Article About New Developments in Quantum Mechanics

New evidence could break the standard view of quantum mechanics says a headline at Science Alert. Before proposing a discussion topic I thought I'd ask if anyone knows if there's really something meaningful going on, or is this just a rehash of a fringe scientific possibility sparked by a recent paper?--Percy

IRL huh? That's science journalism.From my understanding this doesn't really actually change anything, it just makes one interpretation a little less peculiar compared with what we've already seen by experiment - if that makes sense.

I agree with Modulus. It seems like a rehash, but perhaps the word 'fringe' is inappropriate. It is well known that there are interpretations of QM that require non-locality, and we've discussed that in these fora. The problem is that there are really good reasons to be suspicious of non-locality.I suspect that there is some real science going on somewhere, but that what is reported here is the catchy part.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy.Fashion is the String Theory. It is fashionable but he prefers Twister theory.Faith is the standard view of Quantum Mechanics because it is based on faith. It only works when the universe is real small and dense, and matter can't move around. (particles can pulse and fluctuate) But problems start when you try to move matter around, especially massive matter. He says it falls apart. (My guess is that particles move from universe to universe when the universe is densely packed, but the larger things get causes an entire universe to duplicate and not just individual particles. An "Alternate Universe" is something I have always understood as a duplicate universe. A "Multiple Universe" is another universe but an "original universe" as oppose to an Alternate Universe. All Alternate Universes are part of a "multiple universe" (?) but not all multiple universes are alternate universes. That's been my view since 1991-1992 anyway)The Fantasy part is what he calls the early hyper Inflation view of the (period just after) Big Bang. He rejects the early hyper Inflation (in the first second of the Universe) and the multi-verse that results as part of it. He believes in one universe turning into another on and on and on , but seems to reject a multi-verse existing at the same "time". One is destroyed and then chronologically becomes a new one.His book will broadly have 3 big topics where he takes a minority view on all.I look forward to it.Hope it finally comes out.

Thanks for the responses.--Percy

GoogleI need to start checking these things before posting.I honestly thought he had given up on the book as he has ben talking about this one for ages.He is so interesting. In 1989 he said that visitors from another galaxy would get here and see us doing things before we actually did things. Um, really. Back To The Future (movie), Quantum Leap (t.v. series), and Roger Penrose were the holy trinity of thought provokingness.Hope it encourages discussion and the contrasting views in the debate can help clear the picture enough so that average people, like me, can begin to understand a little.

Sorry Im a bit late on this.In truth the Bohmian version and the standard version of Quantum Mechanics can be mathematically shown to give the same experimental results, so no experiment really shows that one is more consistent.However the "bizarre" trajectories that the Bohmian model requires in some cases, had never been directly observed.Now they have. However the standard view predicts the same results, it just doesn't attribute them to trajectories.There is an interesting discussion to be had here, I think it really gets to the heart of the interpretational issues and the subject of weak measurements. However I'm not sure how to phrase it as a debate topic, "Can any experiment distinguish Quantum interpretations" perhaps?Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

I don't think anything in Penrose's book relates to this topic though.

Strange quantum effect found in an exotic superconductor - Big Think

quote:

---

An international team of researchers observed an unexpected quantum effect in an exotic superconductor. Their discovery can lead to the next generation of energy-saving technologies.

​

Traditional superconductors, used for conducting electricity without resistance, work at low temperatures. However, some iron-based superconductors discovered about a decade ago, work at high temperatures. How they do it has been unclear, especially as the magnetism of iron conflicts with the appearance of superconductivity, explains the press release from Princeton, whose scientists led the research.

​

What was surprising, the researchers found that the cobalt atoms were able to disrupt electron pairing while replacing iron atoms in the metal. This behavior, which resulted in a quantum phase transition, changing the state from superconducting to non-superconducting, also violated the well-established Anderson's theorem. Proposed in 1959 by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Philip Anderson, it was the accepted explanation for what would happen if you added impurities to a superconductor. The new research clearly shows an exception to Anderson's theorem.

​

Another unusual find revealed that the cobalt impurities also transformed the nature and the shape of the so-called "energy gap" - a feature emblematic of superconductivity. The shape of the gap is indicative of the "order parameter" linked to the nature of the superconductivity. The effect on this property is mysterious and points to a sign change in the order parameter's phase.

---

Page loads terribly slow.Any comments?Enjoy

The page loading was disrupted showing a change of state from readable to non-readable.

And I couldn't find a link to the original paper

I just saw this topic and will withdraw my PNT and put it here.
I was reading Discover Magazine a few days ago and found a reference to Google Quantum Computer Studies. Probing further, I found the same information repeated here.
This was the basic fact presented:

quote:

---

Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of a quantum circuit a million timesour benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an experimental realization of quantum supremacy8—14 for this specific computational task, heralding a much-anticipated computing paradigm.

---

Though the quantum computers are currently unstable enough for long term reliability, the glitches are being ironed out. Does anyone here know any more about this technology?

I know some. There are arguments over just how good Google’s results really are.The BIG problem is scaling them up. The number of qubits (quantum bits) in a computer is still too low for big problems. The 53 in the Google experiment is high.But it is good that there are problems. We aren’t ready for the security implications. A lot of widely-used cryptography is vulnerable to these machines - when they get big enough. Work is going on to replace them but it’s taking time - not least because the replacements need to be shown to be secure against normal attacks.

Particularly when the results are biased by filtering preferences (for google ads for example) AND when they run on with a bunch of garbage listings with little relationship to the query string.The big problem imho is absence of any filtering based on accurate, verifiable, valid content. Any idiot can (and does) post garbage and it gets the same treatment as good information. The more ignorant people get access to the internet, the more ignorant garbage gets posted, and the more anyone's search gets cluttered with it.Enjoy

Google’s results in quantum computing are being questioned, notably by IBMEg science News (found using DuckDuckGo - my Search Engine of choice)