Defeating Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle 160
eldavojohn writes "As we strive closer and closer to quantum computing, physics may need to be improved. A paper released in Nature Physics suggests that the limit defined by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can be beaten with quantum memory. From the article, 'The cadre of scientists behind the current paper realized that, by using the process of entanglement, it would be possible to essentially use two particles to figure out the complete state of one. They might even be able to measure incompatible variables like position and momentum. The measurements might not be perfectly precise, but the process could allow them to beat the limit of the uncertainty principle.' Will we find out that Heisenberg was shortsighted in limiting the power of quantum physics or will the scientists be surprised to find that such a theoretical scenario — once conducted — performs unexpectedly in Heisenberg's favor?"
Someone assfuck the writer please (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people have to pitch stories like this as ego conflicts? If they get around the uncertainty principle, they'll be erasing it no more than classical mechanics. It's like Relativity is just a more accurate description, an improvement, a super theory on top of Newtonian physics. It doesn't 'defeat' Newton. We use his work as a valid framework all the time anyways. And when we need to go beyond it, we take up Einstein's work. Similarly, getting around the uncertainty principle won't really 'defeat' Heisenberg's work, it'll just build on it. These writers just sound stupid when they frame stories as simple binary conflicts.
Re:So was Heisenberg right or wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is still a fundamental cornerstone in quantum physics. Incompatible observables remain incompatible. What the article says isn't that the principle is wrong, but that there is a work-around for a technical problem which the principle was causing. Much the same way the invention of airplanes did not imply gravity is wrong.
That's all I can say without seeing some math.
Re:So they plan... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So they plan... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more like this:
I want to know the name and date of birth of a particular person, but I'm only allowed to ask one question per person. If that person has a twin, I can ask the person i'm curious about their name, and the twin their age, thus circumventing the one question limit in this case.
It's sort of a cheat, it probably can't be used to get arbitrarily accurate information regarding a particle of interest, and it may only work on a small subset of particles (they need to have entangled partners).
Re:Afty0r (Score:4, Insightful)
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle puts a well-defined, quantitative lower limit on the certainty for certain pairs of variables. For example the uncertainty in momentum multiplied by the uncertainty in position for a particle must be greater than or equal to h/4pi. Breaking that limit would break Heisenberg, even if the results still weren't totally totally certain, accurate and precise.
Re:1st and second post :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you be so certain?
Re:EPR (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds as if... (Score:1, Insightful)
Because they know your speed, but not your position. That's why they have to mail the ticket to your house.