Scientists evade the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that accurately measuring one property of an atom puts a limit to the precision of measurement you can obtain on another property. For example, if we measure an electron’s position with high precision, Heisenberg’s principle limits the accuracy in the measurement of its momentum. Since most atomic instruments measure two properties (spin amplitude and angle), the principle seems to say that the readings will always contain some quantum uncertainty. This long-standing expectation has now been disproven, however, by ICFO researchers Dr. Giorgio Colangelo, Ferran Martin Ciurana, Lorena C. Bianchet and Dr. Robert J. Sewell, led by ICREA Prof. at ICFO Morgan W. Mitchell. In their article “Simultaneous tracking of spin angle and amplitude beyond classical limits,” published this week in Nature, they describe how a properly designed instrument can almost completely avoid quantum uncertainty.

Link to Full Article - Scientists evade the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

This finding does not so much defeat Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle but more or less side-steps it enough to make it irrelevant to the important information that can be collected. This, in effect could be considered a "Heisenberg Compensator" (A nod to Star Trek technobabble).

The ICFO team showed how to put nearly all of the uncertainty into the angle that is not measured by the instrument. In this way they still obeyed Heisenberg’s requirement for uncertainty, but hid the uncertainty where it can do no harm. As a result, they were able to obtain an angle-amplitude measurement of unprecedented precision, unbothered by quantum uncertainty.

This genius approach could be the key to more accurate quantum teleportation at a macro scale.

I only hope I am not dead before the day someone can actually be physically teleported from one location to the other. On that day, I can finally make the claim that I refuse to be destroyed only to be recreated again by some machine.

Basically , "Suck it Heisenberg!"

Science FTW!

a reply to: Krakatoa

That's actually extremely groundbreaking of a news.

I will be waiting for other experiments to confirm this, so I am a bit cautious. But if proven right, this experiment might prove to be quite a groundbreaking discovery.

S+F!

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krakatoa

That's actually extremely groundbreaking of a news.

I will be waiting for other experiments to confirm this, so I am a bit cautious. But if proven right, this experiment might prove to be quite a groundbreaking discovery.

S+F!

Yes, I agree, caution is healthy in these cases. But if true, this really is a game changer. However, like any disruptive discovery, it mat not see practical application in our lifetime. That is, of course, if there is a bundle of $$$$ to be made by the petrol or pharma industries.

There is no way that we could teleport a living thinking human. You could take things apart and recreate them on the other side using elements, basically just send the information through the teleporter to reassemble the sample, but aligning up memories is something it cannot do. You could create a sort of robot on the other side, but the original person would be destroyed in the process, the intellect would have to be sent via a seperate package just as information, no feelings. No you will be in the created being.

a reply to: rickymouse

And we will never need more than 640KB of memory in a computer, and it will never be smaller than a room. Careful what you decry as never being possible. The human spirit of exploration tends to smash those into pieces eventually.

If a memory is comprised of reinforced physical connections of neurons in the brain, then those same connections would be reproduced at the other side. Thereby, reproducing and preserving that memory as well.

a reply to: Krakatoa

It's more about the theoretical implications of it that blows my mind.

At first glance, it would basically imply that the school of thought that proposes that particles' properties are actually "hidden" would be on the right track. The counterintuitive, "mystical" part that comes with the Copenhagen interpretation (which I absolutely oppose) would be falsified.

I'll have to read more.

a reply to: swanne

Oh, I agree. It also has implications for the concept of reality. Since one of the leading theories claims that the simple act of measurement creates the reality since it influences the measurement, is that still valid in this case? If you can ignore the uncertainty in this way, then perhaps there are other ways to deflect that into the smaller dimensions (of the 11) that we are not influenced by?

originally posted by: rickymouse
There is no way that we could teleport a living thinking human. You could take things apart and recreate them on the other side using elements, basically just send the information through the teleporter to reassemble the sample, but aligning up memories is something it cannot do. You could create a sort of robot on the other side, but the original person would be destroyed in the process, the intellect would have to be sent via a seperate package just as information, no feelings. No you will be in the created being.

It wouldn't be demolecurising people, but more swapping the whole volume of space-time that they are occupying with somewhere else. Or maybe we can figure how to reduce mass down to zero in the same way that photons are massless.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krakatoa

It's more about the theoretical implications of it that blows my mind.

At first glance, it would basically imply that the school of thought that proposes that particles' properties are actually "hidden" would be on the right track. The counterintuitive, "mystical" part that comes with the Copenhagen interpretation (which I absolutely oppose) would be falsified.

I'll have to read more.

I remember reading an article where researchers were able to visualize individual photons by filling a volume of space with Argon gas then firing off individual photons. The photons would actually be made visible as they would interact with those electrons right on edge of jumping quantum state. So when a photon went by, there was a faint glow of light following the wave packet of the photon. I always wondered why this couldn't be used with the double hole experiment.

This is actually pretty damned interesting. Thank you for posting this article.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: rickymouse

And we will never need more than 640KB of memory in a computer, and it will never be smaller than a room. Careful what you decry as never being possible. The human spirit of exploration tends to smash those into pieces eventually.

If a memory is comprised of reinforced physical connections of neurons in the brain, then those same connections would be reproduced at the other side. Thereby, reproducing and preserving that memory as well.

Every cell in our muscles has to be trained to work together, and also to recognize the chemical and electrical signals from the brain. Every memory has to have a molecule attached onto some neuron and the signal has to be implanted on that specially folded protein, an antigen of a sort, for that memory to be correct.

This is a trillion times more complex than computer memory. You could assemble life a billion miles away on a different planet that way possibly, reconstructing DNA then sending a frequency correction. But not teleport a person. That is Scifi, not reality. The computer system to do that is so far off into the future that mankind would never survive on this planet long enough for it to happen. On top of that, you would need a port on the other side with ample elements in the environment to assimilate the being, you could never send all the materials in a packet, the elements would move at different rates and be effected differently by magnetic influences.

It is far more complex to send consciousness and transcription than to send data and run a 3d printer on the other side.

What we know about the complexities of the mind is only a thousanth of what is needed to understand how all this works and what we already know is overwhelming those who study it. I don't know why people think we are so intelligent and have so much knowledge, we do know a lot but what we know is dwarfed by the amount we do not know. I am a realist. I can see a lot of things come to light in a hundred years at the pace we are going, but I also see mankind possibly destroying our ecosystem before that time. Lets concentrate on straightening out our ecosystem first so we can live here a long time. If we were to survive a thousand years and maintained this advancement, then I could say that maybe we could figure it out, but without a point to lock onto and stabilization technology that can keep things accurate, there is no way it can be done. Even the movement of the earth and the magnetic changes that occur need to be corrected for. Sure, we may be able to teleport one ion, but that is far from teleporting a living being.

Without proper technology to track exact location through our galaxy, we cannot go back in time either, we can send signals through time though, I am sure of that. Those signals may be able to interact with life.

Interesting.

A few years ago people were in a lather over a similar process where uncertainty was negated by using inferred measurements.

σ(x)σ(p) >= ɧ/2

It is an inverse relationship with both omegas on the same side of the equations. It is simple math really. Which is why I wish “science” journals would just explain the math! Omega(x) is the position, omega(p) is momentum. The little “h” is the reduced Planck constant. As the error of momentum decreases the error of position increases to stay above the Planck number on the other side of the equal sign.

What the equation says that neither position nor momentum can be known precisely because it will remain above a certain amount of error (half of Plank’s constant).

Transferring "the error rate" into the spin... awesome! I love the "think outside the box" aspect.

Wikipedia: Uncertainty Principle (for better graphic)



a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I remember that too. A few years ago, somebody proposed with doing away with the precise exact position and momentum numbers and be close-ish.