Tag: classical mechanics

• From the Heisenberg cut to the Copenhagen interpretation

  The following post was motivated by this exchange (on X.com), which prompted me to write out my understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the part the Heisenberg cut plays in it. I haven’t gone into the variants of the interpretation that Maria Violaris brings up; I only focus on understanding what the interpretation does and doesn’t say to begin with, and its history.

  There are many interpretations of what quantum mechanics says about reality. This is unlike classical physics, where theory and reality converge almost perfectly. If using Newton’s laws of motion you determine that a ball flying through the air will have some speed at some point, you’ll find that to be the case when you take measurements. Quantum mechanics on the other hand has some uncertainty baked into the outcomes of certain measurements; there’s no escaping it. That means the mathematical formalism describes only the probability of the outcomes of measurement rather than the event itself, creating a fundamental gap between the theory and observations that different interpretations have tried to bridge with competing philosophical explanations.

  Perhaps the most popular among them is the Copenhagen interpretation: a small 2016 survey found it enjoys the most agreement among physicists; it also holds sway in the popular imagination thanks to Erwin Schrödinger’s thought experiment involving a cat that’s both dead and alive. However, Schrödinger came up with that idea to illustrate his belief that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics paints an absurd picture of reality. The interpretation has been refined over time and is more complicated than that, and certainly not absurd.

  In Schrödinger’s thought experiment, the cat is a metaphor for an observable property of a quantum system. That the cat is both dead and alive — a statement that the wavefunction of the property is in a superposition of two (or more) states. When you open the box to see if the cat is dead or alive (but not both) in the metaphor, the description of the system updates from a superposition to a single outcome.

  Note that this is a simplified picture. For a more thoroughgoing account, I recommend Jim Baggott’s post ‘The Copenhagen Confusion’. Here’s a line from the operative passage: “The ‘collapse of the wavefunction’ was never part of the Copenhagen interpretation because the wavefunction isn’t interpreted realistically. The only thing that happens when an electron is detected on a screen in the context of Copenhagen is that we gain knowledge of the position of the electron.” In this post, however, I’m going to flatten these details for simplicity’s sake where necessary.

  

  A useful entry point to the interpretation is the Heisenberg cut, which is a conceptual boundary within the interpretation. It draws the line between the quantum system, i.e. the wavefunction and probabilistic laws, and the measuring apparatus or the observer, described by classical mechanics and deterministic laws. And these two parts of the overall system share a foundational relationship: the Copenhagen interpretation uses this cut to bridge the gap between the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and the empirical reality of what scientists observe in a lab.

  In Niels Bohr’s view, the cut is required because humans are macroscopic entities who communicate using classical language. (“It’s very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is”: Terry Pratchett.) Bohr argued that we don’t have a choice but to describe experiments in terms of everyday physics, including positions, momenta, and times, because these concepts also define our cognitive and linguistic capabilities. This means even though the subatomic world is quantum mechanical, the instruments we use to measure it, like photographic plates and our eyes, must be treated as classical objects. The Heisenberg cut is an imaginary boundary in our description of experiments where we stop using quantum concepts and start using classical ones.

  An important feature of the cut is its mobility, i.e. that a person can draw it anywhere in their description of the thought experiment: when a photon of light hits the cat, when a photon reflected by the cat reaches your eye, when you first open the box or somewhere else. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the physical predictions of quantum mechanics don’t change based on where you make the cut, as long as it is placed somewhere along the chain of measurement. And the cut must exist if you’re to be able to ‘measure’ the system.

  The Heisenberg cut is also intimately tied to the measurement problem. On the quantum side of the cut, the system will evolve according to the Schrödinger equation, which is deterministic and preserves superpositions, i.e. it allows a particle to be in two states at once. On the classical side of the cut, you observe definite outcomes: the particle is either here or there.

  In effect the cut marks the point where multiple possible outcomes give way to a single recorded result. And in the Copenhagen interpretation, this transition isn’t a physical process that can be derived from the Schrödinger equation itself; instead it’s a non-dynamical event that occurs whenever a quantum system interacts with a classical measuring device. This leads to the somewhat paradoxical conclusion that quantum mechanics is a complete theory of the microscopic universe yet it banks on classical concepts (that it can’t make sense of) to make sense of its predictions.

  While both Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, for whom the cut is named, agreed that this cut should exist, they arrived at it for different reasons. Heisenberg treated the cut as a moveable mathematical boundary that separated the object from the subject, highlighting the subjective nature of observation. He was interested in how the observer’s knowledge changed the state of the system. Bohr on the other hand viewed the cut as an epistemological necessity fixed by the experimental arrangement. In other words for Bohr the cut wasn’t about a subjective observer disrupting nature but about the objective impossibility of separating the observer from the observed in the quantum realm (a.k.a. the uncertainty implicit to quantum mechanics).

  Second, let’s look at how the Copenhagen interpretation treats the maths of quantum mechanics. The theory postulates that a quantum system evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. However, our human experience is obviously discontinuous: we see definite outcomes, not superpositions. The ‘collapse’ is the instant when the system switches from its smooth quantum evolution to a single, definite state.

  Without the Heisenberg cut, on the other hand, there’s no logical place for the wavefunction to collapse. If you treated the entire universe — including a subatomic particle, a microscope, a scientist, and the scientist’s brain — as one giant quantum system, everything would just keep evolving according to the Schrödinger equation forever. Eventually you’d end up with a universe in a massive, complex superposition but you’d never arrive at a specific measurement or result. This is actually the premise of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which removes the collapse and thus removes the need for a cut.

  In the Copenhagen interpretation, however, because you eventually arrive at a definite result (and which you need to do for science to be science), you’re forced to draw a line: “Everything on this side is quantum and describes probabilities and everything on that side is classical and describes facts”. The wavefunction ‘collapse’ is defined as the point at which the quantum description gives way to a single, definite experimental outcome. When the quantum system crosses the Heisenberg cut and interacts with the classical side, the wavefunction is said to have collapsed.

  Thus to discuss the Heisenberg cut is essentially to discuss the mechanism of collapse and highlights the implicit dualism of the Copenhagen interpretation: the universe is divided into the observer and the observed. The wavefunction describes what’s being observed and the collapse ensures the observed entity matches the observer’s reality.

  The concept of the cut originated in a few intense months leading up to Heisenberg’s publication of a paper in March 1927. At the time, Heisenberg had been working at Bohr’s institute in Copenhagen on rescuing the concept of particle trajectories, e.g. the tracks of particles recorded in a cloud chamber, which seemed to contradict the (then) new quantum mechanics.

  In 1925, Heisenberg formulated matrix mechanics, the first logically consistent mathematical framework for quantum mechanics. (This invention was an important first step of the ‘new’ quantum mechanics, whose centenary physicists celebrated worldwide last year.) Among other things, matrix mechanics predicted that certain physical quantities, such as energy, take on discrete values. However, this raised questions about reconciling the theory with physicists observing apparently smooth, continuous particle tracks in cloud chambers.

  

  Heisenberg resolved this contradiction by redefining what a ‘path’ actually is in a cloud chamber. This is a device filled with alcohol vapour that’s supersaturated, meaning it’s cooled to the point where it’s just about ready to turn into liquid. When a charged particle moves through this gas, it knocks electrons out of the alcohol molecules, creating a trail of ions. The vapour rapidly turns into liquid droplets around these ions, forming a visible white track that traces the exact path of the subatomic particle through the chamber.

  But Heisenberg argued that we never actually see a continuous path in a cloud chamber — only the sequence of individual droplets formed by ionisation. Solving the problem of the particle’s trajectory in matrix mechanics would never spit out a continuous path but it could determine the probability of an electron’s state transitioning from one discrete droplet to the next.

  When we say an object transitions from point A to point B in everyday life, we mean it moved through the space in between them. But in matrix mechanics, an electron state transitioning between droplets means a discontinuous update of reality rather than movement. In the context of this post, the state of the electron is a mathematical list of properties the electron possesses at the exact moment it hits a gas molecule and creates a droplet.

  So say when it hits droplet 1, the electron has energy E_high, momentum P₁, and is roughly at position X₁. At droplet 2, scientists find the same electron has energy E_low (because it lost some energy when it smashed into the first atom), momentum P₂, and is roughly at position X₂. In Heisenberg’s telling, the laws of physics don’t describe this journey so much as the probability of state 2 happening given state 1 just happened.

  This description resolved Heisenberg’s problem because his maths only handled the energy levels and transitions; it had no variable for the particle’s location at each instant in time. In other words by looking at the cloud chamber and saying, “Aha! This track is just a pile of separate water droplets”, he could claim that the physical world also works like his maths. Which means the path we see in the cloud chamber is just our human brains drawing a line between the dots. The electron itself only becomes classically describable when it hits something.

  In other words, in classical physics, the particle has a path regardless of whether we look at it, and the droplets merely reveal it. In Heisenberg’s view, the particle has no defined position or path in the empty space between the droplets. Instead a path as such comes into view only because the cloud chamber is performing a rapid series of measurements: each droplet represents an observation that forces the electron to take a stand on its position while the eventual smooth line is a mental construct we create by connecting these dots.

  Continuing from this idea, in a famous letter to Wolfgang Pauli and subsequently in his March 1927 paper, The Actual Content of Quantum Theoretical Kinematics and Mechanics, Heisenberg introduced a thought experiment involving a gamma-ray microscope. He argued that to observe an electron, one must hit it with a photon. This interaction would disturb the electron. He initially framed the measurement problem as a physical interaction between the electron (the system) and the photon (the probe), where the act of measurement mechanically disturbed the system.

  Bohr’s critique of Heisenberg’s draft then reforged the cut as a central tenet of the Copenhagen interpretation. When Heisenberg showed Bohr his paper, Bohr tore into it arguing that Heisenberg was wrong to focus on the disturbance because he assumed the electron had a definite position and momentum before the measurement and which the measurement then messed up. Bohr insisted on the more radical view that the properties of the electron aren’t well-defined until the experimental arrangement itself is fixed. For Bohr, the cut wasn’t just where a disturbance happened but the line where the observer switched from using quantum concepts to classical concepts to describe the experiment.

  The conversations on this point between the two men in February and March 1927 were intense, protracted, and emotionally exhausting. Heisenberg was 25 years old at the time and convinced he had solved the riddle of quantum mechanics with his paper whereas Bohr was relentless in his criticism, insisting Heisenberg’s fundamental premise was logically flawed.

  According to historical accounts, including Heisenberg’s own recollections later in life, the discussions would go on for hours, often late into the night. At one point, the combination of mental exhaustion and Bohr’s stubborn refusal to accept Heisenberg’s interpretation caused Heisenberg to break down in tears of frustration. But Heisenberg eventually capitulated, though not entirely: he didn’t rewrite the entire body of his paper but he did add a postscript to the end of the published version where he acknowledged that his explanation of the gamma-ray microscope had been too simplistic and that Bohr’s view regarding the electron’s indefiniteness was the deeper truth.

  The tears were the physical manifestation of the painful process of aligning the two different viewpoints into what became the Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, and at the risk of repetition, let’s treat this interpretation as the peace treaty that reconciled Heisenberg’s idea of uncertainty with Bohr’s idea of complementarity. Heisenberg’s view was initially very mechanical and focused on the observer’s limitations; he held that the fuzziness of the quantum world was a result of our clumsiness: i.e. the reality existed but our clumsy hands destroyed the data every time we tried to touch it. To him the Heisenberg cut was the place where this mechanical disturbance happened.

  Bohr however worked with the concept of complementarity: that the electron has a dual nature, wave and particle, and that these two natures are mutually exclusive, meaning we can’t see both at the same time. And the uncertainty isn’t because we hit the particle but because the electron literally doesn’t have a defined position and momentum at the same time. If you build an experiment to measure its position, the wave nature would vanish, and vice versa. He was saying in effect that the experiment itself defined what reality was allowed to exist at all in that moment.

  The Copenhagen interpretation loosely synthesised these two views, though it leaned heavily toward Bohr’s. It stated that we must accept two contradictory truths: the mathematical formalism (Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and the Schrödinger equation) that predicts probabilities and the classical world of our measuring devices. The interpretation is the agreement that we can’t speak about what the electron is doing when we aren’t looking. We can only speak about the results of the interaction between the electron and the machine.

  In effect, the Copenhagen interpretation asserts that physics isn’t about the ontological nature of the electron, i.e. what it is, but about the epistemological nature of our knowledge, or what we can say. And the Heisenberg cut is the necessary border where the indefinite, contradictory quantum world based on Bohr’s idea of complementarity is forced to collapse into a single, definite fact.

  If Bohr and Heisenberg provided the philosophical foundation for the Copenhagen interpretation, the Hungarian-American physicist John von Neumann gave it its formal mathematical form in his 1932 book Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Von Neumann was also the one to show that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allowed the cut to be placed anywhere in this chain without changing the final calculated probabilities.

  Where’s Schrödinger’s cat in all of this, then? As it happens, the famous thought experiment in which the cat is both dead and alive is often misunderstood as a quirk of quantum physics; it was actually a scathing piece of satire Schrödinger designed to show that the Copenhagen interpretation was absurd. Schrödinger in fact didn’t believe a cat could be simultaneously dead and alive. His point was that if you followed Bohr and Heisenberg’s logic to its ultimate conclusion, you’d end up with such a nonsensical reality.

  In fact, the thought experiment, published in 1935, targeted the concept of the Heisenberg cut. In the Copenhagen view, a quantum particle like an atom doesn’t have a defined state: it exists in a superposition of all possible states until an observer measures. Schrödinger could accept this for atoms but couldn’t digest the prospect of applying the idea to macroscopic objects.

  In his mental argument, Schrödinger described a radioactive atom placed in a sealed steel box. If the atom decays in a random quantum event, a Geiger counter nearby would push a hammer, which would smash a vial of cyanide and kill a cat. If the atom doesn’t decay, the cat would live. According to the strict logic of the Copenhagen interpretation, this system remains in a superposition until an observer opens the box to check the cat’s existential status. But until the measurement itself, because the atom is both decayed and not decayed, the Geiger counter is both triggered and not triggered, and the cat is simultaneously dead and alive. Schrödinger’s question was about where the quantum ends and the classical world begins. In other words, where’s the Heisenberg cut?

  

  If we make the cut at the Geiger counter, the cat would be a classical object and thus either dead or alive, not both. However, Bohr, Heisenberg, and von Neumann had shown that the cut was mobile. If we moved it to the human observer opening the box, the cat itself would become part of the system’s overall wavefunction — and Schrödinger had contended that treating a living organism as a probability wave was ridiculous. He used the cat to argue that there must be something missing in the theory, some hidden variables or physical reality, that would determine the state of the cat before an observer looks at it.

  For Schrödinger, the cat proved that the Copenhagen interpretation’s refusal to define objective reality between measurements was a philosophical failure. It showed that while the cut could work mathematically, as von Neumann had proved, it led to macroscopic impossibilities in the physical domain.

  The Copenhagen interpretation in turn didn’t surmount Schrödinger’s critique by answering the riddle but by dismissing Schrödinger’s question as unscientific. Bohr argued that Schrödinger was ‘illegally’ extending quantum concepts beyond the point where a classical description would be required. In his view a Geiger counter is a macroscopic measuring device so the cut between the quantum and classical worlds would occur the moment the particle interacts with the Geiger counter. And by the time the signal reaches the hammer, let alone the cat, the quantum description would already have yielded a definite outcome at the measuring device, so the cat would never have had to be described as being in superposition.

  There was also a powerful sociological narrative at the time that painted Schrödinger and Albert Einstein as an ‘old guard’ that was too stuck in classical determinism to accept the radical new truths quantum mechanics was throwing up. By 1935, the Copenhagen interpretation was the dominant orthodoxy among the younger, more productive generation of physicists like Pauli and (to a lesser extent) Paul Dirac, who viewed the cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox not as genuine physical problems but as the confusion of men who couldn’t let go of the past. The proponents of the interpretation essentially declared that if the theory predicted the results of experiments correctly, then any philosophical discomfort about cats that were both dead and alive was the philosopher’s problem, not the physicist’s. And quantum mechanics perfectly predicted the results of experiments.

  Historical timing also played an important part in cementing the Copenhagen interpretation’s dominance. Shortly after Schrödinger published his paper, physics shifted dramatically from the philosophical debates of the 1920s to the pragmatic urgency of the 1930s and 1940s. The rise of fascism and World War II turned the focus of the community towards nuclear energy and The Bomb. In this environment, the “shut up and calculate” approach — a phrase coined later to describe this attitude — took over and physicists shelved questions about the reality of the cat as irrelevant metaphysics.

  The interpretation was also shielded by von Neumann’s mathematical authority. His 1932 book also claimed to show that ‘hidden variable’ theories, i.e. which would restore a specific reality to the cat independent of observation, were mathematically impossible. While Grete Hermann and John Bell later found this proof to be circular, for decades it served as a brick wall that convinced the physics community that there was literally no alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation.

  2026.01.31

• What on earth is a wavefunction?

  If you drop a pebble into a pond, ripples spread outward in gentle circles. We all know this sight, and it feels natural to call them waves. Now imagine being told that everything — from an electron to an atom to a speck of dust — can also behave like a wave, even though they are made of matter and not water or air. That is the bold claim of quantum mechanics. The waves in this case are not ripples in a material substance. Instead, they are mathematical entities known as wavefunctions.

  At first, this sounds like nothing more than fancy maths. But the wavefunction is central to how the quantum world works. It carries the information that tells us where a particle might be found, what momentum it might have, and how it might interact. In place of neat certainties, the quantum world offers a blur of possibilities. The wavefunction is the map of that blur. The peculiar thing is, experiments show that this ‘blur’ behaves as though it is real. Electrons fired through two slits make interference patterns as though each one went through both slits at once. Molecules too large to see under a microscope can act the same way, spreading out in space like waves until they are detected.

  So what exactly is a wavefunction, and how should we think about it? That question has haunted physicists since the early 20th century and it remains unsettled to this day.

  In classical life, you can say with confidence, “The cricket ball is here, moving at this speed.” If you can’t measure it, that’s your problem, not nature’s. In quantum mechanics, it is not so simple. Until a measurement is made, a particle does not have a definite position in the classical sense. Instead, the wavefunction stretches out and describes a range of possibilities. If the wavefunction is sharply peaked, the particle is most likely near a particular spot. If it is wide, the particle is spread out. Squaring the wavefunction’s magnitude gives the probability distribution you would see in many repeated experiments.

  If this sounds abstract, remember that the predictions are tangible. Interference patterns, tunnelling, superpositions, entanglement — all of these quantum phenomena flow from the properties of the wavefunction. It is the script that the universe seems to follow at its smallest scales.

  To make sense of this, many physicists use analogies. Some compare the wavefunction to a musical chord. A chord is not just one note but several at once. When you play it, the sound is rich and full. Similarly, a particle’s wavefunction contains many possible positions (or momenta) simultaneously. Only when you press down with measurement do you “pick out” a single note from the chord.

  Others have compared it to a weather forecast. Meteorologists don’t say, “It will rain here at exactly 3:07 pm.” They say, “There’s a 60% chance of showers in this region.” The wavefunction is like nature’s own forecast, except it is more fundamental: it is not our ignorance that makes it probabilistic, but the way the universe itself behaves.

  Mathematically, the wavefunction is found by solving the Schrödinger equation, which is a central law of quantum physics. This equation describes how the wavefunction changes in time. It is to quantum mechanics what Newton’s second law (F = ma) is to classical mechanics. But unlike Newton’s law, which predicts a single trajectory, the Schrödinger equation predicts the evolving shape of probabilities. For example, it can show how a sharply localised wavefunction naturally spreads over time, just like a drop of ink disperses in water. The difference is that the spreading is not caused by random mixing but by the fundamental rules of the quantum world.

  But does that mean the wavefunction is real, like a water wave you can touch, or is it just a clever mathematical fiction?

  There are two broad camps. One camp, sometimes called the instrumentalists, argues the wavefunction is only a tool for making predictions. In this view, nothing actually waves in space. The particle is simply somewhere, and the wavefunction is our best way to calculate the odds of finding it. When we measure, we discover the position, and the wavefunction ‘collapses’ because our information has been updated, not because the world itself has changed.

  The other camp, the realists, argues that the wavefunction is as real as any energy field. If the mathematics says a particle is spread out across two slits, then until you measure it, the particle really is spread out, occupying both paths in a superposed state. Measurement then forces the possibilities into a single outcome, but before that moment, the wavefunction’s broad reach isn’t just bookkeeping: it’s physical.

  This isn’t an idle philosophical spat. It has consequences for how we interpret famous paradoxes like Schrödinger’s cat — supposedly “alive and dead at once until observed” — and for how we understand the limits of quantum mechanics itself. If the wavefunction is real, then perhaps macroscopic objects like cats, tables or even ourselves can exist in superpositions in the right conditions. If it is not real, then quantum mechanics is only a calculating device, and the world remains classical at larger scales.

  The ability of a wavefunction to remain spread out is tied to what physicists call coherence. A coherent state is one where the different parts of the wavefunction stay in step with each other, like musicians in an orchestra keeping perfect time. If even a few instruments go off-beat, the harmony collapses into noise. In the same way, when coherence is lost, the wavefunction’s delicate correlations vanish.

  Physicists measure this ‘togetherness’ with a parameter called the coherence length. You can think of it as the distance over which the wavefunction’s rhythm remains intact. A laser pointer offers a good everyday example: its light is coherent, so the waves line up across long distances, allowing a sharp red dot to appear even all the way across a lecture hall. By contrast, the light from a torch is incoherent: the waves quickly fall out of step, producing only a fuzzy glow. In the quantum world, a longer coherence length means the particle’s wavefunction can stay spread out and in tune across a larger stretch of space, making the object more thoroughly delocalised.

  However, coherence is fragile. The world outside — the air, the light, the random hustle of molecules — constantly disturbs the system. Each poke causes the system to ‘leak’ information, collapsing the wavefunction’s delicate superposition. This process is called decoherence, and it explains why we don’t see cats or chairs spread out in superpositions in daily life. The environment ‘measures’ them constantly, destroying their quantum fuzziness.

  One frontier of modern physics is to see how far coherence can be pushed before decoherence wins. For electrons and atoms, the answer is “very far”. Physicists have found their wavefunctions can stretch across micrometres or more. They have also demonstrated coherence with molecules with thousands of atoms, but keeping them coherent has been much more difficult. For larger solid objects, it’s harder still.

  Physicists often talk about expanding a wavefunction. What they mean is deliberately increasing the spatial extent of the quantum state, making the fuzziness spread wider, while still keeping it coherent. Imagine a violin string: if it vibrates softly, the motion is narrow; if it vibrates with larger amplitude, it spreads. In quantum mechanics, expansion is more subtle but the analogy holds: you want the wavefunction to cover more ground not through noise or randomness but through genuine quantum uncertainty.

  Another way to picture it is as a drop of ink released into clear water. At first, the drop is tight and dark. Over time, it spreads outward, thinning and covering more space. Expanding a quantum wavefunction is like speeding up this spreading process, but with a twist: the cloud must remain coherent. The ink can’t become blotchy or disturbed by outside currents. Instead, it must preserve its smooth, wave-like character, where all parts of the spread remain correlated.

  How can this be done? One way is to relax the trap that’s being used to hold the particle in place. In physics, the trap is described by a potential, which is just a way of talking about how strong the forces are that pull the particle back towards the centre. Imagine a ball sitting in a bowl. The shape of the bowl represents the potential. A deep, steep bowl means strong restoring forces, which prevent the ball from moving around. A shallow bowl means the forces are weaker. That is, if you suddenly make the bowl shallower, the ball is less tightly confined and can explore more space. In the quantum picture, reducing the stiffness of the potential is like flattening the bowl, which allows the wavefunction to swell outward. If you later return the bowl to its steep form, you can catch the now-broader state and measure its properties.

  The challenge is to do this fast and cleanly, before decoherence destroys the quantum character. And you must measure in ways that reveal quantum behaviour rather than just classical blur.

  This brings us to an experiment reported on August 19 in Physical Review Letters, conducted by researchers at ETH Zürich and their collaborators. It seems the researchers have achieved something unprecedented: they prepared a small silica sphere, only about 100 nm across, in a nearly pure quantum state and then expanded its wavefunction beyond the natural zero-point limit. This means they coherently stretched the particle’s quantum fuzziness farther than the smallest quantum wiggle that nature usually allows, while still keeping the state coherent.

  To appreciate why this matters, let’s consider the numbers. The zero-point motion of their nanoparticle — the smallest possible movement even at absolute zero — is about 17 picometres (one picometre is a trillionth of a meter). Before expansion, the coherence length was about 21 pm. After the expansion protocol, it reached roughly 73 pm, more than tripling the initial reach and surpassing the ground-state value. For something as massive as a nanoparticle, this is a big step.

  The team began by levitating a silica nanoparticle in an optical tweezer, created by a tightly focused laser beam. The particle floated in an ultra-high vacuum at a temperature of just 7 K (-266º C). These conditions reduced outside disturbances to almost nothing.

  Next, they cooled the particle’s motion close to its ground state using feedback control. By monitoring its position and applying gentle electrical forces through the surrounding electrodes, they damped its jostling until only a fraction of a quantum of motion remained. At this point, the particle was quiet enough for quantum effects to dominate.

  The core step was the two-pulse expansion protocol. First, the researchers switched off the cooling and briefly lowered the trap’s stiffness by reducing the laser power. This allowed the wavefunction to spread. Then, after a carefully timed delay, they applied a second softening pulse. This sequence cancelled out unwanted drifts caused by stray forces while letting the wavefunction expand even further.

  Finally, they restored the trap to full strength and measured the particle’s motion by studying how they scattered light. Repeating this process hundreds of times gave them a statistical view of the expanded state.

  The results showed that the nanoparticle’s wavefunction expanded far beyond its zero-point motion while still remaining coherent. The coherence length grew more than threefold, reaching 73 ± 34 pm. Per the team, this wasn’t just noisy spread but genuine quantum delocalisation.

  More strikingly, the momentum of the nanoparticle had become ‘squeezed’ below its zero-point value. In other words, while uncertainty over the particle’s position increased, that over its momentum decreased, in keeping with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This kind of squeezed state is useful because it’s especially sensitive to feeble external forces.

  The data matched theoretical models that considered photon recoil to be the main source of decoherence. Each scattered photon gave the nanoparticle a small kick, and this set a fundamental limit. The experiment confirmed that photon recoil was indeed the bottleneck, not hidden technical noise. The researchers have suggested using dark traps in future — trapping methods that use less light, such as radio-frequency fields — to reduce this recoil. With such tools, the coherence lengths can potentially be expanded to scales comparable to the particle’s size. Imagine a nanoparticle existing in a state that spans its own diameter. That would be a true macroscopic quantum object.

  This new study pushes quantum mechanics into a new regime. Thus far, large, solid objects like nanoparticles could be cooled and controlled, but their coherence lengths stayed pinned near the zero-point level. Here, the researchers were able to deliberately increase the coherence length beyond that limit, and in doing so showed that quantum fuzziness can be engineered, not just preserved.

  The implications are broad. On the practical side, delocalised nanoparticles could become extremely sensitive force sensors, able to detect faint electric or gravitational forces. On the fundamental side, the ability to hold large objects in coherent, expanded states is a step towards probing whether gravity itself has quantum features. Several theoretical proposals suggest that if two massive objects in superposition can become entangled through their mutual gravity, it would prove gravity must be quantum. To reach that stage, experiments must first learn to create and control delocalised states like this one.

  The possibilities for sensing in particular are exciting. Imagine a nanoparticle prepared in a squeezed, delocalised state being used to detect the tug of an unseen mass nearby or to measure an electric field too weak for ordinary instruments. Some physicists have speculated that such systems could help search for exotic particles such as certain dark matter candidates, which might nudge the nanoparticle ever so slightly. The extreme sensitivity arises because a delocalised quantum object is like a feather balanced on a pin: the tiniest push shifts it in measurable ways.

  There are also parallels with past breakthroughs. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatories, which detect gravitational waves, rely on manipulating quantum noise in light to reach unprecedented sensitivity. The ETH Zürich experiment has extended the same philosophy into the mechanical world of nanoparticles. Both cases show that pushing deeper into quantum control could yield technologies that were once unimaginable.

  But beyond the technologies also lies a more interesting philosophical edge. The experiment strengthens the case that the wavefunction behaves like something real. If it were only an abstract formula, could we stretch it, squeeze it, and measure the changes in line with theory? The fact that researchers can engineer the wavefunction of a many-atom object and watch it respond like a physical entity tilts the balance towards reality. At the least, it shows that the wavefunction is not just a mathematical ghost. It’s a structure that researchers can shape with lasers and measure with detectors.

  There are also of course the broader human questions. If nature at its core is described not by certainties but by probabilities, then philosophers must rethink determinism, the idea that everything is fixed in advance. Our everyday world looks predictable only because decoherence hides the fuzziness. But under carefully controlled conditions, that fuzziness comes back into view. Experiments like this remind us that the universe is stranger, and more flexible, than classical common sense would suggest.

  The experiment also reminds us that the line between the quantum and classical worlds is not a brick wall but a veil — thin, fragile, and possibly removable in the right conditions. And each time we lift it a little further, we don’t just see strange behaviour: we also glimpse sensors more sensitive than ever, tests of gravity’s quantum nature, and perhaps someday, direct encounters with macroscopic superpositions that will force us to rewrite what we mean by reality.

  2025.08.23

• The Kapitza pendulum

  Rarely does a ‘problem’ come along that makes you think more than casually about the question of mathematics’s reality, and problems in mathematical physics are full of them. I came across one such problem for the first time yesterday, and given its simplicity, thought I should make note of it.

  I spotted a paper yesterday with the title ‘The Inverted Pendulum as a Classical Analog of the EFT Paradigm’. I’ve never understood the contents of such papers without assistance from a physicist, but I like to go through them in case a familiar idea or name jumps up that warrants a more thorough follow-up or I do understand something and that helps me understand something else even better.

  In this instance, the latter happened, and I discovered the Kapitza pendulum. In 1908, a British mathematician named Andrew Stephenson described the problem but wasn’t able to explain it. That happened at the hands of the Russian scientist Pyotr Kapitsa, for whom the pendulum is named, who worked it out in the 1950s.

  You are familiar with the conventional pendulum:

  

  Here, the swinging bob is completely stable when it is suspended directly below the pivot, and is unmoving. The Kapitza pendulum is a conventional pendulum whose pivot is rapidly moved up and down. This gives rise to an unusual stable state: when the bob is directly above the pivot! Here’s a demonstration:

  As you can see, the stable state isn’t a perfect one: the bob still vibrates on either side of a point above the pivot, yet it doesn’t move beyond a particular distance, much less drop downward under the force of gravity. If you push the bob just a little, it swings across a greater distance for some time before returning to the narrow range. How does this behaviour arise?

  I’m fascinated by the question of the character of mathematics because of its ability to make predictions about reality – to build a bridge between something that we know to be physically true (like how a conventional pendulum would swing when dropped from a certain height, etc.) and something that we don’t, at least not yet.

  If this sounds wrong, please make sure you’re thinking of the very first instantiation of some system whose behaviour is defying your expectations, like the very first Kapitza pendulum. How do you know what you’re looking at isn’t due to a flaw in the system or some other confounding factor? A Kapitza pendulum is relatively simple to build, so one way out of this question is to build multiple units and check if the same behaviour exists in all of them. If you can be reasonably certain that the same flaw is unlikely to manifest in all of them, you’ll know that you’re observing an implicit, but non-intuitive, property of the system.

  But in some cases, building multiple units isn’t an option – such as a particle-smasher like the Large Hadron Collider or the observation of a gravitational wave from outer space. Instead, researchers use mathematics to check the likelihood of alternate possibilities and to explain something new in terms of something we already know.

  Many theoretical physicists have even articulated that while string theory lacks experimental proof, it has as many exponents as it does because of its mathematical robustness and the deep connections they have found between its precepts and other, distant branches of physics.

  In the case of the Kapitza pendulum, based on Newton’s laws and the principles of simple harmonic motion, it is possible to elucidate the rules, or equations, that govern the motion of the bob under the influence of its mass, the length of the rod connecting the bob to the pivot, the angle between the line straight up from the pivot and the rod (θ), acceleration due to gravity, the length of the pivot’s up-down motion, and how fast this motion happens (i.e. its frequency).

  From this, we can derive an equation that relates θ to the distance of the up-down motion, the frequency, and the length of the rod. Finally, plotting this equation on a graph, with θ on one axis and time on the other, and keeping the values of the other variables fixed, we have our answer:

  

  When the value of θ is 0º, the bob is pointing straight up. When θ = 90º, the bob is pointing sideways and continues to fall down, to become a conventional pendulum, under the influence of gravity. But when the frequency is increased from 10 arbitrary units in this case to 200 units, the setup becomes a Kapitza pendulum as the value of θ keeps shifting but only between 6º on one side and some 3º on the other.

  The thing I’m curious about here is whether mathematics is purely descriptive or if it’s real in the way a book, a chair or a planet is real. Either way, this ‘problem’ should remind us of the place and importance of mathematics in modern life – by virtue of the fact that it opens paths to understanding, and then building on, parts of reality that experiences based on our senses alone can’t access.

  Featured image: A portrait of Pyotr Kapitsa (left) in conversation with the chemist Nikolai Semyonov, by Boris Kustodiev, 1921. Credit: Kapitsa Collection, public domain.

  2023.09.01

• The molecule that was also a wave

  According to the principles of quantum mechanics, you’re a wave – just like light is both a particle and a wave. It’s just that your wavelength is so small that your wave nature doesn’t matter, and you’re treated like a particle. The larger an object is, the smaller its wavelength, and vice versa. We’re confused about whether light is a particle or a wave because photons, the particles of light, are so small and have a measurable wavelength as a result. Scientists know that electrons, protons, neutrons, even neutrinos have the properties of a wave.

  But while the math of quantum mechanics says you’re a wave, how can we know for sure if we can’t measure it? There are two ways. One, we don’t have any evidence to the contrary. Two, scientists have been checking if larger and larger particles, as far as they can go, exhibit the properties of a wave – and at every step of the way, they’ve come up with positive results. Both together, we have no reason to believe that we’re not also waves.

  Such tests reaffirm the need for quantum mechanics to understand the nature of reality because the rules of classical mechanics alone don’t explain wave-particle duality.

  On September 23, scientists from Austria, China, Germany and Switzerland reported that they had measured the wavelength of a group of molecules called oligoporphyrins. Specifically, they used “oligo-tetraphenylporphyrins enriched by a library of up to 60 fluoroalkylsulphanyl chains”. Altogether, they consisted “of up to 2,000 atoms”, becoming the heaviest object directly known to exhibit wave-like properties.

  

  According to the scientists’ peer-reviewed paper, the molecules had a wavelength of around 53 femtometers, about 100,000-times smaller than the molecules themselves.

  * * *

  We have known since at least the 11th century, through the work of the Arab scholar Ibn al-Haytham, that light is a wave. In 1670, Isaac Newton propounded that light is made up of small particles, and spent three decades supplying evidence for his argument. His push birthed a conflict: was light wave-like or made up of particles?

  The British polymath Thomas Young built on the 17th century Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens to devise an experiment in 1801 that definitively proved light was a wave. It is known widely today as the Young’s double-slit experiment. It is so simple even as its outcomes are so immutable that it has become a mainstay of modern tests of quantum mechanics. Physicists use upgraded versions of the experiment to this day to study the nature and properties matter-waves.

  (If you would like to know more, I highly recommend Anil Ananthaswamy’s biography of this experiment, Through Two Doors At Once; here’s an excerpt.)

  In the experiment, light from a common source – such as a candle – is allowed to pass through two fine slits separated by a short distance. A sheet of paper sufficiently behind the slits then shows a strange pattern of alternating light and dark bands instead of just two patches of light. This is because light waves passing through the two slits interfere with each other, producing the famous interference pattern. Since only waves can interfere, the experiment shows that light has to be a wave.

  

  The particulate nature of light would get its proper due only in 1900, when Max Planck stumbled upon a mathematical inconsistency that forced him to conclude light had to be made up of smaller packets of energy. It was the birth of quantum mechanics.

  * * *

  The international group’s test went roughly as follows: the scientists pulsed a laser onto a glass plate coated with the oligoporphyrins to release a stream of the molecules; collected them into a beam using collimators; randomly chopped the beam into smaller bits; passed each bit through diffraction gratings to split it up; then had the two little beams interfere with each other. Finally, they counted the number of molecules striking the detector while the detector registered the interference pattern.

  They had insulated the whole device, about 2m long, from extremely small disturbances, like vibrations, to prevent the results from being corrupted. In their paper, the scientists even write that the final interference pattern was blurred thanks to Earth’s rotation, and which they were able to “compensate for” using effects due to Earth’s gravity.

  

  To ascertain that the pattern they were seeing on the detector was in fact due to interference, the scientists performed a variety of checks each of which established a relationship between the shapes on the detector with the properties of the components of the interferometer according to the rules of quantum mechanics. They were also able to rule out alternative, i.e. classical, explanations this way.

  For example, the scientists fired a laser through the cloud of molecules post-interference. Each molecule split the laser light into two separate beams, which recombined to produce an interference pattern of their own. This way, scientists could elicit the molecules’ interference pattern by studying the laser’s interference pattern. As they varied the laser power, they found that the visibility distribution of the molecules more closely matched with quantum mechanical models than with classical models, confirming interference.

  

  What these scientists have achieved isn’t only a feat of measurement. Their findings also help refine the border between the classical and the quantum. The force of gravity governs the laws of classical mechanics, which deals with macroscopic objects, while the electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces rule the microscopic world. Although macroscopic and microscopic objects occupy the same universe, physicists haven’t yet understood how classical and quantum mechanics can be combined into a single theory.

  One of the problems standing in the way of this union is knowing where – and how – the macroscopic world ends and the microscopic world begins. So by observing quantum mechanical effects at the scale of thousands of atoms, scientists have quite literally pushed the boundaries of what we know about how the universe works.

  2019.12.12

• The calculus of creative discipline

  Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over world-building. World-building is dull. World-building literalises the urge to invent. World-building gives an unnecessary permission for acts of writing (indeed, for acts of reading). World-building numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain, because it believes that it has to do everything around here if anything is going to get done. Above all, world-building is not technically necessary. It is the great clomping foot of nerdism.

  Once I’m awake and have had my mug of tea, and once I’m done checking Twitter, I can quote these words of M. John Harrison from memory: not because they’re true – I don’t believe they are – but because they rankle. I haven’t read any writing of Harrison’s, I can’t remember the names of any of his books. Sometimes I don’t remember his name even, only that there was this man who uttered these words. Perhaps it is to Harrison’s credit that he’s clearly touched a nerve but I’m reluctant to concede anymore than this.

  His (partial) quote reflects a narrow view of a wider world, and it bothers me because I remain unable to extend the conviction that he’s seeing only a part of the picture to the conclusion that he lacks imagination; as a writer of not inconsiderable repute, at least according to Wikipedia, I doubt he has any trouble imagining things.

  I’ve written about the virtues of world-building before (notably here), and I intend to make another attempt in this post; I should mention what both attempts, both defences, have in common is that they’re not prescriptive. They’re not recommendations to others, they’re non-generalisable. They’re my personal reasons to champion the act, even art, of world-building; my specific loci of resistance to Harrison’s contention. But at the same time, I don’t view them – and neither should you – as inviolable or as immune to criticism, although I suspect this display of a willingness to reason may not go far in terms of eliminating subjective positions from this exercise, so make of it what you will.

  There’s an idea in mathematical analysis called smoothness. Let’s say you’ve got a curve drawn on a graph, between the x- and y-axes, shaped like the letter ‘S’. Let’s say you’ve got another curve drawn on a second graph, shaped like the letter ‘Z’. According to one definition, the S-curve is smoother than the Z-curve because it has fewer sharp edges. A diligent high-schooler might take recourse through differential calculus to explain the idea. Say the Z-curve on the graph is the result of a function Z(x) = y. If you differentiate Z(x) where ‘x’ is the point on the x-axis where the Z-curve makes a sharp turn, the derivative Z'(x) has a value of zero. Such points are called critical points. The S-curve doesn’t have any critical points (except at the ends, but let’s ignore them); L-, and T-curves have one critical point each; P- and D-curves have two critical points each; and an E-curve has three critical points.

  With the help of a loose analogy, you could say a well-written story is smooth à la an S-curve (excluding the terminal points): it it has an unambiguous beginning and an ending, and it flows smoothly in between the two. While I admire Steven Erikson’s Malazan Book of the Fallen series for many reasons, its first instalment is like a T-curve, where three broad plot-lines abruptly end at a point in the climax that the reader has been given no reason to expect. The curves of the first three books of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series resemble the tangent function (from trigonometry: tan(x) = sin(x)/cosine(x)): they’re individually somewhat self-consistent but the reader is resigned to the hope that their beginnings and endings must be connected at infinity.

  

  You could even say Donald Trump’s presidency hasn’t been smooth at all because there have been so many critical points.

  Where world-building “literalises the urge to invent” to Harrison, it spatialises the narrative to me, and automatically spotlights the importance of the narrative smoothness it harbours. World-building can be just as susceptible to non-sequiturs and deus ex machinae as writing itself, all the way to the hubris Harrison noticed, of assuming it gives the reader anything to do, even enjoy themselves. Where he sees the “clomping foot of nerdism”, I see critical points in a curve some clumsy world-builder invented as they went along. World-building can be “dull” – or it can choose to reveal the hand-prints of a cave-dwelling people preserved for thousands of years, and the now-dry channels of once-heaving rivers that nurtured an ancient civilisation.

  HiRISE Epigrammata
  
  “The world is like the impression left by the telling of a story.”
  
  Yoga Vasistha pic.twitter.com/ic5sazW5XQ

  — HiRISE: Beautiful Mars (@HiRISE) October 27, 2019

  My principal objection to Harrison’s view is directed at the false dichotomy of writing and world-building, and which he seems to want to impose instead of the more fundamental and more consequential need for creative discipline. Let me borrow here from philosophy of science 101, specifically of the particular importance of contending with contradictory experimental results. You’ve probably heard of the replication crisis: when researchers tried to reproduce the results of older psychology studies, their efforts came a cropper. Many – if not most – studies didn’t replicate, and scientists are currently grappling with the consequences of overturning decades’ worth of research and research practices.

  This is on the face of it an important reality check but to a philosopher with a deeper view of the history of science, the replication crisis also recalls the different ways in which the practitioners of science have responded to evidence their theories aren’t prepared to accommodate. The stories of Niels Bohr v. classical mechanics, Dan Shechtman v. Linus Pauling and the EPR paradox come first to mind. Heck, the philosophers Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend are known for their criticisms of each other’s ideas on different ways to rationalise the transition from one moment containing multiple answers to the moment where one emerges as the favourite.

  In much the same way, the disciplined writer should challenge themself instead of presuming the liberty to totter over the landscape of possibilities, zig-zagging between one critical point and the next until they topple over the edge. And if they can’t, they should – like the practitioners of good science – ask for help from others, pressing the conflict between competing results into the service of scouring the rust away to expose the metal.

  For example, since June this year, I’ve been participating on my friend Thomas Manuel’s initiative in his effort to compose an underwater ‘monsters’ manual’. It’s effectively a collaborative world-building exercise where we take turns to populate different parts of a large planet with sizeable oceans, seas, lakes and numerous rivers with creatures, habitats and ecosystems. We broadly follow the same laws of physics and harbour substantially overlapping views of magic, but we enjoy the things we invent because they’re forced through the grinding wheels of each other’s doubts and curiosities, and the implicit expectation of one creator to make adequate room for the creations of the other.

  I see it as the intersection of two functions: at first, their curves will criss-cross at a point, and the writers must then fashion a blending curve so a particle moving along one can switch to the other without any abruptness, without any of the tired melodrama often used to mask criticality. So the Kularu people are reminded by their oral traditions to fight for their rivers, so the archaeologists see through the invading Gezmin’s benevolence and into the heart of their imperialist ambitions.

  2019.10.27

• Scientists make video of molecule rotating

  A research group in Germany has captured images of what a rotating molecule looks like. This is a significant feat because it is very difficult to observe individual atoms and molecules, which are very small as well as very fragile. Scientists often have to employ ingenious techniques that can probe their small scale but without destroying them in the act of doing so.

  The researchers studied carbonyl sulphide (OCS) molecules, which has a cylindrical shape. To perform their feat, they went through three steps. First, the researchers precisely calibrated two laser pulses and fired them repeatedly – ~26.3 billion times per second – at the molecules to set them spinning.

  Next, they shot a third laser at the molecules. The purpose of this laser was to excite the valence electrons forming the chemical bonds between the O, C and S atoms. These electrons absorb energy from the laser’s photons, become excited and quit the bonds. This leaves the positively charged atoms close to each other. Since like charges repel, the atoms vigorously push themselves apart and break the molecule up. This process is called a Coulomb explosion.

  At the moment of disintegration, an instrument called a velocity map imaging (VMI) spectrometer records the orientation and direction of motion of the oxygen atom’s positive charge in space. Scientists can work backwards from this reading to determine how the molecule might have been oriented just before it broke up.

  In the third step, the researchers restart the experiment with another set of OCS molecules.

  By going through these steps repeatedly, they were able to capture 651 photos of the OCS molecule in different stages of its rotation.

  These images cannot be interpreted in a straightforward way – the way we interpret images of, say, a rotating ball.

  

  This is because a ball, even though it is composed of millions of molecules, has enough mass for the force of gravity to dominate proceedings. So scientists can understand why a ball rotates the way it does using just the laws of classical mechanics.

  But at the level of individual atoms and molecules, gravity becomes negligibly weak whereas the other three fundamental forces – including the electromagnetic force – become more prominent. To understand the interactions between these forces and the particles, scientists use the rules of quantum mechanics.

  This is why the images of the rotating molecules look like this:

  

  These are images of the OCS molecule as deduced by the VMI spectrometer. Based on them, the researchers were also able to determine how long the molecule took to make one full rotation.

  As a spinning ball drifts around on the floor, we can tell exactly where it is and how fast it is spinning. However, when studying particles, quantum mechanics prohibits observers from knowing these two things with the same precision at the same time. You probably know this better as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

  So if you have a fix on where the molecule is, that measurement prohibits you from knowing exactly how fast it is spinning. Confronted with this dilemma, scientists used the data obtained by the VMI spectrometer together with the rules of quantum mechanics to calculate the probability that the molecule’s O, C and S atoms were arranged a certain way at a given point of time.

  The images above visualise these probabilities as a colour-coded map. With the position of the central atom (presumably C) fixed, the probability of finding the other two atoms at a certain position is represented on a blue-red scale. The redder a pixel is, the higher the probability of finding an atom there.

  

  For example, consider the images at 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock: the OCS molecule is clearly oriented horizontally and vertically, resp. Compare this to the measurement corresponding to the image at 9 o’clock: the molecule appears to exist in two configurations at the same time. This is because, approximately speaking, there is a 50% probability that it is oriented from bottom-left to top-right and a 50% probability that it is oriented from bottom-right to top-left. The 10 o’clock figure represents the probabilities split four different ways. The ones at 4 o’clock and 8 o’clock are even more messy.

  But despite the messiness, the researchers found that the image corresponding to 12 o’clock repeated itself once every 82 picoseconds. Ergo, the molecule completed one rotation every 82 picoseconds.

  This is equal to 731.7 billion rpm. If your car’s engine operated this fast, the resulting centrifugal force, together with the force of gravity, would tear its mechanical joints apart and destroy the machine. The OCS molecule doesn’t come apart this way because gravity is 100 million trillion trillion times weaker than the weakest of the three subatomic forces.

  The researchers’ study was published in the journal Nature Communications on July 29, 2019.

  2019.08.08

• Bohr and the breakaway from classical mechanics

  

  One hundred years ago, Niels Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom, where electrons go around a nucleus at the centre like planets in the Solar System. The model and its implications brought a lot of clarity to the field of physics at a time when physicists didn’t know what was inside an atom, and how that influenced the things around it. For his work, Bohr was awarded the physics Nobel Prize in 1922.

  The Bohr model marked a transition from the world of Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics, where gravity was the dominant force and values like mass and velocity were accurately measurable, to that of quantum mechanics, where objects were too small to be seen even with powerful instruments and their exact position didn’t matter.

  Even though modern quantum mechanics is still under development, its origins can be traced to humanity’s first thinking of energy as being quantised and not randomly strewn about in nature, and the Bohr model was an important part of this thinking.

  The Bohr model

  According to the Dane, electrons orbiting the nucleus at different distances were at different energies, and an electron inside an atom – any atom – could only have specific energies. Thus, electrons could ascend or descend through these orbits by gaining or losing a certain quantum of energy, respectively. By allowing for such transitions, the model acknowledged a more discrete energy conservation policy in physics, and used it to explain many aspects of chemistry and chemical reactions.

  Unfortunately, this model couldn’t evolve continuously to become its modern equivalent because it could properly explain only the hydrogen atom, and it couldn’t account for the Zeeman effect.

  What is the Zeeman effect? When an electron jumps from a higher to a lower energy-level, it loses some energy. This can be charted using a “map” of energies like the electromagnetic spectrum, showing if the energy has been lost as infrared, UV, visible, radio, etc., radiation. In 1896, Dutch physicist Pieter Zeeman found that this map could be distorted when the energy was emitted in the presence of a magnetic field, leading to the effect named after him.

  It was only in 1925 that the cause of this behaviour was found (by Wolfgang Pauli, George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit), attributed to a property of electrons called spin.

  The Bohr model couldn’t explain spin or its effects. It wasn’t discarded for this shortcoming, however, because it had succeeded in explaining a lot more, such as the emission of light in lasers, an application developed on the basis of Bohr’s theories and still in use today.

  The model was also important for being a tangible breakaway from the principles of classical mechanics, which were useless at explaining quantum mechanical effects in atoms. Physicists recognised this and insisted on building on what they had.

  A way ahead

  To this end, a German named Arnold Sommerfeld provided a generalisation of Bohr’s model – a correction – to let it explain the Zeeman effect in ionized helium (which is a hydrogen atom with one proton and one neutron more).

  In 1924, Louis de Broglie introduced particle-wave duality into quantum mechanics, invoking that matter at its simplest could be both particulate and wave-like. As such, he was able to verify Bohr’s model mathematically from a waves’ perspective. Before him, in 1905, Albert Einstein had postulated the existence of light-particles called photons but couldn’t explain how they could be related to heat waves emanating from a gas, a problem he solved using de Broglie’s logic.

  All these developments reinforced the apparent validity of Bohr’s model. Simultaneously, new discoveries were emerging that continuously challenged its authority (and classical mechanics’, too): molecular rotation, ground-state energy, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bose-Einstein statistics, etc. One option was to fall back to classical mechanics and rework quantum theory thereon. Another was to keep moving ahead in search of a solution.

  However, this decision didn’t have to be taken because the field of physics itself had started to move ahead in different ways, ways which would become ultimately unified.

  Leaps of faith

  Between 1900 and 1925, there were a handful of people responsible for opening this floodgate to tide over the centuries old Newtonian laws. Perhaps the last among them was Niels Bohr; the first was Max Planck, who originated quantum theory when he was working on making light bulbs glow brighter. He found that the smallest bits of energy to be found in nature weren’t random, but actually came in specific amounts that he called quanta.

  It is notable that when either of these men began working on their respective contributions to quantum mechanics, they took a leap of faith that couldn’t be spanned by purely scientific reasoning, as is the dominant process today, but by faith in philosophical reasoning and, simply, hope.

  For example, Planck wasn’t fond of a class of mechanics he used to establish quantum mechanics. When asked about it, he said it was an “act of despair”, that he was “ready to sacrifice any of [his] previous convictions about physics”. Bohr, on the other hand, had relied on the intuitive philosophy of correspondence to conceive of his model. In fact, only a few years after he had received his Nobel in 1922, Bohr had begun to deviate from his most eminent finding because it disagreed with what he thought were more important, and to be preserved, foundational ideas.

  It was also through this philosophy of correspondence that the many theories were able to be unified over the course of time. According to it, a new theory should replicate the results of an older, well-established one in the domain where it worked.

  Coming a full circle

  Since humankind’s investigation into the nature of physics has proceeded from the large to the small, new attempts to investigate from the small to the large were likely to run into old theories. And when multiple new quantum theories were found to replicate the results of one classical theory, they could be translated between each other by corresponding through the old theory (thus the name).

  Because the Bohr model could successfully explain how and why energy was emitted by electrons jumping orbits in the hydrogen atom, it had a domain of applicability. So, it couldn’t be entirely wrong and would have to correspond in some way with another, possibly more succesful, theory.

  Earlier, in 1924, de Broglie’s formulation was suffering from its own inability to explain certain wave-like phenomena in particulate matter. Then, in 1926, Erwin Schrodinger built on it and, like Sommerfeld did with Bohr’s ideas, generalised them so that they could apply in experimental quantum mechanics. The end result was the famous Schrodinger’s equation.

  The Sommerfeld-Bohr theory corresponds with the equation, and this is where it comes “full circle”. After the equation became well known, the Bohr model was finally understood as being a semi-classical approximation of the Schrodinger equation. In other words, the model represented some of the simplest corrections to be made to classical mechanics for it to become quantum in any way.

  An ingenious span

  After this, the Bohr model was, rather became, a fully integrable part of the foundational ancestry of modern quantum mechanics. While its significance in the field today is great yet still one of many like it, by itself it had a special place in history: a bridge, between the older classical thinking and the newer quantum thinking.

  Even philosophically speaking, Niels Bohr and his path-breaking work were important because they planted the seeds of ingenuity in our minds, and led us to think outside of convention.

  2013.05.19

• Thinking quantum

  In quantum physics, every metric is conceived as a vector. But that’s where its relation with classical physics ends, makes teaching a pain.

  Teaching classical mechanics is easy because we engage with it every day in many ways. Enough successful visualization tools exist to do that.

  Just wondering why quantum mechanics has to be so hard. All I need is to find a smart way to make visualizing it easier.

  Analogizing quantum physics with classical physics creates more problems than it solves. More than anything, the practice creates a need to nip cognitive inconsistencies in the bud.

  If quantum mechanics is the way the world works at its most fundamental levels, why is it taught in continuation of classical physics?

  Is or isn’t it easier to teach mathematics and experiments relating to quantum mechanics and then present the classical scenario as an idealized, macroscopic state?

  After all, isn’t that the real physics of the times? We completely understand classical mechanics; we need more people who can “think quantum” today.

  2012.08.23

• The philosophies in physics

  As a big week for physics comes up–a July 4 update by CERN on the search for the Higgs boson followed by ICHEP ’12 at Melbourne–I feel really anxious as a small-time proto-journalist and particle-physics-enthusiast. If CERN announces the discovery of evidence that rules out the existence of such a thing as the Higgs particle, not much will be lost apart from years of theoretical groundwork set in place for the post-Higgs universe. Physicists obeying the Standard Model will, to think the snowclone, scramble to their boards and come up with another hypothesis that explains mass-formation in quantum-mechanical terms.

  For me… I don’t know what it means. Sure, I will have to unlearn the Higgs mechanism, which does make a lot of sense, and scour through the outpouring of scientific literature that will definitely follow to keep track of new directions and, more fascinatingly, new thought. The competing supertheories–loop quantum gravity (LQG) and string theory–will have to have their innards adjusted to make up for the change in the mechanism of mass-formation. Even then, their principle bone of contention will remain unchanged: whether there exists an absolute frame of reference. All this while, the universe, however, will have continued to witness the rise and fall of stars, galaxies and matter.

  

  It is easier to consider the non-existence of the Higgs boson than its proven existence: the post-Higgs world is dark, riddled with problems more complex and, unsurprisingly, more philosophical. The two theories that dominated the first half of the previous century, quantum mechanics and special relativity, will still have to be reconciled. While special relativity holds causality and locality close to its heart, quantum mechanics’ tendency to violate the latter made it disagreeable at the philosophical level to A. Einstein (in a humorous and ironical turn, his attempts to illustrate this “anomaly” numerically opened up the field that further made acceptable the implications of quantum mechanics).

  The theories’ impudent bickering continues with mathematical terms as well. While one prohibits travel at the speed of light, the other allows for the conclusive demonstration of superluminal communication. While one keeps all objects nailed to one place in space and time, the other allows for the occupation of multiple regions of space at a time. While one operates in a universe wherein gods don’t play with dice, the other can exist at all only if there are unseen powers that gamble on a secondly basis. If you ask me, I’d prefer one with no gods; I also have a strange feeling that that’s not a physics problem.

  Speaking of causality, physicists of the Standard Model believe that the four fundamental forces–nuclear, weak, gravitational, and electromagnetic–cause everything that happens in this universe. However, they are at a loss to explain why the weak force is 10³²-times stronger than the gravitational force (even the finding of the Higgs boson won’t fix this–assuming the boson exists). An attempt to explain this anomaly exists in the name of supersymmetry (SUSY) or, together with the Standard Model, MSSM. If an entity in the (hypothetical) likeness of the Higgs boson cannot exist, then MSSM will also fall with it.

  Taunting physicists everywhere all the way through this mesh of intense speculation, Werner Heisenberg’s tragic formulation remains indefatigable. In a universe in which the scale at which physics is born is only hypothetical, in which energy in its fundamental form is thought to be a result of probabilistic fluctuations in a quantum field, determinism plays a dominant role in determining the future as well as, in some ways, contradicting it. The quantum field, counter-intuitively, is antecedent to human intervention: Heisenberg postulated that physical quantities such as position and particle spin come in conjugate quantities, and that making a measurement of one quantity makes the other indeterminable. In other words, one cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle, or the spins of a particle around two different axes.

  To me, this seems like a problem of scale: humans are macroscopic in the sense that they can manipulate objects using the laws of classical mechanics and not the laws of quantum mechanics. However, a sense of scale is rendered incontextualizable when it is known that the dynamics of quantum mechanics affect the entire universe through a principle called the collapse postulate (i.e., collapse of the state vector): if I measure an observable physical property of a system that is in a particular state, I subject the entire system to collapse into a state that is described by the observable’s eigenstate. Even further, there exist many eigenstates for collapsing into; which eigenstate is “chosen” depends on its observation (this is an awfully close analogue to the anthropic principle).

  

  That reminds me. The greatest unsolved question in my opinion is whether the universe houses the brain or if the brain houses the universe. To be honest, I started writing this post without knowing how it would end: there were multiple eigenstates it could “collapse” into. That it would collapse into this particular one was unknown to me, too, and, in hindsight, there was no way I could have known about any aspect of its destiny. Having said that, the nature of the universe–and the brain/universe protogenesis problem–with the knowledge of deterministic causality and mensural antecedence, if the universe conceived the brain, the brain must inherit the characteristics of the universe, and therefore must not allow for freewill.

  Now, I’m faintly depressed. And yes, this eigenstate did exist in the possibility-space.

  2012.07.01