A breakthrough that got credit for "simplifying" quantum physics ( http://www.world-science.net/othernews/141220_quantum.htm ) could wipe away some of its more troubling contradictions by pointing out that even those who can calculate it precisely don't always get what "uncertainty" means.
A group of researchers at the National University of Singapore has suggested that the tendency of some particles to act like matter in public and like waves of energy when no one's looking may be a problem in the way physicists study particles, not in the way particles behave.
The phenomenon, described as wave-particle duality, is less likely to be excessively creative behavior from the particle than to be the result of our failure to understand the real impact of the uncertainty principle that defines the limits of how much it is possible to know about a particle, according to a study published Dec. 19 in the journal Nature Communications. ( http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141219/ncomms6814/abs/ncomms6814.html )
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2863740/quantum-mystery-an-underestimate-of-uncertainty.html?
[Related]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf [PDF]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02 2015, @06:42PM
I don't believe this simplifies anything, not in the short run. Conceptually it may help in understanding, but the wave function will continue to be used as the basis of QM for years to come. That did not change.
Original concept about QM dealt with "observer" and their actions affecting the system. Philosophical discussions raged about what constituted an "observer". But even after Copenhagen interpretation has been deemed obsolete, the same wave function remains. It's just the interpretation of the math that is affected.
Conceptually many people disliked the particle/wave duality. In that manner, this simplification is "common sense" (as in not surprising and welcoming turn of events). But whether it leads to additional insight is an open question.
(Score: 1) by slartibartfastatp on Friday January 02 2015, @07:09PM
I read the articles (sorry) and could not find an explanation of what this simplification would be. Or are my glasses blurry due to my overheating datacenter ?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday January 02 2015, @08:10PM
Asfar as I can tell, the wave-particle duality was settled in the thirties when Dirac produced his abstract agebra version of quantum mechanics. Neither classical images in particles or of waves are correct. But people seem to hace a compulsive need to understand the math, so we keep makeng this kind of discovery.
What would be a real simplification is a new way of doing the calculations involved in solving the equations.
-- hendrik
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:19AM
Consider the resolution of a telescope mirror or lens. Barring atmospheric turbulence, the resolution gets better as the diameter of the aperture increases.
This can be understood either as diffraction of the light's electromagnetic waves in the vicinity of the perimeter of the aperture, or as an example of the position and momentum uncertainty principle. If you have a smaller lens, and a photon enters that lens, then you've measured its position to within the lens' diameter, therefore you don't know its momentum in any of the directions perpendicular to the optical axis of the scope.
The way I myself approach the wave/particle duality is that I understand all fundamental particles to be geometric points. (Neutrons and Protons are not fundamentals but Quarks are). However the probability of finding a particle when you look for it can be calculated from its wavefunction. That wavefunction is itself completely deterministic and can be calculated by solving the Schrödinger Equation.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:57AM
How do you know Quarks are fundamental? :P
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:01AM
Treat everything as having a wave nature and particles as being a special case that appear to be matter but not necessarily is.
(Score: 2) by cosurgi on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:54PM
Although unfavorable, because more difficult, It is actually the opposite.
It is very easy to obtain waves when using particles, just look at the nearest water pond made of H₂0 molecules. You have waves easily there. But you know it's particles. Or just about anything else, even thousands 1cm rubber balls in a container will get you wave behavior on macroscopic level.
But if you have a wave without particles underneath, obtaining those particles from purely wave behavior is very difficult, if not plain impossible.
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:14PM
But if those particles are really waves in their core nature? Kind of like a standing wave packet or such.
The point is to understand the behavior in depth.
(Score: 2) by cosurgi on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:31PM
Interesting point.
To make a standing wave, you would need some kind of barriers between which the standing wave would form. Then, the particle would be obtained via these barriers, whatever they might be.
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:53PM
Fields could provide that barrier. Or it could be that a continuous exchange makes it appear like a standing wave.