficial but I'm doing my own probabilistic inference on this.

Someone who likes to write out every formula in ugly detail, especially the trivial undergraduate type stuff, is suspicious. Likewise I don't fall for someone who seems to pretend that he has remedied all of the world's problems at once. Not to mention all those people around him that mutually cite one another. And we don't have to mention his money-making here, I'm not jealous of someone who makes money from dirt, but his self-confidence is in glaring disproportion with his scientific successes.

We always have to be aware of the fact that all of this world's most intractable misbeliefs are put forward by people who have invested too much of their lives into questionable concepts and when they notice, it's too late. It's easier to keep believing than to acknowledge one's own ignorance. If you wish you may apply this to all of us, it's a psychological invariant.
 
  • #35
OOO said:
Did you understand what role the "Faraday instability" plays in the experiment ? Does it help only in enabling the droplet to jump up and down indefinitely or does it also take part in the generation of the waves or the so-called "walkers" ?
I did not understand it in the detail.
I just understood that the "Faraday instability" occurs when there is a tendency to grow droplets spontaneously when the excitation is high enough.
We can guess that below the instability but close enough a single droplet will have a long lifetime,
and conversly far below the instability (like without excitation) any droplet with have a very short lifetime.
The role of the instability is related to the level of the excitation that ensure the necessary condition for the experiment.

OOO said:
As to the "main point": I think one of the main points is that the waves emitted from the droplet interact with it at some later time. I don't understand how this should work (apart from reflection at the boundaries, which is trivial). Is the droplet faster, is the wave faster ?
This is indeed the most interresting aspect that we should investiggate in detail.
You remark about which is faster is excellent.
Clearly the wave can go faster than the droplet: like when the droplet stays in place.
Could the droplet sometime go faster than the wave: it is not clear for me, it depend on how the droplet bounces on the wave.
 
<h2>1. What is single-particle interference for BIG objects?</h2><p>Single-particle interference for BIG objects refers to the phenomenon where large objects, such as molecules or even viruses, can exhibit wave-like behavior and interfere with themselves. This is similar to how small particles, like electrons, behave in wave-particle duality experiments.</p><h2>2. How is single-particle interference for BIG objects different from regular interference?</h2><p>The main difference is the size of the objects involved. In regular interference, we observe the interference patterns of small particles, such as photons or electrons. However, in single-particle interference for BIG objects, we are observing the interference patterns of much larger objects, which is a relatively new and exciting area of research.</p><h2>3. What does single-particle interference for BIG objects mean for our understanding of the world?</h2><p>This phenomenon challenges our traditional understanding of the world, which is based on classical mechanics. It suggests that even macroscopic objects can exhibit wave-like behavior, blurring the lines between the classical and quantum worlds. This could lead to new insights and advancements in various fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics.</p><h2>4. How is single-particle interference for BIG objects studied?</h2><p>To study this phenomenon, scientists use specialized techniques, such as matter-wave interferometry, which involves splitting the large object into two paths and then recombining them to observe the interference pattern. This requires precise control and manipulation of the object, as well as sensitive detection methods.</p><h2>5. How can single-particle interference for BIG objects be applied in real-world applications?</h2><p>The potential applications of this phenomenon are still being explored, but it could have implications in fields such as quantum computing, nanotechnology, and even medicine. For example, understanding the behavior of large biomolecules could lead to advancements in drug delivery systems or disease treatments.</p>

1. What is single-particle interference for BIG objects?

Single-particle interference for BIG objects refers to the phenomenon where large objects, such as molecules or even viruses, can exhibit wave-like behavior and interfere with themselves. This is similar to how small particles, like electrons, behave in wave-particle duality experiments.

2. How is single-particle interference for BIG objects different from regular interference?

The main difference is the size of the objects involved. In regular interference, we observe the interference patterns of small particles, such as photons or electrons. However, in single-particle interference for BIG objects, we are observing the interference patterns of much larger objects, which is a relatively new and exciting area of research.

3. What does single-particle interference for BIG objects mean for our understanding of the world?

This phenomenon challenges our traditional understanding of the world, which is based on classical mechanics. It suggests that even macroscopic objects can exhibit wave-like behavior, blurring the lines between the classical and quantum worlds. This could lead to new insights and advancements in various fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics.

4. How is single-particle interference for BIG objects studied?

To study this phenomenon, scientists use specialized techniques, such as matter-wave interferometry, which involves splitting the large object into two paths and then recombining them to observe the interference pattern. This requires precise control and manipulation of the object, as well as sensitive detection methods.

5. How can single-particle interference for BIG objects be applied in real-world applications?

The potential applications of this phenomenon are still being explored, but it could have implications in fields such as quantum computing, nanotechnology, and even medicine. For example, understanding the behavior of large biomolecules could lead to advancements in drug delivery systems or disease treatments.

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
6K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Back
Top