POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE #5

[~Maiax~]

Gentlemen,

Thanks to invaluable and ultra-fast aid from Mr. Shackelford, I hereby give to you my newest article, which you may find by clicking the link below:

Transporter Technology

I made it just in time before turning 37... Old men, old ideas.

[VADM Wulfric Richter CoS]

 

Another excellent and thought provoking article, Marci. I just have a couple of questions for you, if you will permit me. First, how does one check to see if the real world calculations jive with the quantum? Wouldn't that require a mathematical understanding of the quantum world? And second, haven't there been successful experiments in the lab regarding teleportation using very small amounts of matter and short distances?

 

[~Maiax~]

Mr. Richter, thank you for your kindness. You guys make those articles worth the effort.

As for your questions, as far as I know:

Ad 1) The quantum world IS real in every sense of the word. Both quantum and classical calculations regarding the same area (ie., big bodies and very big scales) produce the very same results - therefore the correspondence principle of which I write. (The quantum world is NOT an alternative world, it IS the same world we live in.) There is no really a division between the classical and the quantum, or it is very subtle. The quantum effects appear and play any role only in very sub-microscopic scales, where the classical mechanics fail. Similarly to the Special Relativity Theory, which produces exactly the same results as classical mechanics, when it comes to very low velocities (many times smaller than the speed of light). SRT was created to deal with big velocities, where classical physics fail to deliver good results. Same goes for the quantum mechanics, this time the classical mechanics fails at desciribing the very small, subatomic world.

Let me stress this out: quantum mechanics is very imprecise, because the matter itself won't allow us obtain any better precision, as much as we would like to. We really would like to quantum mechanics produce such definite results as the classical one; but at the same time, we know this is simply impossible, and quantum mechanics must suffice.

So you understand, it is easier for quantum equations to be correct (they are less precise!) than classical ones.

All elementary particles (as observed in energy spectrum peaks, so called resonances [short life time - strong interactions], or their traces in bubble chamber [long life times - weak interactions]), energies and shapes of absorption lines, orbitals of atoms, chemical bonds (the shapes of molecules and crystal lattices), and radiation rates of fusion 'obey' rather excellently our equations, so we deduce that so far we haven't blundered with the quantum formality.

Ad 2) I never heard of such experiments. Must be hoax.

[Wupteedo]

A good read, indeed.  Thank you, Marcielia.  BTW, if you are now over 37, welcome to middle-age.  ;)

 

Oh, and lest we forget --

[VADM Wulfric Richter CoS]

First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. Regarding the experimentation, I thought that I read something about experimental results of teleportation in the news some years ago. I googled it and came up with this on How Stuff Works

"In 1998, physicists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), along with two European groups, made IBM's teleportation theory a reality by successfully teleporting a photon -- a particle of energy that carries light.

The Caltech team read the atomic structure of a photon, sent this information across 3.28 feet (about 1 meter) of coaxial cable and created a replica of the photon on the other side. As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica appeared.

In order to carry out the experiment, the Caltech group had to skirt a little something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. As any boxed, quantum-state feline will tell you, this principle states that you cannot simultaneously know the location and the momentum of a particle. It's also the main barrier for teleportation of objects larger than a photon."

The article mentions other experiments by the Chinese, but nothing as to the specifics of the methodology.

[VADM JT Kerry]

Smaug, very funny.  I guess that could be taken as the "spooky action" of quantum objects at a distance Einstein was speaking of, eh!

 

Marcie, I really like your articles.  So speaking on the level of Speculative Fiction, which takes the present science and projects it to the future.  Here is why I think it will happen and the parts we know we need:

 

Let us take in account Moore's Law and the theories of quantum computing, the possibility of finding atomic quanta beyond the Higgs Boson (going beyond Planck length) and the theory of quantum entanglement through quantum superposition (it isn't there until it is observed).  And, the energy requirements (which will be lessened over time as our ability to create energy increases) giving us the ability to accomplish many of the feats we think impossible.  Also, TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch) - the laws of conservation.

I speculate that when we figure out the energy issues, teleportation will be resolved.  We will need to develop the ability to scan an object down to subatomic levels.  Subatomic particles will be the medium (the assembly of subatomic particles into atoms and molecules) which will be used for entanglement.  We will need to create the compression and data stream.  Reassembly at Planck length resolutions and the computing will need similar units of measure in its complexity to do all of the calculations involved. 

The grand unification of Relativity and QM will be the key to finding it.  I think we will reach this point quicker than you think.  Entanglement is still in its stone tablet and chisel stage, but it has happened.

Nothing is impossible.  It just comes down to graphing the decaying slope of improbability over time, and the will to see it through.  With each advent of technological complexity we acquire, we increase the downward slope of the graph and shorten the time to acquisition.   Many of us have a "smart" phone of some type, why would this be any different.

 

[VADM Wulfric Richter CoS]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the sticking point of a GUT an explanation of gravity on the quantum level?

[VADM JT Kerry]

The Grand Unified Theory (GUT) in some of the circles of theoretical physics is the stepping off point.  What is beyond, they don't know, but they have to climb over this wall to see beyond it.  Others call it the Theory Of Everything (TOE), which to many GUT would be a culminating point to all that we have learned thus far, but falls short of the TOE that many believe lies beyond.  Some think it will be the tipping point to truly finding the other dimensions lurking in space-time and other anomalies that are suspected, but still are beyond our ability to prove.  One of which, is the true nature of gravity.  We know it is there.  We know its effects are weak in some areas and strong in others, but the why and where is still pretty much theoretical. 

To your question the answer is yes (at least through current experimental channels).  Much of the focus is on quantum gravity and its effects that are at, or smaller than, the Planck scale, which is a resolution our particle colliders haven't reached yet.  The Higgs Boson is but a step in that direction.  We have identified the Higgs field, but not the particle or particles themselves.  What was identified is the field emitted in the correct range for the particle(s) we are looking for, confirming the existence, and along with other factors that add to that confirmation.  This is my understanding from the articles I've read, and is only a layman's understanding.   The math involve is beyond anything I can comprehend.   

[~Maiax~]

The subject is really within my field of fantasy and imagination, but beyond the field of my solid knowledge, even though I have studied quantum mechanics for two years!

The Standard Model (of interactions between particles) is the step in the right direction. It reduced the number of particles needed to explain the observed world, and cleaned up their classification, reducing the number of families of particles, etc. Up to recently, we were troubled by the number of new elementary particles that didn't fit in the existing classification. Especially the strong interactions, which required the pion triplet (pion pi negative, pi zero, and pi positive), but still another agent of these interactions was wanted. Finally, we proposed gluons, and quark confinements: two to make a lepton, three to constitute a hadron.

The Higgs boson is now badly needed to make this picture (more) complete. LHC was built mostly in order to discover it.

Just see how beautifully the things simplified:

[VADM JT Kerry]

Here is a flow chart showing the Standard Model particles at the top (basically) and how they fit into their respective categories.   

 

Here is a Wiki article with a more comprehensive listing of known and theoretical particles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles 

I don't know why I am so fascinated by all of this stuff.  My degree is in English and the developmental language side of linguistics.

JT

[VADM Wulfric Richter CoS]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge, gentleman. It is much appreciated. I am only a layman myself, my primary field of study is philosophy. But I am fascinated with all of this as well.

[~Maiax~]

So far, the discovery of Higgs was made, but is still ambiguous.

And, btw, if you come across a book named 'Elementary Particles and Symmetries' by Lewis Ryder, be sure to read it. Although it requires some level of knowledge of mathematics/quantum physics formalism, it's still the best single book on the subject I've ever found.