© Tom PurdyScientists detected the uncertainty principle in measurements of a tiny drum about 0.02 inches across, big enough for the naked eye to see.
They knew it was true, but now they've shown it: Scientists have demonstrated that the uncertainty principle, one of the most famous rules of quantum physics, operates in macroscopic objects visible to the naked eye.
The principle, described by physicist Werner Heisenberg nearly a century ago, states that the mere act of measuring the position of a particle, such as an electron, necessarily disturbs its momentum. That means the more precisely you try to measure its location, the less you know about how fast it's moving, and vice versa.
While in theory this principle operates on all objects, in practice its effects were thought to be measurable only in the tiny realm where the rules of quantum mechanics are important. In a new experiment, described in the Feb. 15 issue of the journal
Science, physicists have shown that the
uncertainty principle effects can be detected in a tiny drum visible to the naked eye.
© Tom PurdyThe tiny drum was placed between two mirrors and illuminated with laser light, and the shaking of the mirrors revealed the uncertainty principle in action.
Small worldThe uncertainty principle is based on how disruptive any act of measurement is. If, for instance, a
photon, or particle of light, from a microscope is used to view an electron, the photon will bounce off that electron and disrupt its momentum, said study co-author Tom Purdy, a physicist at JILA, a joint institute of the University of Colorado, Boulder and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
But the bigger the object, the less of an effect a bouncing photon will have on its momentum, making the uncertainty principle less and less relevant at larger scales.
In recent years, however, physicists have been pushing the limits on which scales the principle appears in. To that end, Purdy and his colleagues created a 0.02-inch-wide (0.5 millimeters) drum made of silicon nitride, a ceramic material used in spaceships, drawn tight across a silicon frame.
They then set the drum between two mirrors, and shined laser light on it. Essentially, the drum is measured when photons bounce off the drum and deflect the mirrors a given amount, and increasing the number of photons boosts the measurement accuracy. But more photons cause greater and greater fluctuations that cause mirrors to shake violently, limiting the measurement accuracy. That extra shaking is the proof of the uncertainty principle in action. The setup was kept
ultra-cold to prevent thermal fluctuations from drowning out this quantum effect.
The findings could have implications for the hunt for
gravitational waves predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. In the next few years, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), a pair of observatories in Louisiana and Washington, is set to use tiny sensors to measure gravitational waves in space-time, and the uncertainty principle could set limits on LIGO's measurement abilities.
LIGO's measurements "will be many orders of magnitude more microscopic than ours," Purdy told LiveScience.
The results of the recent experiment are novel in that they show both classical and
quantum mechanics operating on the same scale, said Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who was not involved in the study.
"Half a millimeter is like something which we can actually hold in our hand," Das told LiveScience. "Obviously classical mechanics is valid, but they make quantum mechanics relevant at that size."
As a technical accomplishment, it's also impressive, Das said.
"At that scale, even 10 years ago people would have thought there's no point of doing this experiment, because you wouldn't have seen anything."
One Thing is Certain: Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle is Dead
by Miles Mathis
...
This is what we have come to expect from the mainstream media, in all arenas and all subjects: poorly disguised propaganda. They hardly even bother to hide data from you, they are so confident they can tell you what to think just with a title and summation. They show you data that disproves A, they admit that A has been disproved, but then somehow—miraculously—they spin this as a great confirmation of A. You believe the title and the soaring music and the violins. You don't believe the data.
...
What this means is that the mainstream aren't going to change their theories and their sales pitches no matter what new data comes in. They are going to continue to shove the old dogma down your throat regardless, because they can't be bothered to change the texts, or even the names. They have just admitted that the HUP was conjecture, has been violated, and is basically now no more than a worthless pile of words. But will that divert them at all from their path? As we see here, the answer is no. They will just tweak a few footnotes and go on as if nothing happened. They have been doing that for decades. Heisenberg will continue to be the poster boy, and quantum mechanics will continue to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, confirmed by all data.
...
They can't let the Heisenberg uncertainty principle go, and that is why. It is too big a piece of the public relations kit. Although they show in the article that the HUP is not a profound insight— remember, they just said it was conjecture, and that nothing really rested on it—they have to keep it because it is iconic. More than that, it is scripture. You don't jettison scripture just because it has been proven false. You work it into the new myth. You spin it. You whitewash it and sell it at even greater volumes.
...
The margin of error is the uncertainty. That is what a margin of error is. That is what quantum uncertainty is—margin of error in operation caused by the way we measure velocity.
...
The uncertainty is a function of the measurement. It has nothing to do with quantum fluctuations. But it is not a function of our tools being too large or quanta being too small. Nor does it have anything to do with error-disturbance. Nor does it have anything to do with probabilities. Nor does it have anything to do with the observer. There is no reason to let subjectivity creep in here, or indeterminacy. Yes, it does imply indeterminacy, in a way, but not the big squishy philosophical muddle we now call indeterminacy, which allows all sorts of magic to flow into physics. It is better just to call it a margin of error, as they used to—back in the old days when physics was still mechanical and still healthy.
...
You see, there is a reason mainstream physics is agreeing to replace Heisenberg's version with Kennard's or Ozawa's, even though it requires some hamhanded misdirection. Kennard's version is even squishier than Heisenberg's, and allows new physicists more room to fudge. They love the fluctuations, since these allow them all sorts of wiggle room. They have already tied these quantum fluctuations to vacuum fluctuations, which have allowed them to fudge all sorts of symmetry breaking and borrowing from the vacuum and so on. Any time you have an unassigned fluctuation, you can call it spontaneous and then do whatever you want to with it. This is how new physics works.
...
[Link]