How can something be moving and not moving at the same time

[Chacoguy]

From THIS article:

Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.

At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.

Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.

What does this mean?

[Bonkers]

link to another article on the same topic

It seems to me what they're saying here is that the quantum drum in its natural state resonates at about 6 billion vibrations a second-

"The object is a mechanical resonator made of aluminium and aluminium nitride, measuring about 40 µm in length and consisting of around a trillion atoms. It is a thin disc, which resonates at about six billion vibrations per second."

By dropping the temperature to the calculated level - one tenth of a kelvin - the drum goes to ground state and is rendered 'inert', no vibrations. So, then they add a circuit for excitation
-
"Next, the team measured the quantum state of the resonator by connecting it electrically to a superconducting quantum bit or "qubit". The qubit acts, in fact, like a "quantum thermometer" that can identify just one quantum thermal excitation, or phonon. Once this has been done, the qubit can then be used to excite a single phonon in the resonator. This excitation can be transferred many times between the resonator and qubit."

which then allows the drum to be naturally inert (due to temperature) yet be vibrating at the same time (due to the Qubit resonance).




Thats how I read it anyway.

[timbicile]

An arrow in flight is at any instant in one place but ultimately everything is always moving.

[timbicile]

And you asked what it means.
It's the end of the world as we know it.

[dogbutler]

Originally Posted by timbicile

And you asked what it means.
It's the end of the world as we know it.

And I feel fine!

[blank]

I wonder if it has anything to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which states that the position and the momentum of an object can be accurately measured but not at the same time.

[GIGObuster]

AFAIK there are philosophers and theorists that insisted for a long time that there is no phenomenon until it is observed.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...ver_effect.htm

The implications of the 'Observer Effect' are profound because, if true, it means that before anything can manifest in the physical universe it must first be observed. Presumably observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness to do the observing. The Observer Effect clearly implies that the physical Universe is the direct result of 'consciousness'.

IMHO what this experiment shows is that for those philosophers nature is sticking her tongue to them

"Stop telling me [nature] what to do, things and whatever state they have exist even before and after you see them."

[Harry]

...IMHO what this experiment shows is that for those philosophers nature is sticking her tongue to them

So if a tree falls in the forest and hits a mime, no one knows?

Or cares, either, I suppose...

[Islander]

And furthermore, she adds...

...the very act of observing changes the behavior of the thing being observed.

Margaret Mead wished she had known that when she was observing the girls of Samoa.

[Zeener Diode]

And things we can observe indirectly by the reactions of other things to and around them. Like air or vacuum. Or black holes.

[Fromage A Trois]

What I thought it was trying to say was something that appeared to contradict the observer effect - in that it could be in 2 possible states (vibrating and not-vibrating). In the quantum world, before you observe it, you can describe such a state as a superposition of the two possible wavefunctions and their relative probabilities. However, when you observe it, it should "collapse" into one or other of the wavefunctions - either vibrating or not vibrating.

What they seem to be saying is that they could observe this "paddle" in both states at the same time - i.e., it didn't "collapse".

But I must admit this is just the impression I got.

[Chacoguy]

I think you're right, Fromage. I still can't quite get my head around it.

[Fromage A Trois]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

I think you're right, Fromage. I still can't quite get my head around it.

No, nor can I (if that's really what they're saying), because it seems to contradict the Copenhagen Interpretation pretty clearly. Although that is just an interpretation, I suppose.

[sturmhauke]

My understanding of the observer effect is not some kind of mumbo-jumbo about consciousness creating reality, but simply that observing one particle requires interaction with another particle, which can change the state of the particle being observed. This wiki article sums it up nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[Fromage A Trois]

Originally Posted by sturmhauke

My understanding of the observer effect is not some kind of mumbo-jumbo about consciousness creating reality, but simply that observing one particle requires interaction with another particle, which can change the state of the particle being observed. This wiki article sums it up nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Yes, I'd agree with that - I was wrong to say "observer effect" in my original post because it's not really what I meant. My understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the act of "observing" (whether it be by a consciousness or not) actually forces a particle to collapse into one of its possible quantum states whereas previously it existed in a superposition of all possible states. From the article you linked to:

Note that the special role given to observation (the claim that it affects the system being observed, regardless of the specific method used for observation) is a defining feature of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The OP's article seems to say that a quantum system can be observed and yet remain in an uncollapsed state.

[sturmhauke]

I was mostly responding to that link that GIGObuster posted. The guy who wrote that page seems to have a very superficial understanding of the subject. He also has some other questionable articles, such as "A CRITIQUE OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION"

Actually, I take it back. It's not "questionable", it's "fucking stupid".

[Chacoguy]

You're right sturmhauke, that article is fucking stupid.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

You're right sturmhauke, that article is fucking stupid.

Just to make sure:

I'm also saying that that article was stupid, I picked it up because it is typical of what many proponents of woo are saying. Nice to see nature demonstrating that makers of that kind of mumbo jumbo* do not even have a leg to stand on.






* Typical of them are the makers of What the Bleep Do We Know!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_th...Do_We_Know!%3F

[TV time]

Originally Posted by timbicile

And you asked what it means.
It's the end of the world as we know it.

Darn, and I didn't know it yet.