One hundred years ago the physics that would be necessary to understand how quantum computers work, much less how to build them, did not exist. In the early 1920s electrons were viewed as tiny negatively charged particles—microscopically small spheres—with energies and locations within an atom that were well defined. In Niels Bohr’s Nobel-prize-winning atomic model, electrons moved in orbits around the nucleus with their energy and position both known with, to many scientists, reassuring certainty. Quantum computers rely for their operation on the uncertainty, the “weirdness”, that happens on the atomic scale and below.
One hundred years ago the physics that would be necessary to understand how quantum computers work, much less how to build them, did not exist. In the early 1920s electrons were viewed as tiny negatively charged particles—microscopically small spheres—with energies and locations within an atom that were well defined. In Niels Bohr’s Nobel-prize-winning atomic model, electrons moved in orbits around the nucleus with their energy and position both known with, to many scientists, reassuring certainty. Quantum computers rely for their operation on the uncertainty, the “weirdness”, that happens on the atomic scale and below.
The turn of the XXth century witnessed a revolution in physics comparable to Isaac Newton’s discovery of the universal laws of mechanics and of gravitation three centuries earlier. The world required to be described in novel terms, as the immutable, deterministic view of our familiar universe had given way to a new world picture, one which featured chance, flux, and an incessant upsurge of waves of matter. Such a worldview was so radically new and counterintuitive that it gave rise to strong debates, to the effect that Albert Einstein himself tried to oppose it on the grounds that “God does not play dice”. In spite of the intense debates that accompanied its emergence, quantum mechanics quickly proved an incredibly efficacious new tool to understand and to predict a wide array of new phenomena. It was so successful that in no time it broke free from the environment of research labs to become part of daily life, making it possible, for example, to understand why some materials were conductors, while others were insulators. Along with it, came, too, the discovery of transistors, on which much of modern electronics rests. It also led to understand how novel materials known as superconductors allow the transport of electricity with no loss, thus paving the way for new developments in the fields of medical imagery or energy distribution. Other aspects of the quantum theory led to the development of atomic clocks of astounding accuracy, which would be wrong by no more than fifteen seconds, had they been set at the beginning of the universe. A hundred years later, at the turn of the XXIst century, Quantum mechanics has lost none of its astounding power. Contemporary research has undertaken the task of exploring its less immediately perceptible aspects. Groundbreaking developments have ensued, such as the teleportation of grains of light or the possibility, once predicted by the great physicist Richard Feynman, to build, one day, novel computers which, unlike the ones we are familiar with today, will be able to process innumerable numbers of operations in parallel. The Wright Colloquium will be for us the occasion to explore, in the company of five internationallyknown specialists in the field, some of the fascinating aspects of quantum mechanics. We will appraise how efficiently quantum physics can describe our world, and confront its limitation when it is faced with the infinitely small (in relation to recent experiments carried out at the CERN) as with the incommensurably large scale of sidereal spaces. We will appreciate the extent to which quantum physics already has impacted our everyday lives, and evoke the way in which novel fields such as quantum computers and quantum information will entail profound changes in the future. The quantum adventure has only just begun! Monday 15 November 2010 - 18h30 Jochen Mannhart Center for Electronic Correlations and Magnetism, University of Augsburg, Germany Quantum Physics on the Scale of Daily Life Tuesday 16 November 2010 - 18h30 Wolfgang Ketterle Nobel Laureate 2001 (Physics), Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A. When freezing cold is not cold enough New forms of matter close to absolute zero temperature Wednesday 17 November 2010 - 18h30 David Gross Nobel Laureate 2004 (Physics), Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa-Barbara, U.S.A. Quantum Mechanics of the Very, Very Small and the Very, Very Large Thursday 18 November 2010 - 18h30 Alain Aspect CNRS senior scientist and Professor Institut d'Optique and Ecole Polytechnique Palaiseau, France. From Einstein’s intuition to quantum bits: a new quantum age? Vendredi 19 novembre 2010 - 18h30 Rainer Blatt Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of Innsbruck, Austria The Quantum Way of Doing Computations
The description of the physical and chemical properties of matter is a central issue that has occupied the minds of scientists since the age of the ancient Greeks. In their route to dissect matter down to what cannot be divided any further, they coined the term atom , the indivisible . Matter became then a collection of atoms. More than twenty centuries had to pass until the development of a more precise concept of atom, thanks, amongst others, to the systematic studies of Mendeleyev and the establishment in 1869 of the periodic table of the elements (Mendeleyev, 1869). The discovery of the electron in 1897 and the first modern model of the atomic structure by Sir Joseph Thomson were soon refined by his student, Sir Ernest Rutherford, who in 1910 showed that an atom was made of a positively charged small nucleus and a number of negatively charged electrons that neutralize the nuclear charge. Much in the spirit of planetary systems, and drawing from the analogy between gravitational and electrostatic interactions, scientists in the beginning of the twentieth century built an image of the atom that consisted of a number Z of electrons – of elementary charge – e – orbiting around the nucleus of charge Ze . A number of experimental observations, though, were incompatible with this idea of orbiting electrons. In particular, according to the successful electromagnetic theory, charged electrons in orbital (radially accelerated) motion should radiate energy, thus decelerating and eventually collapsing onto the nucleus. Clearly, such a picture would imply that matter is essentially unstable, in flagrant contradiction with our everyday experience of the very existence of matter.
The results of Bohr model can be used to explain the motion of macroscopic objects or big objects (like orbiting planets and sun, falling stone etc.). These macroscopic objects have essentially a particle nature and Newtonian laws of motion can be applied on them. But it fails when applied to explain the motion of microscopic objects or small objects (like electrons, atoms, molecules etc.). This is because: According to Bohr model, an orbit is a well-defined path and this path can completely be defined only if both the position and velocity of the electron are known exactly at the same time. But this is not possible according to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Thus, Bohr model contradicts the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle . According to Bohr model, an electron is regarded as a charged particle moving in well-defined circular orbits concentric about the nucleus. The wave character of the electron is not considered. Thus, Bohr model ignores the de-Broglie dual nature of matter .
Abstract As the end of the nineteenth century, the search for Nature’s basic laws seemed close to its goal. There was a sense of a task accomplished. Physics presented an orderly scene that fit the proper Victorian mood of the day. Objects both on Earth and in the heavens behaved in accord with Newton’s laws. So, presumably, did atoms. The nature of atoms was unclear. But to most scientists the rest of the job of describing the universe seemed a filling in of the details of the Great Machine.
The results of Bohr model can be used to explain the motion of macroscopic objects or big objects (like orbiting planets and sun, falling stone etc.). These macroscopic objects have essentially a particle nature and Newtonian laws of motion can be applied on them. But it fails when applied to explain the motion of microscopic objects or small objects (like electrons, atoms, molecules etc.). This is because: According to Bohr model, an orbit is a well-defined path and this path can completely be defined only if both the position and velocity of the electron are known exactly at the same time. But this is not possible according to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Thus, Bohr model contradicts the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle . According to Bohr model, an electron is regarded as a charged particle moving in well-defined circular orbits concentric about the nucleus. The wave character of the electron is not considered. Thus, Bohr model ignores the de-Broglie dual nature of matter .
Those defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truthy who confound real quantities with their relations and sensible measures. —ISAAC NEWTON, Principia Before we say anything about quantum mechanics, let us take a quick look at the Newtonian (or ‘classical’) view of the physical universe. According to that view, nature consists of an enormous number of particles. When Newtonian physics is combined with the theory of the electromagnetic field, it becomes convenient to think of these particles as dimensionless (even if there is a kind of conceptual strain involved in trying to think of something as having a mass but not any size ), and as possessing electrical properties – negative charge, or positive charge, or neutrality. This leads to the well-known ‘solar system’ view of the atom – with the electrons whirling around the nucleons (neutrons and protons) just as the planets whirl around the sun. Out of atoms are built molecules; out of molecules, macroscopic objects, scaling from dust motes to whole planets and stars. These latter also fall into larger groupings – solar systems and galaxies – but these larger structures differ from the ones previously mentioned in being held together exclusively by gravitational forces. At every level, however, one has trajectories (ultimately that means the possibility of continuously tracing the movements of the elementary particles) and one has causality (ultimately that means the possibility of extrapolating from the history of the universe up to a given time to its whole sequence of future states).