Physics researchers join effort to finally complete quantum theory

Feb 01, 2013

An assistant professor of physics at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) will be among a team of international researchers looking to advance the theory of quantum mechanics, a notion challenged by Albert Einstein and pursued by many of the top scientific minds during the past century.

Le Luo, Ph.D., specializes in and , with expertise in the measurement and manipulation of trapped ions (charged particles). A new grant will allow him to work with researchers at the University of Science and Technology in China (USTC), Harvard University and several European universities to conduct a "loophole-free test" of the Bell Inequalities—one of the most fundamental questions in .

"This research is going to be conducted over much of the next five years or so," Luo said. "If successful, this could have a major effect on exploring the fundamentals of quantum mechanics as well advancements in , which will ultimately make information technology much more secure and efficient than it is today."

states that there is no local realism. In other words, an object has no pre-existing values until that object is measured. Until then, there is only probability. The theory also suggests that a single measurement may affect two remote, distinct systems described by "entangled" quantum states.

For example, the theory says that if two (ions, protons, electrons, etc.) are sent off to remote places, a measurement taken on one particle at one point should indicate the states (position and speed, for example) of both particles, no matter the distance between the two particles.

Einstein's claims this would be impossible because the particles would have to communicate with one another faster than the speed of light. When considering the local realism for physics laws, the quantum theory could not be complete, Einstein reasoned.

What is reality? What is matter? These weighty questions and others related to quantum theory have challenged scientists for generations.

"Hopefully, the expertise of this group from across the world will be able to make some progress in answering these long-standing questions," Luo said.

The debate on the local realism of quantum mechanics has been ongoing since the early 1900s. Einstein and collaborators Podolsky and Rosen first challenged the completeness of quantum mechanics on a large public scale in the 1930s. This later became commonly known as the EPR Paradox.

In 1964, the European physicist John Bell provided a detailed analysis of the EPR paradox. Bell's research produced a now famous result, known as Bell's Inequality, which suggests specific ways in which can be tested.

Researchers began using photons in 1980s to test Bell's theory and determine if Einstein's reasoning is right or wrong. Since then, researchers have used various quantum states to test the theory but continued to have loopholes in their methods, therefore falling short of a definitive result. Luo said the new collaboration would, for the first time, be using several different quantum systems—including photons, ions, quantum dots and solid-state ensembles—to test the theory across large distances and hopefully eliminate all possible loopholes, he said.

"It is very important that such Bell Inequality tests be implemented at large distances, across distances such as tens of miles, so that our measurement can be loophole-free by eliminating the possibility the two objects can communicate with one another," Luo said.

Andy Gavrin, chair of the Department of Physics at IUPUI, said two graduate students at IUPUI will work with Luo on the project. The department should "receive additional financial support and recognition from being involved in this major effort," he added.

Explore further: Scientists find way to maintain quantum entanglement in amplified signals

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Debunking and closing quantum entanglement 'loopholes'

Nov 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of physicists, including a scientist based at The University of Queensland, has recently closed an additional 'loophole' in a test explaining one of science's strangest phenomena -- ...

New light shed on old dispute between Einstein and Bohr

Jan 18, 2010

In classical physics there are no uncertainties - the properties of matter on an atomic level are deterministic, that is to say predetermined. The theories of quantum mechanics, however, only say something ...

Physicists make discovery in quantum mechanics

Sep 23, 2009

(Santa Barbara, Calif.) -- Physicists at UC Santa Barbara have made an important advance in quantum mechanics using a superconducting electrical circuit. The finding is reported in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

Looking at quantum gravity in a mirror

Mar 18, 2012

Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics are expected to merge at the Planck-scale of extremely high energies and on very short distances. At this scale, new phenomena could arise. However, the Planck-scale ...

Recommended for you

Exotic state of matter propels quantum computing theory

18 hours ago

So far it exists mainly in theory, but if invented, the large-scale quantum computer would change computing forever. Rather than the classical data-encoding method using binary digits, a quantum computer would process information ...

Quantum leap in lasers brightens future for quantum computing

Jul 22, 2014

Dartmouth scientists and their colleagues have devised a breakthrough laser that uses a single artificial atom to generate and emit particles of light. The laser may play a crucial role in the development of quantum computers, ...

Boosting the force of empty space

Jul 22, 2014

Vacuum fluctuations may be among the most counter-intuitive phenomena of quantum physics. Theorists from the Weizmann Institute (Rehovot, Israel) and the Vienna University of Technology propose a way to amplify ...

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

coastwalker
1.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2013
Considering the vast sums of money sunk into string theory it seems churlish not to have resolved this issue by now. Lets hope that a definitive result can be determined.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2013
It seems they are focusing exclusively on the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations. They obviously think a group approach will make the theory complete. It might be better to include other interpretations in the effort, rather than continuing to try to hammer a square peg into a round hole.
SethD
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 01, 2013
This must be one of the most bizarre researches ever. And an equally bizarre article about it too. We actually pay for this, folks!
Unbelievable. The recipe for success in a totally corrupt society is to come up with a mambo-jumbo abstract, find a corrupt official who will jam your abstract through the system for a "finder's fee", and off you go. Five years of heaven.
FrankHerbert2
2.9 / 5 (19) Feb 01, 2013
Seth, don't worry. One day the scientific community will realize your genius and award you that nobel. You'll probably have to share it with avengers and omerbashich though ;)
SethD
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
Seth, don't worry. One day the scientific community will realize your genius and award you that nobel. You'll probably have to share it with avengers and omerbashich though ;)

Another priest of mambo-jumbo religion. Avenger? Not at all, but if I were I'd make it known.

I never worry unlike you oh great clergy, who worry 24/7.
Anda
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
Seems to me that the problem is that you don't understand the article Seth.
You don't understand it but you speak and speak like many others without knowing what you are talking about.
Yes, that's your problem, Seth.
Otto_Krog
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2013
I know I am a pain in the butt, but I believe in a complete different approach to high energy physics in the future. My vision is that future science will engulf consciousness. The mind and the spirit will be explainable through physics.

I have been a fan of Sir Roger Penrose for many years. He was the first scientist to say that consciousness should be found in the quantum field rather than in the brain. I am so much a fan, that I made my own theory out of the idea that consciousness might be explained through a better understanding of antimatter and multiverse dimensions.

My idea is that antimatter is the mirror of this universe, and that antimatter might be where memory is located.

I think that the subconscious mind and consciousness are located in multiverses as antimatter.

If I am right, then matter does not exist, or wording it differently, mass is inerti, and it will be explainable through electromagnetism. See full theory by googling crestroy
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2013
Conservatives like Seth have no interest in real science.

"We actually pay for this, folks!" - SethD

Their desire to take America back to the traditional ways of ox cart and the Wild Wild West, America that only existed in bad Hollywood movies.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2013
This was the hoopiest Krog pood I've ever seen posted.

"My vision is that future science will engulf consciousness." - Krog

My vision is all matter being the stable solutions to the vacuum field.
VendicarE
2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2013
Seth is content in maintaining his own ignorance.

"Another priest of mambo-jumbo religion." - SethD

So content, he plays an active role in maintaining and culturing it.

Odd how many enemies of science, like SethD and RyggTard, feel a need to post here.
theon
3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2013
In conferences on foundations of quantum mechanics, many researchers expose the opinion that Bell inequality violation says nothing about absence of locality, due to contextuality (dependence on measurement setups). Hence the connection is due to additional assumptions, that can be skipped.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
In dense aether model the Universe consist of random system of density fluctuations/space-time curvatures and we are one of most complex ones (Boltzmann brains). We can compare the space-time to the water surface and we are analogy of the foam, which is forming at the water surface after splash. The bubbles of foam can interact with water surface in transverse and longitudinal waves at the same moment. But the longitudinal waves are weaker and they spread faster, so that observable reality is quite small in such case. The lower speed of transverse waves (light) makes the observable Universe so large and complex for us. Now we can ask, how the water surface would appear for bubbles, which are interacting with their neighborhood with using of transverse waves?
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
The phase speed function of wavelength (so-called the celerity curve) of waves at the water surface goes through minimum (1,7 cm), which corresponds both the wavelength of CMBR noise, both the wavelength of neuron waves inside of human brain. It's the wavelength, at which most waves spread with lowest speed, which makes the observable reality as large as possible.

The deterministic interaction of bubbles with water surface can be separated around this minimum into two different perspectives at longer and shorter distance scales: the relativity and quantum mechanics perspectives. The tiny waves of the 1,7 cm wavelength are spreading independently on the background as so-called capillary waves. This background independence corresponds the absence of reference frame in special relativity, in which all speeds are relative and the speed of light is the dominant speed, which cannot be exceeded.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
The distance scale BELLOW 1,7 cm corresponds the distance scale of quantum mechanics. The phenomena bellow this scale are affected with Brownian noise of the environment. We can say, whereas the relativity always ignores the chaotic background, the quantum mechanics always considers it. If you can imagine, what the bubble sitting at the water surface would "observe" at the small distance scale, you would realize, that all observations would get blurred with the Brownian noise of the underwater, thus making this observation principally statistical and indeterministic. But we couldn't see the Brownian noise itself, because it forms the part of environment for light wave spreading. Instead of it, we would see all observed objects blurred with their outlines wiggling fast. The interaction of the bubbles at the water surface may therefore serve as a pocket toy model of the observable reality inside of our Universe.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
IMO our understanding of quantum mechanics and general relativity would be simplified a lot, if we could create a computer models of what such a bubble can actually observe at the flat water surface at the moment, when all informations would be mediated with transverse waves only. The water surface if two-dimensional system only, which makes many analogies too simplistic (it's effectively a Flantland of Edwin Abbott) - but we could expand such an experience into higher number of dimensions and to imagine ourself as a bubbles trapped inside of 3D nested foam, composed of both larger, both smaller bubbles. Occasionally we could construct more and more faithful models of observational perspective of Boltzmann brain trapped inside of its random environment.
Yenaldlooshi
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2013
Spooky! ...I'll keep my distance and wait for the action to start.
Tausch
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2013
lol After completion there will be a lot of stray pets [pet theories]. I feed stray pets. They never stay with you.
typicalguy
2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2013
I'd recommend listening to this. People call in saying they'd vote republican because of fiscal beliefs BUT various ideas of the Republican party are not in line with them. Examples are evolution and climate change. Hearing the republicans blame everyone else then all but admit they don't believe in these things is absolutely astonishing. Republican's really do seem to be anti science.

http://onpoint.wb...regroups
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2013
I'd recommend listening to this. People call in saying they'd vote republican because of fiscal beliefs BUT various ideas of the Republican party are not in line with them. Examples are evolution and climate change. Hearing the republicans blame everyone else then all but admit they don't believe in these things is absolutely astonishing. Republican's really do seem to be anti science.


Well tickle me with a rusty nail,,,, you've finally completed the quantum theory. Kudos!
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2013
IMO the republicans represent the intrinsic (general relativity) perspective in social politics, the democrats the extrinsic quantum mechanics perspective. The general relativity perspective is always deterministic and somewhat schematic if not reductionist. The relativists simply like the black and white approach in similar way, like the republicans (Einstein was known with his dismissal the quantum indeterminism).

Whereas the democrats represent more holistic and pluralistic, but sometimes way too fuzzy and dissipative approach. It's not accidental, the quantum theory has been fulfilled just with group of hippie physicists. IMO the analysis of human society can teach us a lot about physics and vice-versa, because the human society is the most easily observable hyperdimensional system due the complex human behavior. Most of interactions between individuals here are long distance interactions.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2013
In an effort of final understanding of quantum mechanics we cannot neglect the experimental contribution of Couder's group, which managed to demonstrate the mechanical analogies of double slit experiment, quantum tunneling, energy levels of quantum orbitals or for example Zeeman effect. In addition, other quantum effects have been modeled with water surface (Hawking radiation as an example). IMO these experiments are important, because they trivially demonstrate the mechanical nature of quantum mechanics - and what we can follow with naked eyes, we could understand easier.
SethD
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
"Another priest of mambo-jumbo religion." - SethD

Odd how many enemies of science, like SethD and RyggTard, feel a need to post here.

How can we be enemies of science, if we merely want to save the taxpayer his money from your quasi-scientific schemes?
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2013
I'd recommend listening to this. People call in saying they'd vote republican because of fiscal beliefs BUT various ideas of the Republican party are not in line with them. Examples are evolution and climate change. Hearing the republicans blame everyone else then all but admit they don't believe in these things is absolutely astonishing. Republican's really do seem to be anti science.

http://onpoint.wb...regroups


It is unfair to say that Republicans are anti-science. Any idiot can find Obama voters who are entirily ignorant of science. If you would have said that "evangelical Republicans" are willingly ignorant of science, I would have agreed with you,... but they don't encompass the whole of the Right. Atheist libertarians and even Christians who think wearing evangelicalism around the neck of Republicanism is not good for the party,.... are an existent force and likely will be more vocal in time. Don't be simplistic yourself.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2013
I'd recommend listening to this. People call in saying they'd vote republican because of fiscal beliefs BUT various ideas of the Republican party are not in line with them. Examples are evolution and climate change


Believing that AGW is politically exaggerated wrt imminent threat does not equate to being anti-science. Further, myself and many other "right-wingers" I know, while being libertarian republicans, not only think that evolution is right, but find many similar mechanisms at play in capitalism itself,... and that over regulation by government which tends to dampen those natural mechanisms, and the liberal agenda of "social justice" in artificially engineering fixes for "social inequalities", are what is unscientific.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2013
I have been a fan of Sir Roger Penrose for many years. He was the first scientist to say that consciousness should be found in the quantum field rather than in the brain. I made my own theory out of the idea that consciousness might be explained through a better understanding of antimatter and multiverse dimensions.


I think his idea of possible quantum coherence arising from microtubles in the cytoskeletons of neurons, implied confinment WITHIN the brain. I'm also a fan of his. Consciousness or awareness must come about by some physical process, but using the mind to understand how it does so is going to take some new fundamental understanding.

It seems they are focusing exclusively on the Copenhagen interpretation.


There is a valid reason for that. That premise still stands. It's not that QM is incomplete, ... it's that our intuitions are incomplete. It is ridicules to try to get quantum reality to agree with US in our intuitive reasoning.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2013
The recent experiments don't favor the Penrose quantum mind or Pribram's holonomic brain theory. When the fish sees the object floating around it, then it has such an localized object floating across its brain - well, literally. It rather supports my model, in which human brain creates tangible representations of observable reality in our heads. A pocket version of observable reality so to say.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2013
Physics researchers join effort to finally complete quantum theory
Survey shows physicists can't agree on fundamental questions about quantum mechanics Shouldn't they agree in fundamental questions first before trying to complete the quantum theory? Just saying...
FrankHerbertWhines
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2013
Seth, don't worry. One day the scientific community will realize your genius and award you that nobel. You'll probably have to share it with avengers and omerbashich though ;)


couldn't have whined more myself.
Disproselyte
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2013
Occam is a wize guide. He teached us to be economic, also in thinking. An equivalent solution, which relies on less assumptions, should be preferred: well, read on Arxiv "Derivation of the postulates of quantum mechanics from the first principles of scale relativity" and understand how this fits in a bigger whole. May the Physics be with you. And only the Physics. I hope you will enjoy.
Maggnus
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2013
brain creates tangible representations of observable reality in our heads. A pocket version of observable reality so to say.


Bah hawhawhawhawhaw!! Only in YOUR head! OMG that is possibly the funniest thing I have read for days! My goodness you are SO full of it!
angelhkrillin
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2013
I don't know but Einstein has constantly been proven right when challenged with new innovative ways to test his theories while we are yet to completely be able to use quantum effects efficiently. May be entanglement really is the illusion of instant communication but truly it is particles communicating through a microscopic Black hole's Einstein-Rosin Bridge.
DavidW
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2013
Quantum theory states that there is no local realism. In other words, an object has no pre-existing values until that object is measured.


You mean something only is there with LIFE to witness it? Well, duh!
That's not a theory, that's the TRUTH.

These articles here sound like they come from fox news now.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2013
What particles?

"particles communicating through a microscopic Black hole's Einstein-Rosin Bridge." - angelhkrilln

You have heard and read that experiments have been preformed whereby one particle is split into two components, allowed to separate and then shown to communicate at FTL speeds by tweaking one of the particles and then observing the effect on the other.

This is a false view of the process imposed by the simplicity of the experiment and incomplete explanations of how it works.

In reality there are not two particles at the detectors in such experiments, there are simply two peaks in the probability of finding a particle at both detectors. But these are only peaks. There is also increased probability of finding the original particle anywhere, even at distances that would violate FTL speeds.

The highest probabilities are of course going to be within the experimental apparatus itself.

One of the "particles" may hit a speck of dust on a mirror, or be observed by the CONT.
VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2013
CONT... sides of the apparatus.

Observation can occur anywhere.

So your worm hole connection between the "two" particles would in reality have to be a worm hole connection between every potential instance of one part of the particle with every other potential instance of the particle(s) throughout the entire universe.

antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2013
allowed to separate and then shown to communicate at FTL speeds by tweaking one of the particles and then observing the effect on the other.

Tweaking one does not affect the other. Measuring one does (seem to) affect the other. Those tow are fundamentally different. The first would faster than light information transmission (which is forbidden). The latter is non-locality (which is allowed)

A wormhole would allow for FTL information transmission. But such information transmission is not observed.
FrankHerbertWhines
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2013
FRANKHERBERT2 don't worry. One day the scientific community will realize your genius and award you that nobel. You'll probably have to share it with Vendifok and Maggnot though.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2013
Why persist in the false view?

"Tweaking one does not affect the other." - Antilias
VendicarE
not rated yet Feb 05, 2013
If the wave function of both particles are converted into an arbitrary sequence of pulses placed randomly in space, then where does this worm hole begin and where does it end?
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2013
Why persist in the false view?

"Tweaking one does not affect the other." - Antilias

Because if you have an entangled property on an entangled pair (e.g. polarization) and you then send one of the pair off to somewhere else and you THEN set the polarization of one of them (read: when you actually impart information on one through modulation of a property) then this doesn't change anything for the other one. In that case entanglement is simply broken.

You get no modulation on the other end and hence no faster-than-light information transmission.