Send us your feedback at New Scientist!If you enjoy following the latest advancements in science and technology, let us know your thoughts by emailing feedback@newscientist.com.
Even the Strangest Theories
This vacation, many fans spent their time reflecting on the final episode of Stranger Things. We experienced laughter, tears, and heated discussions about the storyline—especially its conclusion. Can we really say it was a fitting ending like Return of the King? (In our opinion, it was.)
In today’s online culture, vocal fan backlash is common. Some theorized that the finale was merely a ruse, leading to wild claims like “Conformity Gate” (not our term!). They argue that despite its two-hour runtime and cinematic release, the concluding episode was just a setup for a secret final episode, set to air this January. Critics point to a continuity error that suggests the entire narrative was an illusion crafted by Vecna, the mind-controlling antagonist.
Initially, we found these theories unconvincing, especially since the criticisms revolved around minor details. After all, the show itself defies physics—should we really be worried about the color of a graduation gown?
For newcomers, the storyline of Stranger Things unfolds in a small Indiana town beset by a secretive government lab conducting dangerous experiments. Spoiler alert: these experiments inadvertently open a portal to the “Upside Down,” a horrifying alternate dimension that mirrors the town, albeit in a more sinister light. Ultimately, it’s revealed that this Upside Down functions as a wormhole to yet another realm known as the Abyss.
If the Upside Down is indeed a wormhole, what then is the swirling red object levitating above? Some describe it as containing “exotic matter,” a theoretical substance crucial for stabilizing a genuine wormhole (although its existence remains unproven). This complicates matters further since the entrance to the Abyss exists in the Upside Down’s skies.
We’ve contemplated this for weeks, yet the whirling object’s purpose remains a mystery. Why does shooting it with a gun liquefy its surroundings, while an explosion obliterates the entire Upside Down? Wouldn’t such destruction release enough energy to obliterate a significant part of the East Coast?
Perhaps physicists focused on adaptive gate theory should tackle the bizarre phenomena within the Upside Down. There could be a Nobel Prize—or at least an Ig Nobel Prize—waiting for someone who can crack these mysteries.
Sparkling Sports Benefits
What could be more exhilarating than attending a live sports event? The thrill comes from being part of the crowd, cheering on your favorite players. But what if drinking soda while cheering made it even more enjoyable?
Alice Klein, a reporter, highlighted a study that demonstrated that spectators at a women’s college basketball game experienced greater enjoyment and a stronger sense of belonging when they consumed sparkling water instead of plain water. The researchers noted, “Drinking sparkling water together serves as a low-impact, non-alcoholic ritual, fostering social connection during and after live sports events.”
While Alice found this perspective amusing, editor Jacob Aaron defended the research: “They studied 40 individuals; what more could they need?” Readers may form their own opinions on the validity of this evidence. Nonetheless, we want to draw attention to the “competing interests” stated in the research paper, which we won’t comment on further. Here’s the statement:
“This study received funding from Asahi Soft Drinks Co., Ltd. WK and SM are employees of Asahi Soft Drinks Co., Ltd. The authors declare that this funding had no influence on the study design, methodology, analysis, or interpretation of the results. The sponsor has no control over the interpretation, writing, or publication of this study.”
AI Mistakes and Missteps
Reader Peter Brooker reached out to suggest a new section titled “AI Bloopers.” After using a well-known search engine, he was astounded to discover that the AI confidently asserted the first six prime numbers were 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11.
We believe this section has long existed, albeit without a formal name. In fact, we often discuss how frequently to highlight these AI blunders. A weekly column could easily be filled with AI failures, but we worry it may become monotonous.
In line with Peter’s suggestion, Ghent University’s new rector, Petra de Sutter, found herself in hot water after using AI to generate her opening speech. It included fabricated quotes purportedly from Albert Einstein.
As reported by Brussels Times: “Impressively, De Sutter warned about the dangers of AI in her speech, advising that AI-generated content should not be ‘blindly trusted’ and that such text is ‘not always easy to distinguish from the original work.’”
Have a story for Feedback?
Share your insights with us at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. Previous feedback and this week’s comments can be accessed on our website.
Marco Schioppo and Adam Park monitor ultra-stable lasers at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, UK.
David Severn, part of Quantum Untangled (2025), Science Gallery, King’s College London
In a striking portrayal, two physicists observe Britain’s revolutionary quantum technology involving ultra-stable lasers at the National Physical Laboratory in London. Captured by photographer David Severn for the **Quantum Untangled** exhibition at King’s College London, this fascinating image was shortlisted for the **Portrait of Britain Award**.
Severn states, “This portrait offers a rare peek into a domain typically hidden from view, like opening a door to a normally restricted lab.” While the photographs are contemporary, he notes that the scientists’ engagements with technology evoke imagery reminiscent of earlier eras, such as a 1940s submarine pilot or operators of a cotton spinning machine from the turn of the 20th century.
Having no background in quantum mechanics before this venture, Severn was briefed on current quantum physics projects in the UK. He observed that the bewildering aspects of quantum science closely align with artistic perspectives. “Although many scientific concepts eluded my detailed understanding, ideas like superposition and quantum entanglement resonated with me intuitively, akin to artistic realization,” he shared.
3D Printed Helmet Prototype
David Severn, part of Quantum Untangled (2025), Science Gallery, King’s College London
Severn’s captivating photographs highlight a range of innovations in quantum physics, showcasing a **3D-printed helmet** (above) designed to house a quantum sensor that images the brain using magnetic fields. He also features a complex **laser table** (below) monitored by Hartmut Grothe from Cardiff University, ensuring that the vacuum pumps sustaining the system remain operational.
Hartmut Grote at the Laser Table
David Severn, part of Quantum Untangled (2025), Science Gallery, King’s College London
Severn’s photography embraces a mystical quality, showcasing the **3D-printed imaging helmet** used by researchers from the University of Nottingham’s Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Center (as shown above), along with the intricate network of pumps and mirrors essential for maintaining cleanliness in Grothe’s experiments (as depicted below). Severn asserts that this ethereal essence is intentional.
Joe Gibson Wearing a 3D Printed Imaging Helmet at the University of Nottingham
David Severn, part of Quantum Untangled (2025), Science Gallery, King’s College London
Complex Vacuum System from King’s College London’s Photonics and Nanotechnology Group
David Severn, part of Quantum Untangled (2025), Science Gallery, King’s College London
Severn references a favorite quote from photographer Diane Arbus: “Photographs are secrets about secrets. The more they tell you, the less you understand.” He finds a parallel in quantum physics, where just when one thinks they’ve grasped how light behaves, the quantum realm subverts those expectations and exposes the elusive truths underpinning our understanding of reality.
The **Quantum Untangled** exhibition is on display at the Science Gallery at King’s College London until February 28, 2025. This event is a reimagining of the traveling exhibition **Cosmic Titans: Art, Science and the Quantum Universe** organized by Lakeside Arts and ARTlab at the University of Nottingham.
Dark Photons: A New Explanation for the Double-Slit Experiment
Russell Kightley/Science Photo Library
This year, a fundamental aspect of quantum theory faced scrutiny when researchers introduced a groundbreaking interpretation of an experiment exploring the nature of light.
Central to this research was the historic double-slit experiment, first conducted by physicist Thomas Young in 1801, which confirmed the wave-like behavior of light. Conventionally, particles and waves are considered distinct; however, in the quantum realm, they coexist, showcasing wave-particle duality.
For years, light stood as the quintessential example of this duality. Experimentation demonstrated that light can exhibit particle-like behavior as photons and wave-like characteristics, culminating in interference patterns reminiscent of Young’s findings. However, earlier in 2023, Celso Villas Boas and his team at Brazil’s Federal University of São Carlos proposed a novel interpretation of the double-slit experiment, exclusively utilizing photons and negating the wave aspect of optical duality.
After New Scientist covered their study, the team received significant interest from peers, with citations soaring. Villas-Boas shared, “I’ve received numerous invitations to present, including events in Japan, Spain, and Brazil,” emphasizing the widespread intrigue.
In the traditional double-slit experiment, an opaque barrier containing two narrow slits is positioned between a screen and a light source. Light travels through the slits to create a pattern of alternating bright and dark vertical stripes, known as classical interference, usually attributed to colliding light waves.
The researchers shifted away from this conventional explanation, examining the so-called dark state of photons—a unique quantum state that prevents interaction with other particles, hence not illuminating the screen. This perspective eliminates the necessity for light waves to clarify the observed dark stripes.
This reevaluation challenges a deeply ingrained view of light within quantum physics. Many educators expressed concern, with some remarking, “Your findings challenge the foundational concepts I’ve taught for years.” However, while some colleagues embraced the new perspective, others remained skeptically intrigued, following New Scientist‘s initial report.
Villas-Boas has been actively exploring implications surrounding the dark state of photons. His investigations revealed that thermal radiation, such as sunlight, can reside in a dark state, concealing a substantial portion of its energy due to a lack of interaction with other objects. Experimental validation could involve placing atoms in cavities where their interactions with light are meticulously examined, according to Villas-Boas.
His team’s reinterpretation of interference phenomena facilitates comprehension of previously perplexing occurrences, such as non-overlapping wave interactions. Moving beyond the wave model to incorporate distinct bright and dark photon states opens avenues for innovative applications. Villas-Boas envisions potential developments such as light-controlled switches and devices that selectively permit specific light types to pass.
In his view, all these explorations connect back to the essential principles of quantum physics, highlighting that engaging with quantum objects necessitates understanding their interactions with measurement devices—encompassing darkness itself. “This concept is intrinsic to quantum mechanics,” Villas-Boas asserts.
There has always been a strong interplay between imagination and physics. Albert Einstein crafted his theory of relativity by envisioning a scenario where he chased a beam of light. Erwin Schrödinger famously introduced the idea of cats that are both alive and dead. German mathematician David Hilbert illustrated the paradox of infinity by conceptualizing a hotel with limitless rooms and patrons. Through inventive thought experiments, physicists rigorously examine concepts and deepen their comprehension.
Interestingly, three of the most enduring thought experiments revolve around what is now known as “the devil.” The most recognized is Maxwell’s Demon, conceived in 1867, envisioning a minuscule being endowed with unusual but logical abilities. Together with Laplace’s Devil and Roschmidt’s Devil, these thought experiments continue to baffle physicists today, suggesting that pondering these devils can illuminate some of the most complex principles in physics.
“What’s refreshing and unexpected is that scientists can gain profound insights about reality by engaging in these fictional realms,” says Michael Stuart, a philosopher of science at the University of York, UK. “Many would contend that the essence of science hinges upon such imaginings.”
Laplace’s Devil
The concept of our first demon originated from the mind of French polymath Pierre-Simon Laplace, who was largely influenced by Isaac Newton. In 1814, Laplace posed a straightforward query: “If Newton’s laws can predict the fall of an apple, could we apply the same logic to predict everything?” What if we had perfect knowledge about every particle and object? He invited us to picture a devil—whom he referred to as “intelligence”—that could do exactly that. If it understood the position and momentum of all particles alongside the laws of nature, it could foresee the entirety of the universe’s future. “Nothing would remain uncertain,” he asserted. “The future could be as clear as the past.”
While we may never construct a machine endowed with Laplace’s demonic faculty, envisioning such a being assists in identifying logical inconsistencies in the theory. Does it imply that everything—from planets to humans—is predetermined? Does science assert that the laws of physics dictate all outcomes? Free will may appear to be, at best, an illusion, a mere byproduct of our ignorance.
Fortunately, the essence of the first demon is relatively straightforward to dismantle. Physicists are convinced that no entity could possess the knowledge attributed to Laplace’s demon. First, Einstein’s special theory of relativity establishes that information cannot travel faster than light. Therefore, some events can indeed influence your future, but you remain ignorant at that moment since the information must travel at light speed and lacks time to reach you, thereby nullifying Laplace’s demon.
Even in the event that this devil could access knowledge from every corner of the universe, quantum mechanics introduces another obstacle. Since the 1920s, it has been acknowledged that one cannot simultaneously ascertain both a particle’s position and momentum. Therefore, the devil cannot precisely determine where each particle is or what it is doing; it can only describe the probabilities surrounding particle properties.
Laplace’s tidy particle-by-particle depiction of reality is superseded by a quantum universe, characterized by a vast, fluctuating wavefunction—an abstract mathematical construct that encapsulates all potential outcomes. Even if the devil were able to monitor these outcomes, there remains no certainty regarding which one would ultimately manifest in reality.
The Devil of Roschmidt
Though Laplace’s devil seems to have lost its potency, even more sinister thought experiments lie ahead. The second demon emerged during a period of rapid industrialization, where the steam engine intensified inquiries about heat, energy, and disorder. Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann sought an explanation for entropy—a slippery concept that explains how systems devolve into chaos over time. Sandcastles fall apart, ice melts, and rust forms. Boltzmann believed that zooming into reality and observing the minute components of a larger system, like individual gas molecules filling a room, could clarify this concept.
However, his elder colleague, Austrian physicist Josef Loschmidt, challenged this approach in 1876 by posing a simple yet devastating dilemma. Imagine a universe in which time has halted; all molecules have a defined position and direction of movement. Loschmidt suggested that if you reversed the movement of each particle, you could essentially undo entropy. Roschmidt’s original positing did not mention a “demon,” although later iterations often included a demon that could perceive and freeze all particles, largely due to subsequent developments in the field.
The evolution of steam engines prompted inquiries into heat, energy, and entropy.
Loschmidt’s scenario deeply unsettled physicists as it suggested a time-related paradox. When considered at a microscopic level, reversing particle movement doesn’t seem to result in any contradictions. However, this breaks down at a macroscopic level; as the world seemingly restores itself in reverse, puddles solidify into ice, and shattered vases reassemble. This raises the question: “Why does time appear to flow in only one direction if at the microscopic level we can easily reverse it?”
Subsequent experiments attempted time reversal, much like Roschmidt’s demons. In the 1950s, Erwin Hahn utilized radio waves to temporarily synchronize electric dipoles (such as hydrogen atoms in water) to rotate uniformly, momentarily decreasing the system’s entropy. This seemingly created the illusion of time moving backward. So, did the Roschmidt demon manage to outsmart the concept of entropy?
Not entirely. It is now understood that entropy doesn’t imply that a system must always degenerate into disorder. Some systems can evolve into a more ordered state in a brief span. However, as Hahn demonstrated, entropy ultimately prevails. When the radio beam was switched off, the dipole reverted to chaos.
Why does entropy consistently rise? Scientifically speaking, we believe that the universe began in a highly ordered state with low entropy, where everything was systematically arranged. This constrains progress to one direction: toward chaos. Aside from fostering additional disorder, there are various methods to disrupt an orderly system. This suggests that in theory, Roschmidt’s demon can reverse small particles’ trajectories, albeit contrary to expectations.
“The situation with the second law differs fundamentally from Newton’s second law,” notes Katie Robertson, a philosopher at the University of Stirling in the UK. “Its probabilistic nature suggests that ‘You probably cannot reduce entropy.’”
Ultimately, the probabilities dispelled this demon, but they did little to enhance our understanding. In response to Loschmidt, Boltzmann shifted from the original approach to a more statistically oriented framework, as it succinctly captured the delicate logic of probability. His advanced thinking led to the formulation of the Boltzmann equation, now inscribed on his epitaph.
Maxwell’s Devil
The third and perhaps best-known demon was proposed by Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1867, shortly before Roschmidt raised his concerns. Like Loschmidt, Maxwell grappled with the second law of thermodynamics, but he examined the notion of increasing entropy from a different perspective. What if, instead of rewinding the universe, we could intervene in it molecule by molecule? Envision a meddlesome being (later referred to as a demon by physicists like William Thomson) that could manipulate gas molecules trapped in a box divided by a trapdoor. Over time, this entity could violate the second law by segregating faster-moving molecules from slower-moving ones.
Various straightforward “solutions” might come to mind. Perhaps this demon expends energy opening and closing the door. However, theoretically, this “work” can be minimized infinitely. The demon could act as frivolously as desired, yet the paradox persists.
“
Scientists can learn a lot about reality by entering these fictional spaces “
Instead, physicists began to suspect that the actual cost wasn’t the energy exerted by the demon, but the amount of information it needed to process. A certain type of memory seems mandatory to record the position and momentum of each molecule. And astonishingly, this memory is finite.
In the 1920s, Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard demonstrated that even a simplified version of Maxwell’s experiment—featuring only one molecule bouncing within a box—could enable a clever demon to extract work from the system. Nevertheless, he posited that this necessitates observing molecules and storing that information, requiring energy in the process.
Ultimately, something must yield. In the 1960s, IBM physicist Rolf Landauer made a crucial point. For the demon to remain functional, it must free up space in memory, generating heat and consequently increasing entropy within the system. The second law remains intact.
Laplace’s demon can predict the future of the entire universe.
George Rose/Getty Images
Moreover, physicists acknowledged that information, akin to energy, constitutes a tangible resource. Gaining insight into a system is not merely a matter of abstract logistics. Under appropriate conditions, information can also serve as fuel. Thus, Maxwell’s demon somehow translates information into work. Today, this demon symbolizes devices that function at the intersection of information and energy. These “information engines” not only challenge conventional wisdom but also hold the potential to convert demonic logic into practical technology. In 2024, researchers devised a quantum variant of the Szilard engine to power batteries within quantum computers. Instead of demons, microwave pulses were employed to displace higher-energy qubits from lower-energy ones, generating an energy differential capable of doing work like a battery.
While we remain distant from utilizing these innovations to charge mobile devices, the aspiration is that these miniature quantum engines will aid in manipulating particles or toggling qubits.
In this light, Maxwell’s demons have not been vanquished at all. Rather, they evolved into concepts that Maxwell could never have envisioned. Not as an infringement upon the Second Law, but as a means to explore the intricate and unexpected ways nature allows us to utilize information as a physical resource.
Collectively, these demons challenge both theoretical limits and intuitive understanding. While some have been tackled, new paradoxes continue to emerge. Yet, these are dilemmas that physicists welcome. These intriguing thought experiments provide scientists with a compelling avenue to push the boundaries of their knowledge.
In his book Quantum 2.0: The Past, Present, and Future of Quantum Physics, physicist Paul Davies concludes with a beautiful reflection: “To grasp the quantum world is to catch a glimpse of the grandeur and elegance of the physical universe and our role within it.”
This enchanting and romantic viewpoint resonates throughout the text. Quantum 2.0 presents a bold attempt to elucidate the fringes of the quantum universe, with Davies as an informed and passionate storyteller. However, his enthusiasm occasionally edges toward exaggeration, with his remarkable writing skills often compensating where more direct quotations might have been fitting.
Davies’ book is quite accessible, despite its ambitious aim of covering nearly every facet of quantum physics. He addresses quantum technologies in computing, communications, and sensing, touches on quantum biology and cosmology, and manages to explore various competing interpretations of quantum theory.
There are no equations in Quantum 2.0, and while some technical diagrams and schematics are included, they do not detract from the reading experience.
As a writer on quantum physics myself, I appreciate how clearly Davies articulates the experiments and protocols involved in quantum information processing and encryption—a challenging task to convey.
As a navigator through the quantum realm, Davies serves as a delightful and amiable companion. His genuine curiosity and excitement are palpable. Yet, this exuberance doesn’t always align with the rigor that contemporary quantum physics research demands. In my view, most quantum-related excitement should come with cautionary notes.
“
Readers unfamiliar with quantum research might confuse speculative claims with the truth. “
For instance, within the first 100 pages, Davies asserts that quantum computers could enhance climate modeling—an assertion not widely accepted among computer scientists and mathematicians, especially concerning near-future machines.
In another section regarding quantum sensors, he mentions manufacturers proposing their utility in evaluating conditions like epilepsy, schizophrenia, and autism. I anticipated a justification or insights from experts outside the sensor industry, but the ensuing discussion was lacking in depth and critical analysis.
Additionally, the example Davies provides to demonstrate quantum computers’ advantages over classical ones dates back several years.
Less experienced readers in quantum research may find some of Davies’s speculative statements misleading, although the book remains an engaging read. This is underscored by bold assertions such as, “Whoever masters Quantum 2.0 will certainly control the world.”
To clarify, I don’t dispute Davies’ sentiments. Many gadgets that influence our lives currently depend on quantum physics, and the future may usher in even more quantized technology. I support this notion.
Emerging fields, such as quantum biology and better integration of quantum and cosmological theories, also seem poised for significant breakthroughs. Just ask the numerous researchers diligently working toward a theory of quantum gravity.
However, conveying this future to newcomers necessitates a blend of precision and subtlety in storytelling and writing.
Otherwise, the outcome may lead to disappointment.
For centuries, the greatest minds have pondered the concept of time, yet its absolute nature remains elusive.
While physics does not dictate that time must flow in a specific direction or define its essence, it is widely accepted that time is a tangible aspect of the universe.
The two cornerstone theories of modern physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics, perceive time in distinct ways. In relativity, time functions as one coordinate in conjunction with three spatial coordinates.
Einstein demonstrated the intricate relationship between these dimensions, revealing that the flow of time is relative, not absolute. This implies that as you move faster, time appears to slow down in comparison to someone who remains “stationary.”
Interestingly, photons traveling at light speed experience no passage of time; for them, everything occurs simultaneously.
On the other hand, quantum mechanics, which pertains to the macroscopic realm, views time as a fundamental parameter—a consistent and one-way flow from past to future, disconnected from spatial dimensions and entities (like particles).
This divergence creates a conflict between these two prominent theories and poses a challenge for physicists attempting to unify gravitational and quantum theories into a singular “grand unified theory.”
Crucially, neither general relativity nor quantum mechanics defines time as a “field,” a physical quantity that permeates space and can affect particle characteristics.
Each of the four fundamental force fields (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force) involves the exchange of particles.
These particles can be viewed as carriers of force. In electromagnetism, the carrier is a photon, while strong interactions are mediated by particles known as “gluons.”
Gravity, too, is thought to be transmitted by hypothetical particles called “gravitons,” yet a complete quantum description of gravity remains elusive.
Scientists continue to struggle with the concept of time, which appears to lack tangible properties like discrete chunks – Credit: Oxygen via Getty
Other “fields” confer specific properties to particles. For instance, the Higgs field involves the transfer of Higgs bosons, endowing them with mass.
In the realm of physics, time—regardless of its true essence—differs fundamentally from a “field.” It is not a physical quantity (like charge or mass) and does not apply forces or dictate particle interactions.
Thus, in contemporary physics, time is not characterized by mediating particles as are the four fundamental forces. The notion of “time particles” does not hold relevance.
Remarkably, recent studies indicate that time might actually be an illusion. This intriguing theory emerges from quantum “entanglement,” wherein the quantum states of particles are interlinked, regardless of their spatial separation.
This article addresses a question posed by Brian Roche from Cork, Ireland: “Is it possible for a time particle to exist?”
If you have any inquiries, please connect with us at:questions@sciencefocus.com or reach out viaFacebook,Twitter, orInstagramPage (please include your name and location).
Explore our ultimatefun facts and other amazing science content.
John Clarke, Michel Devolette and John Martinis awarded the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics
Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images
The prestigious 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to John Clarke, Michel Devolette, and John Martinis. Their research elucidates how quantum particles can delve through matter, a critical process that underpins the superconducting quantum technology integral to modern quantum computers.
“I was completely caught off guard,” Clarke remarked upon hearing the news from the Nobel Committee. “This outcome was unimaginable; it felt like a dream to be considered for the Nobel Prize.”
Quantum particles exhibit numerous peculiar behaviors, including their stochastic nature and the restriction to specific energy levels instead of a continuous range. This phenomenon sometimes leads to unforeseen occurrences, such as tunneling through solid barriers. Such unusual characteristics were first revealed by pioneers like Erwin Schrödinger during the early years of quantum mechanics.
The implications of these discoveries are profound, particularly supporting theories like nuclear decay; however, earlier research was limited to individual particles and basic systems. It remained uncertain whether more intricate systems such as electronic circuits, conventionally described by classical physics, also adhered to these principles. For instance, the quantum tunneling effect seemed to vanish when observing larger systems.
In 1985, the trio from the University of California, Berkeley—Clarke, Martinis, and Devolette—sought to change this narrative. They investigated the properties of charged particles traversing a superconducting circuit known as the Josephson Junction, a device that earned the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 for British physicist Brian Josephson. These junctions comprise wires exhibiting zero electrical resistance, separated by an insulating barrier.
The researchers demonstrated that particles navigating through these junctions behaved as individual entities, adopting distinct energy levels, clear quantum attributes, and registering voltages beyond expected limits without breaching the adiabatic barrier.
This groundbreaking discovery significantly deepened our understanding of how to harness similar superconducting quantum systems, transforming the landscape of quantum science and enabling other scientists to conduct precise quantum physics experiments on silicon chips.
Moreover, superconducting quantum circuits became foundational to the essential components of quantum computers, known as qubits. Developed by companies like Google and IBM, the most advanced quantum computers today consist of hundreds of superconducting qubits, a result of the insights gained from Clarke, Martinis, and Devolette’s research. “In many respects, our findings serve as the cornerstone of quantum computing,” stated Clarke.
Both Martinis and Devolette are currently affiliated with Google Quantum AI, where they pioneered the first superconducting quantum computer in 2019 that demonstrated quantum advantage over traditional machines. However, Clarke noted to the Nobel Committee that it was surprising to consider the extent of impact their 1985 study has had. “Who could have imagined that this discovery would hold such immense significance?”
What is the quantum nature of time? We may be on the verge of discovering it
Quality Stock / Alamy
How does time manifest for a genuine quantum entity? The most advanced clocks can rapidly address this query, enabling us to test various ways to manipulate and alter the quantum realm, thereby delving into the uncharted territories of physics.
The notion that time can shift originates from Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. As an object approaches the speed of light, it appears to experience time more slowly compared to a stationary observer. He expands upon this with a general theory of relativity, which demonstrates a similar temporal distortion in the presence of a gravitational field. Igor Pikovsky from the Stevens Institute in New Jersey and his team aim to uncover whether a similar effect occurs within the microscopic quantum landscape, utilizing ultra-cold clocks constructed from ions.
“The experiments we’ve performed until now have always focused on classical time, disregarding quantum mechanics,” says Pikovsky. “We’ve observed a regime where conventional explanations falter with an ion clock,” he continues.
These clocks consist of thousands of ions cooled to temperatures nearing absolute zero via laser manipulation. At such low temperatures, the quantum state of an ion and its embedded electrons can be precisely controlled through electromagnetic forces. Thus, the ticks of an ion clock are governed by the electrons oscillating between two distinct quantum states.
Since their behavior is dictated by quantum mechanics, these instruments provided an ideal platform for Pikovsky and his colleagues to investigate the interplay between relativistic and quantum phenomena on timekeeping. Pikovski mentions that they’ve identified several scenarios where this blending is evident.
One example arises from the intrinsic fluctuations inherent in quantum physics. Even at ultra-low temperatures, quantum objects cannot be completely static and instead must oscillate, randomly gaining or losing energy. Team calculations indicated that these fluctuations could lead to extended clock time measurements. Although the effect is minute, it is detectable in current ion clock experiments.
The researchers also mathematically analyzed the behavior of ions in a clock when “compressed,” resulting in “superpositions” of multiple quantum states. They found that these states are closely linked to the motion of the ions, influenced by their internal electrons. The states of ions and electrons are interconnected at a quantum level. “Typically, experiments necessitate creative methods to establish entanglements. The intriguing aspect here is that it arises organically,” explains team member Christian Sanner from Colorado State University.
Pikovski asserts that it is intuitive to think that quantum objects existing in superposition cannot simply perceive time linearly, though this effect has yet to be experimentally confirmed. He believes it should be achievable in the near future.
Team member Gabriel Solch from the Stevens Institute of Technology mentions that the next step is incorporating another crucial aspect of modern physics: gravity. Ultra-cold clocks can currently detect temporal extensions caused by significant variations in the Earth’s gravitational pull, such as when elevated by a few millimeters, but the exact integration of these effects with the intrinsic quantum characteristics of the clock remains an unresolved question.
“I believe it is quite feasible with our existing technology,” adds David Hume from the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Colorado. He highlights that the primary challenge is to mitigate ambient disturbances affecting the clock to ensure it doesn’t overshadow the effects suggested by Pikovsky’s team. Successful experiments could pave the way for exploring unprecedented physical phenomena.
“Such experiments are thrilling because they create a platform for theories to interact in a domain where they could yield fresh insights,” remarks Alexander Smith at St. Anselm College, New Hampshire.
The world’s most advanced engines are remarkably compact, achieving astonishing levels of efficiency, mirroring some of nature’s tiniest machines.
A thermodynamic engine represents the most straightforward mechanism to illustrate how the laws of physics govern the conversion of heat into useful work. These engines feature areas of heat and cold interconnected by a “working fluid” that goes through cycles of contraction and expansion. Molly’s Message and James Mirren from King’s College London and their team have constructed one of the most extreme engines yet, utilizing microscopic glass beads in place of traditional working fluids.
The researchers employed electric fields to trap and position the beads in diminutive chambers crafted from metal and glass with minimal air. To operate the engine, they varied the electric field parameters to tighten and loosen the beads’ “grip.” A handful of air particles within the chamber acted as the cold section of the engine, while manipulated spikes in the electric field represented the hot section. These spikes enabled the particles to move significantly faster than the sparse air particles in their vicinity. Notably, the glass particles experienced speeds greater than what they could achieve in gas while remaining cool to the touch, despite their temperature briefly spiking to 10 million Kelvin—approximately 2,000 times the sun’s surface temperature.
This glass bead engine functioned in an atypical manner. During certain cycles, it displayed striking efficiency, as the strength of the electric field propelled the glass beads at unexpected speeds, effectively generating more energy than was inputted. However, in other cycles, the efficiency dropped to negative levels, as if the beads were being cooled in scenarios where they should have heated further. “At times, you believe you’re inputting the correct energy. You’re attempting to run the fridge with the appropriate mechanisms designed to operate the heat engine,” explains Message. The temperature of the beads fluctuated based on their location within the chamber, an unexpected outcome given that the engine was designed to maintain specific hot or cold sections.
These peculiarities can be attributed to the engine’s minuscule size. Even a single air particle colliding randomly with the beads can drastically impact the engine’s performance. Although traditional physical laws generally prevail, sporadic extreme phenomena persist. Mirren notes that a similar situation exists for the microscopic components of cells. “You can observe all these strange thermodynamic behaviors, which make sense on a bacterial or protein level, but are counterintuitive for larger entities like ourselves,” he states.
Raul Rika from the University of Granada in Spain mentions that while this new engine lacks immediate practical applications, it may deepen researchers’ understanding of natural and biological systems. It also signifies a technical breakthrough. Loïc Rondin from Paris’ Clay University asserts that the team can further investigate numerous unusual characteristics of the microscopic realm with this relatively straightforward design.
“We are significantly simplifying what will become a biological system ideal for testing various theories,” states Rondin. The team aspires to apply the engine in the future for tasks such as modeling how protein energy varies during folding.
Journal Reference: Physical Review Letters, In print
If you were to poll a thousand physicists, you’d find no consensus. This assertion applies to a multitude of subjects, including the nature of the universe, the composition of dark matter, and the quest for perfectly efficient wiring. Recently, the team at Nature raised inquiries that sharply delineated the field’s divisions. They conducted a survey of 1,100 physicists regarding their preferred interpretations of quantum mechanics. The outcome? They exhibited “significant disagreement.”
This does not surprise me. In my reporting, I frequently encounter physicists who interpret the results of quantum experiments in varied ways. They might all analyze the same equation or experimental outcome but arrive at different narratives about reality.
So, how significant is this discord, and what does the quest for interpretation really entail? To begin with, it’s peculiar how things unfold within quantum mechanics, a discipline we’ve explored for over a century amid a plethora of unfortunate tests. There’s no denying the robust success of quantum mechanics, a remarkable framework governing the actions of the extremely small or the extremely cold. This theory not only passes all evaluations with distinction but also leads to technological innovations like transistors that power electronic devices and fiber optics for the internet. “Quantum mechanics is remarkably successful, both theoretically and practically,” asserts Peter Lewis from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.
However, while physicists can articulate equations and construct devices, if I may put it bluntly, they don’t always agree on what these equations signify. They fail to reach consensus on how quantum mechanics describes the observable realities of our world. Research published in Nature indicates that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics discourages contemplation on the nature of quantum entities, prompting physicists to focus merely on calculations. Others endorse the many-worlds interpretation, which necessitates belief in an infinitely expansive universe or a hyper-deterministic theory. Notably, only 24% of physicists expressed complete confidence in their chosen interpretations.
Discrepancies also surfaced regarding fundamental aspects of quantum theory, such as wave functions, the enigmatic link between particles referred to as quantum entanglements, and the iconic double-slit experiment that confirmed all matter possesses hidden wave-like attributes. “Moreover, some scientists, even those in similar camps, exhibit varied understandings of their chosen interpretations,” Elizabeth Gibney highlighted in her analysis of the research.
Lewis observes that this scenario—a blend of extraordinary technical advancement and complete philosophical bewilderment—is unparalleled in the annals of science. Navigating this situation remains a challenge. Some physicists perceive it as a discredit to the field, while others argue it’s a positive aspect of scientific diversity. I found myself wrestling with the term “interpretation” to discern which viewpoint I align with the most. What does this term actually imply, and what criteria make an interpretation viable or competitive? Ultimately, I returned to the source material.
“For me, interpreting quantum mechanics transcends mere physics; it veers into philosophy or perhaps psychology,” noted Jeffrey Harvey from the University of Chicago. I recall his class as being a mathematical challenge, and I vividly remember the excitement of discovering that the waves in the abstract Hilbert space “exist.” However, I struggle to remember any clear arguments surrounding the interpretations of the complex mathematical outcomes we examined. Harvey expresses hesitance in teaching various interpretations, citing competition from established “mental models” over experimentally discernible frameworks. When two interpretations stem from the same equation and yield identical experimental predictions, why favor one over the other? “This reflects an agnostic stance. I’d prefer to keep an open mind rather than feel compelled to choose,” Harvey explained.
Jontae Hans, located at the University of Newcastle in the UK, contends that the term interpretation is often utilized too broadly. Some interpretations effectively extend quantum mechanics by adding or modifying core equations. “The challenge lies in the fact that interpretations are viewed differently, as well as the specific issues faced by quantum mechanics,” Lewis states. The Nature survey revealed respondents’ insights across eight interpretations, some of which augment the foundational quantum mechanics rules, while others simplify them, leaving the question of their necessity open for debate, as seen in the Copenhagen interpretation.
To grasp this distinction, consider the famous Schrödinger equation. This is the equation physicists employ to predict outcomes related to quantum objects. Several interpretations of quantum mechanics (e.g., the many-worlds interpretation) rely on the original Schrödinger equation as it was initially formulated. Conversely, a theory termed “decoherence” seeks to uncover why quantum effects are infrequently observed in our macroscopic world, incorporating additional symbols and numbers into the Schrödinger equation that signify new physical processes. Hans asserts that this technically renders the latter an extension rather than merely an interpretation. In such cases, experimental tests could potentially reveal whether our reality necessitates modification of the Schrödinger equation.
This could provide evidence compelling researchers like Harvey to abandon agnosticism. Hans suggests that a successful extension of quantum mechanics could explain numerous experiments whose predictions are already highly accurate, while also insisting that different interpretations can yield clearly distinct and testable predictions.
At the same time, all three researchers acknowledged that many physicists manage to perform their daily tasks without delving into the complexities of quantum mechanics interpretations. This partly explains why my class with Harvey didn’t cover quantum mechanical interpretations; I was primarily taught how to apply the theory. “I don’t perceive it as a problem in terms of innovation and applications in most areas of quantum mechanics. [Interpretation] is mainly a philosophical concern,” Lewis remarks.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that interpretations lack merit, even when competing interpretations don’t yield differing experimental predictions. “While physicists may find interpretations less integral to physics, they can significantly influence how innovative ideas emerge. In that regard, I believe the diversity of mental models fosters exploration of new concepts arising from quantum mechanics,” says Harvey.
Moreover, even philosophical perspectives hold weight, especially regarding the growth of quantum mechanics. For Lewis, this historically unprecedented divide between utility and meaning in quantum mechanics might offer insights into the limitations of science and the philosophical boundaries regarding what can or cannot be understood. The fact that quantum mechanics, a mathematical model explaining the world exceptionally well, still lacks consensus on its significance is telling.
Hans similarly argues that assigning meaning is a fundamental aspect of physics. When discussing this, they often reference social media posts from people like Elon Musk. While I may not have seen them, I’m struck by the tremendous simplifications in their claims. “For me… it’s all about developing equations; it’s about engineering. While some are inclined to pursue engineering careers, I haven’t followed that path. This doesn’t imply engineers lack curiosity; rather, I feel some tension stemming from existential concerns. It’s a question that has kept physicists awake for centuries, and it will likely persist into the future.
Did the cosmos originate from a massive bounce from a different universe?
Vadim Sadovski/Shutterstock
Is it possible that our universe will continuously expand, then contract back into a small point, repeating the Big Bang? According to recent mathematical analyses, the laws of physics suggest that such cyclical behavior is unlikely.
A pivotal element in the concept of a cyclical universe is the “big bounce,” which reimagines the beginning of our known universe as an event following this bounce rather than the traditional Big Bang. The Big Bang is characterized by incomprehensibly dense concentrations of matter and energy where gravity becomes intense enough to alter physical laws, leading to an infinite outward expansion. Conversely, a universe beginning with a big bounce allows us to explore realities beyond what we perceive as the inception, potentially emerging from another universe that undergoes contraction into an extremely dense state, but not necessarily a singularity.
Thus, the essential inquiry about whether time began with a singularity becomes crucial for understanding our universe’s past and future. If the big bounce indeed marks the inception of our universe, it may also inform its prospective trajectory. The initial idea proposed by Oxford’s Roger Penrose in 1965 revolved around the inevitability of collapse under general relativity, the prevailing framework for understanding gravity, particularly related to black holes, which also represent scenarios where gravity can disrupt the fabric of space-time. Penrose concluded that if gravity intensifies sufficiently, singularities cannot be evaded.
Currently, Raphael Bousso of the University of California, Berkeley, has introduced critical insights enhancing these findings by elucidating the quantum properties of the universe.
While Penrose’s arguments didn’t incorporate quantum theory, Bousso indicates that prior explorations by Aron Wall from Cambridge University considered scenarios of very minimal gravity. However, Bousso’s analysis does not limit gravity’s intensity and asserts that it “decisively excludes” the possibility of a circular universe, reinforcing the singularity associated with the Big Bang as an unavoidable outcome.
Onkar Parrikar from the Tata Basic Research Institute in India asserts, “This represents a significant generalization of Penrose’s original theorem, further extended by Wall.”
Chris Akers from the University of Colorado, Boulder points out that this marks substantial progress, as it is “far more effective in quantum physics” compared to earlier studies. He suggests that this new research will impose stricter constraints on larger bounce models.
Bousso’s computations hinge upon a generalized second law of thermodynamics, expanding the conventional second law to address entropy behavior around black holes. This advanced perspective has yet to be rigorously validated, according to Surjeet Rajendran at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland.
In 2018, Rajendran and his team crafted a mathematical representation of the bouncing universe that circumvented constraints imposed by Bousso’s theorems. However, their model included more dimensions of space-time than have currently been observed, leaving some uncertainties unaddressed.
Akers emphasizes, “Understanding our universe’s history is undeniably one of the most crucial scientific endeavors, and alternative models like big bounces should be thoroughly evaluated.”
Jackson Fris from the University of Cambridge mentions that in bouncing scenarios, quantum effects might bolster the universe’s rebound from its dense states. Investigating these scenarios can further our understanding of how quantum gravity theory, which melds general relativity and quantum mechanics, may reshape our conception of the universe. “If quantum gravity is indeed essential for a comprehensive explanation of a black hole’s interior or a big bang,” he notes.
According to Rajendran, one of the most vital methods to ascertain whether our universe experienced a spatial bounce is through gravitational wave observations. These space-time ripples could carry identifiable signatures of the bounce but currently exist in frequencies outside the detection capabilities of existing gravitational wave observatories. Future generations of detectors may capture these frequencies, although the realization of several planned upgrades to U.S. detectors may be uncertain due to proposed budget cuts from the previous administration.
“It is a matter of whether there exists a universe capable of generating a signal strong enough for detection, and if our current world permits scientists to perform those experimental constructions,” Rajendran states.
Helgoland Island occupies a nearly mythical position in quantum mechanics history
Shutterstock/Markus Stappen
Having attended numerous scientific conferences, the recent one on Helgoland Island, marking a century of quantum mechanics, stands out as one of the most peculiar, in a positive sense.
This tiny German island, stretching less than a kilometer in the North Sea, exudes the ambiance of a coastal resort. Even during summer, its charm wanes, giving way to the scent of quaint streets filled with souvenir shops, fish eateries, and ice cream stalls. Picture cutting-edge experimenters in Quantum Technologies casually mingling after discussions at the town hall beside a miniature golf course—it’s quite an experience.
Our purpose here becomes evident as we stroll along the cliffside road, where a bronze plaque commemorates physicist Werner Heisenberg’s purported invention of quantum mechanics in 1925. While it sounds intriguing, it’s an embellishment; Heisenberg merely outlined some concepts here. The more recognized formulation came from Erwin Schrödinger in early 1926, who introduced wave functions to predict quantum system evolutions.
Nonetheless, this year clearly holds significance as we commemorate a century of quantum mechanics. Regardless of how much of Helgoland’s narrative stems from Heisenberg’s own embellishments—he recounted his breakthrough there several years later—this “Remote Control Island” serves as a unique venue for celebratory gatherings.
And what a celebration it is! It’s almost surreal to witness such a congregation of renowned quantum physicists. Among them are four Nobel laureates: Alain Aspect, David Wineland, Anton Zeilinger, and Serge Haroche. Collectively, they’ve validated the bizarre aspects of quantum mechanics, showcasing how the characteristics of one particle can instantaneously influence another, no matter the distance. They’ve also developed techniques to manipulate individual quantum particles, crucial for quantum computing.
In my view, these distinguished individuals would concur that the younger generation is poised to delve deeper into the implications of quantum mechanics, transforming its notoriously counterintuitive essence into new technologies and a better understanding of nature. Quantum mechanics is renowned for encompassing multiple interpretations of its mathematical framework concerning reality, with many seasoned experts firmly entrenched in their perspectives.
Helgoland’s plaque honors Werner Heisenberg’s role in quantum mechanics
Philip Ball
This divisive sentiment was noticeable during Zeilinger and Aspect’s evening panel discussion. Jill’s Brothers pioneered quantum cryptography at the University of Montreal.
In fairness to the veterans, their theories emerged under considerable skepticism from their peers, particularly regarding the significance of examining such foundational concerns. They navigated an era where “silent calculations” were prevalent—a term coined by American physicist David Mermin to describe how it was frowned upon to ponder the implications of quantum mechanics beyond merely solving the Schrödinger equation. It’s no wonder they developed thick skins.
In contrast, younger researchers seem more pragmatic in their approach to quantum theories, often adopting various interpretations as tools to address specific challenges. Elements of the Copenhagen interpretation and the multiverse theory are intertwined, not as definitive claims about reality, but as frameworks for analysis.
The new wave of researchers, such as Vedika Khemani from Stanford University, are actively bridging condensed matter physics and quantum information. I heard her highlight the evolution from storing information on magnetic tapes in the 1950s to the crucial error correction techniques in today’s quantum computing.
Quantum mechanics applications are on the rise, with theorists also stepping up their game. For instance, Flaminia Giacomini at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich spoke about her pursuit of reconciling the granular quantum realm with the smooth continuous world required for quantum gravity, offering profound insights into the essence of quantum mechanics.
While some may consider this exploration to be veering into the realm of speculation, as seen in string theory attempts, Giacomini asserted, “There is no experimental evidence that gravity should be quantized.” Hence, empirical validation remains elusive, despite a wealth of theoretical discourse.
Excitingly, there are plans to test hypotheses in the not-so-distant future. For instance, examining whether two objects can entangle purely through gravitational interactions is a goal. The difficulty is ensuring the objects are substantial enough to exert meaningful gravitational pull while being sufficiently small to demonstrate quantum characteristics. Several speakers expressed confidence in overcoming this hurdle within the next decade.
The conference revealed the interconnectedness of quantum theories and experiments: perturbing one aspect inevitably influences others. Gaining a nuanced understanding of quantum gravity through delicate experiments involving trapped particles could shed light on black hole information paradoxes and inspire innovative ideas for quantum computing and the nature of quantum states.
Ultimately, achieving progress in any of these areas appears promising for uncovering the enduring questions that have fascinated Heisenberg and his contemporaries. What occurs when we measure quantum particles? However, rather than perceiving it as a repetitive struggle, it’s clear that quantum mechanics is much more sophisticated and intriguing than the founders ever envisaged.
Every day, over a billion cups of coffee are consumed, including French presses, espresso, and cold brewing.
Physicist Arnold Mattissen from the University of Pennsylvania has a bias towards the art of pouring coffee. He manually pours hot water over ground beans, filters it into a pot or mug, and believes that applying fluid dynamics principles could improve the process even further.
Dr. Mathijssen, along with two like-minded students, conducted research on optimizing the pouring method. Their scientifically-backed advice is to pour water in high, slow, and steady streams to maximize extraction and enhance the flavor of the coffee without any additional costs.
Results from a recent survey published in the Journal Physics of Fluids show how the coffee pouring process in the kitchen can lead to new scientific directions in different culinary techniques. This demonstrates how science can improve the art of cooking.
Dr. Mathijssen, who primarily studies biological flow physics, began experimenting with food during the Covid-19 shutdown when he lost access to his lab. This led to exploring the physics involved in various cooking techniques, including pasta stickiness and whipped cream structures. His interest in kitchen physics remains high.
While Dr. Mathijssen has returned to the lab, his passion for kitchen physics continues. The coffee research was inspired by scientists in his group who kept detailed notes on daily coffee brewing experiments in the lab, noting details such as bean origin, extraction time, and flavor profiles.
Graduate student Ernest Park designed a formal experiment using silica gel beads in glass cones to simulate pouring water into coffee grounds from different heights, capturing the dynamics with a high-speed camera.
On Thursday, researchers released the most accurate measurements of neutrinos, reducing the maximum possible mass of ghostly speckles of matter permeating our universe.
result, Published Science journals do not define the exact mass of neutrinos, but do not define just the upper limit. However, this discovery helps physicists get closer to understanding what is wrong with the so-called standard model. One way physicists know that it is not accurate at all is that they suggest that neutrinos have no mass at all.
In Grander Scales, learning more about neutrinos can help cosmologists fill in hazy pictures of the universe. This includes how galaxies gather and what will affect the expansion of the universe since the Big Bang.
“The new research is a great opportunity to learn more about the world,” said John Wilkerson, Chapel Hill, a physicist at the University of North Carolina and author of the new study. “And that’s what neutrinos may play a key role.”
Physicists know a few things about neutrinos. They are prolific across the universe and are actually created whenever atomic nuclei snap together or fall apart. However, they are notoriously difficult to detect because they do not carry charges.
There are three types of neutrinos, which physicists describe as flavors. And, strangely enough, they change from one flavor to another when they travel to space and time, a discovery recognized by the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2015. The underlying mechanism that allowed these transformations meant that neutrinos had to have some mass.
But that’s the case. Neutrinos are dauntingly light, and physicists don’t know why.
Revealing the exact values of neutrino masses, Alexei Lokhov, a scientist at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, said that new physics could lead to “some kind of portal.” “At the moment, this is the biggest limitation in the world,” he said of the team’s measurements.
Dr. Rokhov and his colleagues conducted an experiment using Karlsrue tritium neutrinos or catrine to narrow down the neutrino mass. One end of the 230-foot-long device is a heavy version of hydrogen, a source of tritium and with two neutrons in its nucleus. Tritium is unstable and collapses into helium. A neutron is converted into a proton, and in the process the electrons are ejected. It also spits out antinutrinos, the antimatter twins of neutrinos. The two require the same mass.
The original tritium mass is divided into helium, electrons, and antioxidant spoilage products. Neutrinos and anti-anti-utrinos cannot be directly detected, but the sensor on the other side of the experiment recorded 36 million electrons over 259 days and was washed away by attenuated tritium. By measuring the energy of electron movement, they were able to indirectly infer the maximum possible mass for antinutorino.
They found that the value was less than 0.45 electron volts, one million times lighter than electrons, in the unit of mass used by particle physicists.
The upper limit of mass was measured only for one flavour of neutrinos. But Dr. Wilkerson said that nailing one chunk would allow you to calculate the rest.
Latest measurements reduce the potential mass of neutrinos Previous limit Set in 2022 by Katrin Collaboration under 0.8 Electronvolts. It’s also almost twice as accurate.
University of Washington physicist Elise Nowitzky praised the Catlin team for their careful efforts, although not involved in the job.
“It’s really the power of tours,” she said of her experiments and discoveries. “I’m totally confident in their outcome.”
The Catlin team is working on further boundaries of neutrino masses from 1,000 days of data and is expected to be collected by the end of the year. This allows physicists to measure even more electrons, leading to more accurate measurements.
Other experiments also contribute to a better understanding of neutrino mass. Project 8 Seattle and deep underground neutrino experiments spread across two physical facilities in the Midwest.
Astronomers studying the structure of the universe, thought to be influenced by the vast collection of universes, have a vast collection of neutrinos that are flooded into the universe, and have their own measurements of the maximum mass of particles. However, according to Dr. Wilkerson, the boundaries that astronomers stare at the void do not match what particle physicists calculate in their lab when scrutinizing the subatomic world.
“There’s something really funny going on,” he said. “And the possible solution to that would be physics beyond the standard model.”
Scientists have achieved a breakthrough in quantum physics, creating a “Schrodinger Cat” state at warmer temperatures than previously thought possible.
This state relies on the concept of superposition, where particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously, a key principle of quantum mechanics.
The famous thought experiment by physicist Erwin Schrodinger involving a cat in a box with a radioactive material highlights the paradoxical nature of this concept.
Physicists have managed to create real Schrodinger cat particles, where quantum objects can exist in two states simultaneously without needing to be cooled to ground state temperature.
A recent study published in the journal Advances in Science has reported the creation of quantum states at ground state temperature.
In Erwin Schrödinger’s thought experiment, cats are alive and dead at the same time. Similar to how quantum objects occupy multiple states at once – Innsbruck University/Halaldricksch
Researchers at Innsbruck University have successfully produced the Schrodinger Cat state at a temperature of 1.8 Kelvin, a relatively warm temperature for quantum experiments.
This discovery challenges the traditional belief that quantum effects are disrupted by higher temperatures and opens up new possibilities for quantum technology.
Quantum computers, which could revolutionize technology by operating in multiple states, currently require expensive cooling methods. However, this study suggests that quantum phenomena can still be observed and utilized in warmer environments.
“Our work demonstrates that quantum interactions can persist even at higher temperatures, making temperature ultimately irrelevant for certain quantum effects,” said Professor Gerhard Kirchmair, one of the researchers involved in the study.
Feedback is The new scientistPopular Sideways watches the latest science and technology news. You can send the items you believe in, and readers can entertain feedback to give feedback via emailfeedback@newscientist.com
(Wild) Card Game
Feedback doesn’t have time or trends to select all editions of American Journal of PhysicsBut fortunately New ScientistPhysics reporters Alex Wilkins and Carmela Padavik Callaghan are contractually mandatory. Therefore, we are familiar with our newly discovered entitled papers. “The Lagrangian Dynamics of the Elgod in the Superhero Universe”.
The most immediate and impressive point is the list of two authors. One, Ian Tregirisa theoretical physicist and published author at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The other is George R.R. Martin, author of science fiction and author of fantasy books; Night Flyer, Fevre Dream And of course, Song of ice and fire series. This has been adapted as a television game of thrones. This is “His first peer-reviewed physics publication.”.
Tregillis and Martin have developed educational exercises aimed at advanced undergraduates in physics. It is based on Wild Cards: A collection of stories set in a shared universe edited by Martin and Melinda Snodgrass.
The premise of the story is that extraterrestrial viruses have loosened on Earth and infect many humans. As Tregillis and Martin explain, “For every 100 potential carriers who experience viral expression in the body…90 experience fatal consequences. 9 is physically mutated and often deep. That's right. And 1 acquires superhuman abilities.”
The teaching exercises are built around this “fixed empirical 90:9:1 rule.” Students are encouraged to imagine that they are the theorists they live in Wild Cards Trying to solve the universe and why viruses affect these proportions of people. The point is to provide students with problems with no known solutions to encourage creative research.
The feedback gets where they are coming from, but I wonder if this will fly. Many educators tie lessons to pop culture phenomena as a hook for reluctant students, but this only works if the phenomenon in question is really well known. The best will in the world, I don't know if the feedback will be said Wild Cards.
But we think there are better options for advanced physics noodles. How does snap work? Avengers: Infinity War? It appears to propagate instantly and inevitably breaks the speed of light. Or what about Iain M. Banks's cosmology? culture novel?
I'm also surprised they haven't done anything obvious. Song of ice and fire? One viable explanation is that planets have prominent orbital wobbles, but in that case why do long-standing winters suffer the Westeros continent? Esus doesn't seem to have any cultural memories at all. Is there anything specific about the atmospheric dynamics that sometimes provide Westeros with a decade of snowstorm?
Sorry, but there was a side street. Speaking of sidetracking: George, do you just finish it? Winter wind And then I'll enter Spring dreamSo, can we all know if the planned ending of the series is better than the wet squibb that TV writers have come up with? Isn't it worse than the bits where they killed the main buddy and all his men conveniently collapsed?
New Scientist Book Club
Do you like reading? Join a friendly group of fellow book lovers. Every six weeks, we dig into exciting new titles, with members free access to excerpts from the book, author articles and video interviews.
Animal template
In the ongoing vein of “generic AIS says the stupidest thing,” reporter Matthew Spark draws our attention to a paper on the title of Arxiv. “Owls are wise and foxes are dishonest. Discover animal stereotypes in vision language models.”. This study focused on Dall-E 3, an AI that generates images based on text prompts. Researchers provided prompts such as “generate images of gentle animals” and recorded creatures drawn by AI.
Given what we know about AIS summarizing sexist and racist ratios, Dall-e 3 is a stereotypical torrential predictability I pumped it out. All faithful animals were dogs, wise animals were mainly owls, and naughty animals were mainly raccoons and foxes. Feedback is pretty sure that dogs can be mischievous. Our last dog was incredibly mean when it came to stealing cat food or finding fox poop stripes, but Dall-e 3 clearly gave us a more one-dimensional view of dogs. I'm doing it.
In case the feedback cat reads this, we can't even repeat the honor lib loss for the cat fucked by the Dall-E 3.
a press release Warns feedback to published research Functional Ecology January 5th Evolution of dormant behaviors such as Torpor and Hibernation. By examining which animals become dormant and unable to, the researchers conclude that nutrition and hibernation evolved several times independently among the sclerosted animals.
Some may interpret this as the incredible creativity and flexibility of evolution in a complete exhibition. But feedback interprets it as an evolution that has failed us. Where we are is cold, dark, wet, and the feedback is pretty fantastical. You should do that for three months.
Have you talked about feedback?
You can send stories to feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Include your home address. This week and past feedback can be found on our website.
The upcoming director of CERN stated that advanced artificial intelligence is revolutionizing basic physics and opening windows for the fate of the universe.
Professor Marktomson, a British physicist who will take on the leadership at CERN on January 1, 2026, envisions progress in particle physics comparable to the AI-driven prediction of protein structure that recently won Google Deepmind Scientists an award. Speculations suggest a potential Nobel Prize in October.
With the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) playing a key role, there is hope to unravel how particles obtained mass at the moment of the Big Bang and whether our universe is extraordinary. Professor Marktomson mentioned the adoption of a similar strategy to potentially avert a catastrophic collapse event.
Tomson emphasized, “These are not just incremental improvements, but rather significant strides achieved by embracing cutting-edge techniques.”
He also added, “The field will undergo a transformative change. Dealing with complex data like protein folding presents intricate challenges, and employing advanced AI technologies can lead to breakthroughs.”
CERN’s council anticipates a promising future with revolutionary advancements. Despite skepticism following the groundbreaking Higgs boson discovery in 2012, Professor Thomson believes that AI brings a fresh perspective to explore new frontiers in physics. The enhanced beam strength of LHC is expected to enable unprecedented observations of the Higgs boson, also known as the “God particle,” shedding light on other particles and the universe at large.
There is a particular focus on measuring the Higgs boson’s self-coupling, which plays a critical role in understanding how particles acquire mass and the evolution of the Higgs field post-Big Bang. Higgs’ self-coupling strength is crucial for determining the stability of the Higgs field and potential future transitions.
Dr. Matthew McCallow, a theoretical physicist at CERN, emphasized that the exploration of Higgs’ self-coupling is significant for advancing our understanding of the universe’s fundamental characteristics. Integrating AI into LHC operations has streamlined data collection and interpretation processes, enabling faster decision-making for experiments like the LHC ATLAS project.
Scientists have long sought to uncover dark matter using the LHC, considering it comprises a significant portion of the universe. With AI’s assistance, researchers hope to untangle this mystery. Thomson remarked, “AI allows us to pose more intricate and open-ended queries rather than merely searching for specific signals, hoping to uncover unexpected insights within the data.”
The bartender said, “We don't serve time travelers here.” A time traveler enters the bar.
OK, yes, you'll almost certainly regret starting this article with such a lame old joke. Most of us, at some point, have wanted to go back in time to fix a mistake or failure. But that's impossible, right?
Well, not necessarily. Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity suggests that time travel may actually be possible. We know that matter can bend space-time, and if we bend it enough we may be able to create time loops. Of course, there are many caveats, and researchers have yet to present a working time machine. But that didn't stop them from exploring the possibilities.
Here are five ways time travel could be possible, from sci-fi classics to surprising new ideas. It also introduces some thorny practical obstacles that need to be overcome.
1. Prepare the galaxy laser ring
The main problem with time travel is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. This speed limit maintains causation, the idea that the cause must always come before the effect. Thanks to a quirk of Einstein's special theory of relativity and the fact that space and time are intimately connected, traveling faster than the speed of light messes it up. If we could travel faster than light, we would travel back in time. But you can't do that.
The next best thing is to manipulate the fabric of space-time. in…
John Hopfield and Jeffrey Hinton jointly awarded 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics
Christine Olson/TT/Shutterstock
The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics will be awarded to John Hopfield and Jeffrey Hinton for their work on fundamental algorithms that enable artificial neural networks and machine learning, which are key to today’s large-scale language models such as ChatGPT. was awarded.
Upon hearing the award announcement, Hinton told the Nobel Committee, “I’m shocked. I never expected something like this to happen.” “I’m very surprised.” Hinton, who has been vocal about his concerns about the development of artificial intelligence, also reiterated that he regrets the work he did. “I would do the same thing in the same situation, but I fear that the overall impact of this will ultimately be controlled by systems more intelligent than us.” he said.
AI may not seem like an obvious candidate for the Nobel Prize in physics, but the discovery of learnable neural networks and their applications are two fields closely related to physics, the Nobel Committee for Physics says. Committee Chair Ellen Moons said during the announcement. . “These artificial neural networks are being used to advance research across a variety of physics topics, including particle physics, materials science, and astrophysics.”
Many early approaches to artificial intelligence involved giving computer programs logical rules to follow to solve problems, allowing them to learn about new information and It has become difficult for me to encounter situations that I have never seen before. In 1982, Hopfield at Princeton University created an architecture for computers called the Hopfield Network. A Hopfield network is a collection of nodes or artificial neurons whose connection strengths can be changed by a learning algorithm invented by Hopfield.
This algorithm is inspired by the study of physics to find the energy of a magnetic system by describing it as a collection of small magnets. The technique involves repeatedly changing the strength of the connections between the magnets to find the energy minimum of the system.
That same year, Hinton at the University of Toronto began developing Hopfield’s ideas to help create a closely related machine learning construct called a Boltzmann machine. “I remember going to a conference in Rochester where John Hopfield was speaking and learning about neural networks for the first time.After this, Terry [Sejnowski] And I worked hard to find ways to generalize neural networks,” he said.
Hinton and colleagues showed that unlike previous machine learning architectures, Boltzmann machines can learn and extract patterns from large data sets. This principle, combined with large amounts of data and computational power, has led to the success of many of today’s artificial intelligence systems, such as image recognition and language translation tools.
However, although Boltzmann machines have proven to be capable, they are inefficient and slow, so they are not used in today’s modern systems. Instead, it uses faster, modern machine learning architectures like Transformer models that power large language models like ChatGPT.
At the Nobel Prize press conference, Hinton was bullish about the impact of his and Hopfield’s discoveries. “It will be comparable to the industrial revolution, but instead of surpassing humans in physical strength, we will surpass humans in intellectual ability,” he said. “We’ve never experienced what it’s like to have something smarter than us. It’s going to be great in many ways…but we have We also have to worry about the negative consequences of this, especially the threat that these things can get out of control.”
We don’t tend to dwell on the fact that we exist in three dimensions. Front to back, left to right, up to down – these are the axes along which we move through the world. When we try to imagine something else, we usually conjure up the most outlandish science fiction images of portals in the fabric of space-time and parallel universes.
But serious physicists have long been fascinated by the possibility of extra dimensions. Despite their intangibility, extra dimensions hold the promise of solving some big questions about the deepest workings of the universe. And just because they’re hard to imagine and even harder to observe doesn’t mean we can rule them out. “There’s no reason they have to be three-dimensional,” says David Schneider, a physics professor at the University of California, San Diego. Georges Obie At Oxford University. “It could have been two, it could have been four, it could have been ten.”
Still, there comes a time when any self-respecting physicist wants hard evidence. That’s why it’s so exciting that over the past few years, researchers have developed several techniques that may finally provide evidence of extra dimensions. For example, we might be able to detect gravity leaking into extra dimensions. We might see subtle signatures of it in black holes, or we might find its signature in particle accelerators.
But now, in an unexpected twist, Ovid and his colleagues claim that there is an extra dimension that is fundamentally different from any previously conceived. This “dark dimension” hides ancient particles whose gravity could solve the mystery of dark matter, the force that is thought to have shaped the universe. Crucially, this dimension is relatively…
byInstitute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of SciencesDecember 16, 2023
A groundbreaking study investigated the complex relationship between Earth’s surface temperature and emitted longwave radiation, revealing deviations from the expected quaternary pattern. This research improves our understanding of climate sensitivity and the factors that influence it, such as greenhouse gases and atmospheric dynamics. Credit: SciTechDaily.com
Climate science research has revealed new insights into the relationship between surface temperature and emitted longwave radiation, challenging traditional models and improving our understanding of Earth’s climate sensitivity.
Want to know what causes Earth’s climate sensitivity? Recent research shows Advances in atmospheric science. We investigate a complex relationship that transforms the relationship between surface temperature and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from fourth-order to sublinear. Led by Dr. Jie Sun florida state university this study elucidates the hidden mechanisms that shape Earth’s climate and provides new insights into why the relationship between temperature and OLR deviates from the fourth-order pattern described by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Masu.
Stefan-Boltzmann law and climate dynamics
What is the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Atmospheric greenhouse gases create a contrast between surface heat release and OLR, which is related to the fourth power of surface temperature.
Professor Hu Xiaoming of Sun Yat-sen University, corresponding author of the study, explained: This allows the relationship between surface temperature and OLR to follow a quartic pattern, since the radiation-emitting layer is lowered. ”
Diagram showing two main processes: sublinear surface temperature and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). Left: Increased meridional surface temperature gradient due to the greenhouse effect of water vapor. Right: Poleward energy transport reroutes part of the OLR from warmer to colder regions. Credit: Ming Cai and Xiaoming Hu
Factors affecting surface temperature and OLR
This study reveals how various factors influence surface temperature and OLR. The water vapor greenhouse effect acts as a magnifying glass, amplifying temperature differences across the Earth’s surface without changing the latitudinal variation of the OLR. This suppresses the nonlinearity between OLR and surface temperature.
Polar energy transport, on the other hand, acts as an equalizer to harmonize temperature differences across different regions of the Earth. One of the by-products of this global heat redistribution is the rerouting of OLR from warmer to colder regions, which acts to reduce the differences in OLR between different regions. This further suppresses nonlinearities.
“Understanding these complex climate interactions is like deciphering a puzzle. Each piece brings us closer to deciphering the complexity of Earth’s climate,” said Ming Kai, a professor at Florida State University. Masu.”
By uncovering these relationships, scientists are learning more about Earth’s climate and how its complex components regulate overall climate sensitivity, i.e., not just the rate of energy output, but also where the output occurs to make significant progress in understanding.
Reference: “Sublinear relationship between planetary outward longwave radiation and surface temperature in a gray atmosphere radiative-convective transport climate model” Jie Sun, Michael Secor, Ming Cai, Xiaoming Hu, November 25, 2023. Advances in atmospheric science. DOI: 10.1007/s00376-023-2386-1
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
