Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday April 03 2017, @03:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-universe-is-stranger-than-you-imagine dept.

You may (or may not) have heard about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known.

According to a report in ChemistryWorld, a new technique allows atomic spin properties to be measured simultaneously with greater accuracy — Atomic Spins Evade Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

Many seemingly unrelated scientific techniques, from NMR spectroscopy to medical MRI and timekeeping using atomic clocks, rely on measuring atomic spin – the way an atom's nucleus and electrons rotate around each other. The limit on how accurate these measurements can be is set by the inherent fuzziness of quantum mechanics. However, physicists in Spain have demonstrated that this limit is much less severe than previously believed, measuring two crucial quantities simultaneously with unprecedented precision.

Central to the limits of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that it is not possible to know a particle's position and momentum with absolute accuracy, and the more precisely you measure one quantity, the less you know about the other. This is because to measure its position you have to disturb its momentum by hitting it with another particle and observing how the momentum of this second particle changes. A similar principle applies to measuring a particle's spin angular momentum, which involves observing how the polarisation of incident light is changed by the interaction with the particle – every measurement disturbs the atom's spin slightly. To infer the spin precession rate, you need to measure the spin angle, as well as its overall amplitude, repeatedly. However, every measurement disturbs the spin slightly, creating a minimum possible uncertainty.

The alternative approach suggested by Morgan Mitchell's group at the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Barcelona, could circumvent this problem. The spin angle, they say, is in fact two angles: the azimuthal angle (like longitude on the Earth's surface) and the polar angle (like latitude). To measure the precession rate, you need only the azimuthal angle. Therefore, by loading as much uncertainty as possible into the polar angle, you can measure the two quantities you need – the azimuthal angle and amplitude of the spin – and therefore measure the spin precession rate much more accurately than previously thought possible.

Is this the harbinger of finer-grained and/or quicker MRIs?

References: G Colangelo et al, Nature, 2017, DOI: 10.1038/nature21434


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: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday April 03 2017, @08:34PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday April 03 2017, @08:34PM (#488354) Homepage
    Not just that:

    > This is because to measure its position you have to disturb its momentum by hitting it with another particle and observing how the momentum of this second particle changes.

    HUP applies where it applies for purely mathematical rules of definition, not *because* measurement disturbs the system. Even if there was a measurement that didn't disturb the system, the HUP would still apply. The above is often given as an easy to understand reason, but it's just another one of those lies that are told to simplify things to people who don't want to look at the equations. The waveform simply has many (possible) positions and many (possible) frequencies (which determine the momentum), you cannot accurately define one without making the other less well defined.

    This seems to be a reasonable write-up: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3