from the shortest-distance-is-a-quantum-tunnel dept.
Submitted via IRC for chromas
Chemists observe "spooky" quantum tunneling
A molecule of ammonia, NH3, typically exists as an umbrella shape, with three hydrogen atoms fanned out in a nonplanar arrangement around a central nitrogen atom. This umbrella structure is very stable and would normally be expected to require a large amount of energy to be inverted.
However, a quantum mechanical phenomenon called tunneling allows ammonia and other molecules to simultaneously inhabit geometric structures that are separated by a prohibitively high energy barrier. A team of chemists that includes Robert Field, the Robert T. Haslam and Bradley Dewey Professor of Chemistry at MIT, has examined this phenomenon by using a very large electric field to suppress the simultaneous occupation of ammonia molecules in the normal and inverted states.
"It's a beautiful example of the tunneling phenomenon, and it reveals a wonderful strangeness of quantum mechanics," says Field, who is one of the senior authors of the study.
Heon Kang, a professor of chemistry at Seoul National University, is also a senior author of the study, which appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Youngwook Park and Hani Kang of Seoul National University are also authors of the paper.
The frequency-domain infrared spectrum of ammonia encodes changes in molecular dynamics caused by a DC electric field[$], PNAS (2019) (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914432116)
(Score: 1) by aod on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:38PM (2 children)
Could this be used to create a crystalized structure by applying a current?
Say another molecule, that normally would form a liquid, but would become solid under electric charge
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:51PM
Spooky chemical bonds might be harder than an individual ammonia molecule changing shape. And they already used a "very large electric field".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:33PM
While not exactly what you described, there are electrorheological fluids [wikipedia.org] that do something similar. There are magnetic versions [wikipedia.org] as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:30PM (7 children)
There seems to be almost a pleasure in talking about quantum mechanics as not comprehensible. In what Universe did this become an acceptable scientific conclusion? It's the physics equivalent of "Because I Said So That's Why" as an explanation. And it creeps back and back up the logic chain until we start to get taught that as students. Finally the students - who are just starting their careers in science - come out as fully formed ignoramuses and deniers. Circle complete - these will become the teachers for the next round of students.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:40PM (2 children)
Agreed, and terms like "spooky" don't really belong in scientific discussion.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:41PM (1 child)
Blame Einstein or Einstein worship.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Wednesday November 06 2019, @07:12PM
First, Einstein never used "spooky" for tunneling, he used the term for the effect that in quantum mechanics, measuring one system seems to influence a far-away system that no longer is in physical contact with the measured system. Einstein termed that "spooky action at a distance" because he believed that this was a sign that quantum mechanics would have to be replaced by a more fundamental theory that didn't have that problem.
I'm pretty sure Einstein would not approve the use of "spooky" in this article.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:40PM
Easy science is already easy to explain or dumb down. Now most of the low hanging fruit is gone and journalists try to kind of dumb down stuff like quantum mechanics. And since it doesn't matter to 99.9% of people, they can just say whatever and get away with it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:42PM (2 children)
You aren't understanding properly. The math is "solid", and it predicts this kind of reaction. But people live at the macro scale where this kind of reaction cannot be experienced, so when they encounter observable events displaying it, the events don't fit any any accessible model. (Very few people, perhaps none, can use the math as a mental model of what's happening.) This "no fitting into an accessible model" is what they are calling spooky, and it's a legitimate use of the term.
The only people I'm aware of who both "understand" what is happening and don't find it spooky are the Copenhagen Theory followers, who just say "shut up and calculate, you shouldn't expect to understand". (The multi-world people have a model that works, but the one's I know think it feels spooky to be able to detect the events. I don't know any who adhere to one of the other interpretations, though Solipsists shouldn't have any problem.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:38PM (1 child)
If QM tunneling is bogus, then non of these diodes [wikipedia.org] should work. Hint - they do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:51PM
I think you misinterpret OP. Nowhere does he say QM tunneling is bogus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @02:45PM
Actually, never mind, the molecules just rotated 180*.
Guess next time we should try with an actual "handed" molecule to be sure.