Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist

In summary, the article discusses how a physicist has observed that our universe is a quantum universe, and that sometimes quantum effects can rear ugly heads in our macroscopic world. However, the article does not mention the possibility of parallel universes.
  • #1
pallidin
2,209
2
Please, experts, tell me that this isn't real, or that it's a misinterpretation of data:

"...And it's all because of a tiny bit of metal -- a "paddle" about the width of a human hair, an item that is incredibly small but still something you can see with the naked eye.

UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland cooled that paddle in a refrigerator, dimmed the lights and, under a special bell jar, sucked out all the air to eliminate vibrations. He then plucked it like a tuning fork and noted that it moved and stood still at the same time..."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/?test=faces
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How exactly did he observe both states?

The article overall seems more philosophical rather than physics-orientated... but an interesting thought nonetheless?
 
  • #3
FeDeX_LaTeX said:
How exactly did he observe both states?

That's exactly what I want to know as well. And, was that observational method an accepted procedure.
 
  • #4
Well, if the research has merit, it is bound to be published in a scientific magazine. And if not, it's an article from Fox News that really doesn't tell us anything... and it's not verifiable.
 
  • #5
I don't understand... some guy got a piece of metal and 'strummed' it, and somehow observed the numerous multi-states in this vacuum of space, therefore time travel is possible and I'm eating a biscuit right now in a parallel universe?

It just sounds like they're bringing out theories that have existed for a while now, backed up by someone who claims to have observed multi-states. Where's the new evidence in this article?
 
  • #6
Mr.Miyagi said:
Well, if the research has merit, it is bound to be published in a scientific magazine. And if not, it's an article from Fox News that really doesn't tell us anything... and it's not verifiable.

Here's the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/nature08967.html

I don't have access to the full paper, so I'm not sure how it got journalistically elevated to a proposed status of proof of parallel universes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's book on Bad Science. He certainly has a few comments on what you can read about Science in the popular Press.
If it seems 'Incredible' then it probably is.
 
  • #8
Just bad journalism here.

What Cleland did manage to show was that our universe truly is a quantum universe, that quantum effects sometimes rear ugly (or beautiful) head in our macroscopic world. Here are a couple other lay articles on this work:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57385/title/Physicists_observe_quantum_properties_in_the_world_of_objects
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone

No mention of parallel universes, let alone mentioning this work "proves" that they exist.What to make of the superposition of states that arise in quantum mechanics is an issue of interpretation. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is but one of many ways of explaining quantum mechanical phenomena such as superposition. This work did not test the MWI against other competing interpretations. Moreover, even amongst physicists who ascribe to the MWI, there is, as far as I know, a lack of consensus as to whether than means parallel universes exist.
 
  • #9
D H is correct. There is nothing wrong with the science (or the article in Nature), the work it is not even controversial (the results presented by Cleland et al are exactly what you would expect if from conventional QM).
The problem here is the way it is being reported by Fox News.
I am pretty sure Cleland is quite upset about how this work has been reported in mainstream media.
 
  • #10
pallidin said:
Please, experts, tell me that this isn't real, or that it's a misinterpretation of data:

"...And it's all because of a tiny bit of metal -- a "paddle" about the width of a human hair, an item that is incredibly small but still something you can see with the naked eye.

UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland cooled that paddle in a refrigerator, dimmed the lights and, under a special bell jar, sucked out all the air to eliminate vibrations. He then plucked it like a tuning fork and noted that it moved and stood still at the same time..."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/?test=faces

I think that all that happened was that Cleland made the mistake of trying to explain MWI to Fox News staff, and they bungled the communication. In the Nature paper, it doesn't seem that Cleland mentions MWI at all. Their result demonstrating the quantum nature of a macroscopic mechanical system is absolutely spectacular, but it doesn't prove MWI.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
pallidin said:
I don't have access to the full paper, so I'm not sure how it got journalistically elevated to a proposed status of proof of parallel universes.

Parallel universes are not even mentioned in the article. What they did is the following: When you have two oscillators in resonance, they can exchange energy. Imagine for example an excited atom inside a cavity. If the cavity is on resonance with an optical transition of the atom, a photon will be spontaneously emitted rather fast into the empty cavity, bounce back and forth and will leave the cavity at some time. The total system shares one excitation and this system has two eigenstates:
1) atom excited, cavity empty
2) atom in ground state, cavity with one photon

If you now increase the coupling rate between the cavity and the atom a different behavior emerges. The atom radiates the photon into the cavity, but the photon is now likely to be reabsorbed by the atom and reemitted and reabsorbed...
The energy is now continuously exchanged between the two systems and the states given above are NOT eigenstates of the strongly coupled system anymore. This manifests as an anticrossing behavior at the point where the dispersions of the two oscillators cross. The new eigenstates are now (oversimplified, if you want a stricter treatment google polaritons and Bogoliubov transformation):
1) p*atom excited + q* cavity excited
2) q*atom excited + p*cavity excited

The new eigenstates are mixtures of the original states and describe the constant exchange of energy between oscillators. If you think that this is strange: the formalism of bonding and antibonding orbitals in molecules is not too different.

This behavior has been long known. The new point of this paper is to use an mechanical oscillator and a qubit as oscillators and a single phonon as the excitation. So strong coupling is realized for a visible object.

edit: 3 answers in between. I should type faster. ;)
 
  • #12
SpectraCat said:
I think that all that happened was that Cleland made the mistake of trying to explain MWI to Fox News staff, and they bungled the communication.
Spot on, there!
"Humanities Graduates" strikes again.
 
  • #13
SpectraCat said:
I think that all that happened was that Cleland made the mistake of trying to explain MWI to Fox News staff, and they bungled the communication.
I think its more nefarious than that. It looks to me like they misquoted Cleland; a physicist would use Many-Worlds Interpretation, not parallel universes. The Fox reporter spends more time quote-mining Sean Carroll, Fred Alan Wolf, and Ben Bova than on quote-mining Cleland.

The wrong-headed interpretation of general relativity "And to age less than someone means you've jumped into the future -- you did not experience the same present. In a sense, he says, Krikalev time-traveled to the future -- and back again!" is just icing on the cake.

The problem is with Fox News and their staff. They have on hand somebody who knows just enough about modern physics to be dangerous -- and knows how to present that knowledge in a titillating manner.
 
  • #15
<< PF members reach from a parallel universe and "smite" Fox News >>
 
  • #17
I always thoughtt it was possible in the back of my mind but honestly WOW its stunning!
 
  • #18
I'd like to know how he "noted that it moved and stood still at the same time".

Don't take that article too seriously Simone. It's just a news article, and they're almost never able to describe the science accurately. This has nothing to do with proving that parallel universes exist, or making time travel more plausible.
 
  • #19
It's Fox News fer Pete's sake...
 
  • #20
It's silly enough to trust Fox News to report on usual news events... but quantum physics? Forget about it.
 
  • #21
I should clarify.

Google to find the same article on a more trusted site.
 
  • #23
My god that foxnews article was ridicules at best. So far off I am speechless.

I got excited when I saw the title.
 
  • #24
My god that foxnews article was ridicules at best. So far off I am speechless.

I got excited when I saw the title.
 
  • #25
I think a more interesting way to bring quantum physics to a larger scale would be to try and use viruses in a double slit experiment. This would show that life can exhibit wave properties, assuming one thinks viruses are actually alive.
 
  • #26
That foxnews article has in fact been dubbed the "Worst Physics Article Ever".

http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/04/the_worst_physics_article_ever.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Leave it to fox News... sheesh, can they screw up any more?
 
  • #28
nicksauce said:
That foxnews article has in fact been dubbed the "Worst Physics Article Ever".

http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/04/the_worst_physics_article_ever.php

Good article, thanks for the link.

Makes me wonder how many thousands of people may have read the FoxNews article, not taken the time to investigate it, and their life's perspective have erroneously changed(perhaps only subtly) because of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
D H said:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57385/title/Physicists_observe_quantum_properties_in_the_world_of_objects
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone

I'm reading conflicting info about the required temperature (50 μK in Science News, vs. 20 mK in Scientific American). If we take the 6 GHz frequency that is reported in both, then

kT ~ ½ hf (ground state energy of a harmonic oscillator)
T ~ ½ hf/k = 0.5 · 6.6e-34 J·s · 6e9/s / (1.4e-23 J/K) = 0.14 K
T ~ 0.1 K​

Hmm, guess I don't understand why such low temperatures were required. But at least the 20 mK figure is within an order of magnitude of this simple calculation.
 
  • #30
Battlemage! said:
Leave it to fox News... sheesh, can they screw up any more?

Yes, give them time. :rofl:
 
  • #31
Battlemage! said:
Leave it to fox News... sheesh, can they screw up any more?

I don't think they screwed up at all. I think they deliberately sensationalized the article because they felt they needed to in order to get the attention of their audience, who, Fox seems to think, are National Enquirer subscribers.
 
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
I don't think they screwed up at all. I think they deliberately sensationalized the article because they felt they needed to in order to get the attention of their audience, who, Fox seems to think, are National Enquirer subscribers.

That is paranoid... and probably right. How very depressing.
 
  • #33
Frame Dragger said:
That is paranoid... and probably right. How very depressing.
It isn't paranoia if it's true.

Maybe you meant cynical.
 
  • #34
Redbelly98 said:
I'm reading conflicting info about the required temperature (50 μK in Science News, vs. 20 mK in Scientific American). If we take the 6 GHz frequency that is reported in both, then

kT ~ ½ hf (ground state energy of a harmonic oscillator)
T ~ ½ hf/k = 0.5 · 6.6e-34 J·s · 6e9/s / (1.4e-23 J/K) = 0.14 K
T ~ 0.1 K​

Hmm, guess I don't understand why such low temperatures were required. But at least the 20 mK figure is within an order of magnitude of this simple calculation.

Well, you need low temperatures because you need to remove all high energy excitation and put the NEMS resonator (and the qubit) into its ground state before you start maniupulating it; remember that temperature is the same thing as vibrations (meaning lots of high energy phonons) in this case.

Also, I susect the 50 uK comes from the paper, in the introduction they calculate the energy for a low frequency resonators as well the as the one the actually used; basically to exaplain why they used a 6 GHz resonator as opposed to a e.g. a 10 kHz resonator.

It might be worth pointing out that there are systems that can reach 50 uK (dilution fridges with adiabatic demagnetization stages) so it is possible that someone will eventually be able to repeat the same experiment using a resonator with much lower eigenfrequency (although you can't make it too low, this type of qubit can realistially only be operated down to a few hundred MHz)
 
  • #35
DaveC426913 said:
It isn't paranoia if it's true.

Maybe you meant cynical.

You can be paranoid and right, but I consider "cynical" an insult. I was not trying to insult you. It's paranoid in the sense that there is virtually no means of confirmation or denial, and it's well within the realm of Fox or others to genuinely destroy this article without intent. That said, think you're right, because it matches the result and intention of Fox at least as well as error is always a possiblity.

You know how it goes, "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you." :smile:
 

Similar threads

Does this article prove that parallel universes exist
    • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top