https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240124132830.htm
Add a dash of creamer to your morning coffee, and clouds of white liquid will swirl around your cup. But give it a few seconds, and those swirls will disappear, leaving you with an ordinary mug of brown liquid.
Something similar happens in quantum computer chips -- devices that tap into the strange properties of the universe at its smallest scales -- where information can quickly jumble up, limiting the memory capabilities of these tools.
That doesn't have to be the case, said Rahul Nandkishore, associate professor of physics at the University of Colorado Boulder.
In a new coup for theoretical physics, he and his colleagues have used math to show that scientists could create, essentially, a scenario where the milk and coffee never mix -- no matter how hard you stir them.
The group's findings may lead to new advances in quantum computer chips, potentially providing engineers with new ways to store information in incredibly tiny objects.
"Think of the initial swirling patterns that appear when you add cream to your morning coffee," said Nandkishore, senior author of the new study. "Imagine if these patterns continued to swirl and dance no matter how long you watched."
Researchers still need to run experiments in the lab to make sure that these never-ending swirls really are possible. But the group's results are a major step forward for physicists seeking to create materials that remain out of balance, or equilibrium, for long periods of time -- a pursuit known as "ergodicity breaking."
The team's findings appeared this week in the latest issue of Physical Review Letters.
Journal Reference:
David T. Stephen, Oliver Hart, Rahul M. Nandkishore. Ergodicity Breaking Provably Robust to Arbitrary Perturbations. Physical Review Letters, 2024; 132 (4) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.040401
(Score: 3, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday January 29 2024, @12:04AM (3 children)
Sometimes - it's a rare cosmological event - there are stories without the word "AI" in it. And we just witnessed one such rare events. That made my day!
(Score: 5, Funny) by looorg on Monday January 29 2024, @01:06AM (2 children)
What coffee, cream and quantum physics teach us is ... that everything is better with, real, milk.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 29 2024, @03:29PM (1 child)
Ripple (pea protein "milk") I.E. a substitute for milk is actually rather creamy and has a decent flavor. Works great in pretty much any way I use milk. Including as a substitute for milk in Coffee/Tea/Hot Chocolate, Pudding, Cereal, Egg Muffins, or Casseroles.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2024, @04:04PM
Ripple? Doesn't that come in a brown bag?
(Score: 1) by dale_dmanny on Monday January 29 2024, @12:07AM (1 child)
D. Adams circa 1978?
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday January 29 2024, @08:09AM
Very probably not, because tea is fundamentally different to coffee.
Coffee is not even close to not quite entirely unlike tea.
Coffee is required for functionality.
Tea is required to restore normality.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29 2024, @02:23AM
I drink my coffee like The Wolf. Lots of cream and lots of sugar.
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Monday January 29 2024, @06:33AM (3 children)
And, if these findings don't lead to new advances, the scientists may still make a lot of money, by patenting their permanently swirling milk in coffee process.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Monday January 29 2024, @05:00PM (2 children)
So, one more thing scientists should not try to handle themselves - coming up with analogies that somehow (explain? demonstrate? illustrate?) a concept for the benefit of those who have no interest in the subject matter. I have a very superficial understanding of the physics involved in the dispersal of cream in coffee but I am no closer to understanding decoherence in quantum chips, if that is in fact the subject of the research. It makes me wonder if the analogy is acually targeted to other scientists. Maybe a reasearcher reading the analogy instantly understands the method. "Genius! They must have transformed the second-order Kalkov coefficients without polarization. Now why didn't I think of that." I'll tell you why you didn't think of that. Poor choice of your own analogy.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday January 29 2024, @06:05PM
I gave up on popular physics/maths for this reason. In the end, I only get understanding by understanding, and that means reading the paper and knowing the physics.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 30 2024, @01:34PM
Obviously, have the people who have no interest in the subject matter come up with the analogies. It'll be fun!