Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 16 2015, @07:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the prove-it! dept.

As Science alert reports, researches have proven for the first time, that a fundamental problem of quantum mechanics, the problem whether a material has an energy gap, is equivalent to the halting problem, which states there is no way to always determine in finite time whether a given program will ever terminate. It it the first and most well known example of an undecidable problem.

In the words of the scientists, as quoted by the article:

"What we've shown is that the spectral gap is one of these undecidable problems. This means a general method to determine whether matter described by quantum mechanics has a spectral gap, or not, cannot exist. Which limits the extent to which we can predict the behaviour of quantum materials, and potentially even fundamental particle physics." said one of the researchers, Toby Cubitt from University College London in the UK.

So why is this important? To quote the article:

Why are spectral gaps so important? They're a central property of semiconductors, which are crucial components of most electrical circuits, and physicists had hoped that if they'd be able to work out whether a material is superconductive at room temperature (a highly desirable trait) simply by extrapolating from a complete-enough microscopic description.

[More After the Break]

But it goes even deeper:

There are some big implications of this discovery, especially given that there's a US$1 million prize at stake from the Clay Mathematics Institute for anyone who can prove whether the standard model of particle physics – which explains the behaviour of the most basic particles of matter in the Universe – has a spectral gap, using standard model equations.

"It's possible for particular cases of a problem to be solvable even when the general problem is undecidable, so someone may yet win the coveted $1 million prize," said Cubitt. "But our results do raise the prospect that some of these big open problems in theoretical physics could be provably unsolvable."

However, the discovery may also open up new possibilities:

"The reason this problem is impossible to solve in general is because models at this level exhibit extremely bizarre behaviour that essentially defeats any attempt to analyse them," said co-author David Pérez-García from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Spain.

"But this bizarre behaviour also predicts some new and very weird physics that hasn't been seen before. For example, our results show that adding even a single particle to a lump of matter, however large, could in principle dramatically change its properties. New physics like this is often later exploited in technology."

The team is now testing whether their mathematical models will hold up when tested in the lab with real quantum materials. Let's hope that problem is a little more solvable.

The actual scientific article is in Nature, an open access version can be found on arXiv.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @08:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @08:51PM (#277294)

    Lack of theoretical solutions doesn't necessarily prevent practical solutions. Quantum physics may ultimately depend on probability at the lowest levels such that "discrete" models are theoretically impossible, except as approximations of reality. But, that doesn't mean that useful and practical models cannot be developed that are good enough to produce practical products.

    After all, we can make discrete logic circuits out of matter that is "probabilisticly unpredictable" at a small scale because on the larger scale the aggregate objects are say 99.99999999999999% reliable (behave discretely). The chance of all the atomic or sub-atomic particles of the device doing something odd all at the same time, affecting the result, is too small to bother caring about, and thus too small to interfere with the illusion of discreteness.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @03:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @03:37AM (#277484)

    Exactly this.

    We can calculate Pi to millions of digits, but it's only a mathematical curiosity. It only takes forty or so digits of Pi to calculate the diameter and circumference of a circle the size of the known universe with an error less than the width of a hydrogen atom. More than a dozen digits of Pi are not significant to any practical application in the meat-space.
    Still, it can be useful for other technological applications. Prime numbers and cryptography are an example. Pi plus a secret offset could supply an encryption key of infinite length. Oops. Did I say too much?