Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers around Andrew Cleland's experiment at UC Santa Barbara, where he demonstrated quantum properties using a mechanical paddle cooled to near absolute zero. The experiment showed that the paddle could exist in a superposition of states, moving and standing still simultaneously. However, the interpretation of this work as proof of parallel universes is heavily criticized, with participants emphasizing that the media, particularly Fox News, sensationalized the findings without proper scientific context. The original research, published in Nature, does not claim to prove the existence of parallel universes but rather illustrates quantum behavior in macroscopic systems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and superposition
  • Familiarity with the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI)
  • Knowledge of mechanical oscillators and their quantum properties
  • Basic principles of experimental physics, particularly low-temperature physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Read the original research paper published in Nature on Cleland's experiment
  • Explore the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the role of low temperatures in quantum experiments
  • Study the implications of quantum mechanics in macroscopic systems
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, science communicators, and anyone interested in the intersection of quantum physics and media representation.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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:
 
  • #36
This is the article you should read. It’s true (FoxNews not) and thrilling enough...
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57385/title/Physicists_observe_quantum_properties_in_the_world_of_objects"

Potential applications, he says, include using arrays of these resonators to control multiple quantum systems in information processing or to test predictions about “Schrödinger cat” states — named for a hypothetical feline simultaneously alive and dead — in which a system exists in a mix of states known as a superposition. Cleland’s team showed, somewhat indirectly, that a form of superposition existed inside their resonator. If the researchers could make a resonator with longer-lasting vibrations, scientists might be able to test superposition on the macroscopic scale.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/57383/name/Quantum_object.jpg
Amazing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
f95toli said:
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.
After thinking about it some more, I realized you need the temperature low enough that the oscillator is in the ground state the vast majority of time. This requires kT much smaller than the energy spacing, so the Boltzmann factor

e-hf/kT << 1

is small for the first excited vibration mode. This ends up being

T << 0.3K

This is pretty well true at 20 mK, so the Boltzmann factor is e-15 or 3e-7 (fraction of time in the excited mode via thermal excitation).
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)
Thanks for the added remarks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K