There’s never been a better time to be a quantum physicist. The foundations of quantum theory were laid a century ago, but the subject is currently enjoying a renaissance. Modern experimental techniques make it possible to probe fundamental questions that were left hanging by the subject’s originators, such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg. Now, we are not only grappling with the supposed weirdness of the quantum world, but also putting its paradoxical principles to practical use.

This is reflected in the fact that three physics Nobel prizes have been awarded since 1997 in the field of quantum optics, the most recent going this week to Serge Haroche of the Collège de France and the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris and David Wineland of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado. It’s “quantum” because the work of these two scientists is concerned with examining the way atoms and other small particles are governed by quantum rules. And it’s “optics” because they use light to do it. Indeed, light is itself explained by quantum physics, being composed (as Einstein’s Nobel-winning work of 1905 showed) of packets of energy called photons. The word “quantum” was coined by Max Planck in 1900 to describe this discrete “graininess” of the world at the scale of atoms.

The basic principle of a quantum particle is that its energy is constrained to certain discrete amounts, rather than being changeable gradually. Whereas a bicycle wheel can spin at any speed (faster speeds corresponding to more energy), a quantum wheel may rotate only at several distinct speeds and may jump between them only if supplied with the right amount of energy. Atoms make these “quantum jumps” between energy states when they absorb photons with the right energy, this in turn being determined by the photon’s wavelength (light of different colours has different wavelengths).

Scientists since Planck’s time have used light to study these quantum states of atoms. This is difficult, as it entails changing the state in order to observe it. Haroche and Wineland have pioneered methods of probing quantum states without destroying them. That’s important not just to examine the fundamentals of quantum theory but also for certain applications of quantum behaviour, such as high-precision atomic clocks (central to GPS systems) and superfast quantum computers.

Wineland uses “atom traps” to capture individual electrically charged atoms (ions) in electric fields. One counterintuitive conclusion of quantum theory is that atoms can exist in two or more different quantum states simultaneously, called superpositions. Generally, these are very delicate, and are destroyed when we try to look at them. But Wineland has mastered ways to probe superpositions of trapped ions using laser light without unravelling them. Haroche does the opposite: he traps individual photons of light between two mirrors, and fires at the photon atoms that detect its quantum state without disturbing it.

“Reading out” quantum states non-destructively is necessary in quantum computers, in which information is encoded in quantum superpositions so that many different states can be examined at once—a property that would allow some problems to be solved extremely fast. “Quantum information technology” is steadily becoming reality, and it is doubtless this combination of fundamental insight and practical application that has made quantum optics so popular with Stockholm. Quantum physics might still seem otherworldly, but we will all be making ever more use of it.

## Waldemar Ingdahl

Interesting text by Mr. Ball, and certainly for being such an “otherworldly” science quantum physics is remarkably practical.

Perhaps the paradox is that for the really remarkable uses of quantum physics scientists have often been too practical.

The “shut up and calculate” interpretation lacks the philosophical implications of the “Copenhagen” and “Many worlds” interpretations. It might give results today, but at the price of not progressing the field.

## ray kohn

Surely a bicycle wheel’ spinning is governed by the same rules: it only appears to have a non-discrete continuum of speeds because we are not measuring these speeds at a quantum level?

## Mehdi Sadjadi

Sure quantum mechanics governs universe, but in spinning wheel example, quantum effects are negligible.

Problem is not measuring at quantum level, problem is that mass of wheel is high, therefore difference between two subsequent energy levels is so small and discreteness can not be seen.

## kevinmcl

Quantum effects are observable at particle sizes.

Imagine the computer that would have to contain a model that would represent the quantum state of every particle in that spinning wheel along with each particle’s relation to every other particle. Now imagine that computer actually processing that model to make it progress the motion of the wheel.

Never mind the slight difficulty (Heisenberg) of accurately representing location, speed, and direction of any – let alone all – particles that make up the wheel.

After you’ve surmounted those obstacles, there’s the slight problem of determining which quarks are to be considered part of the wheel, and which must be excluded. At the quark level – hell, even at the molecular level – that’s an impossible problem of defining the boundary, when air molecules, various ions, etc. are busily entering and leaving whatever boundary you set for “wheelness”.

Also, are the wheel and spokes made of metal? Spinning, you say? So the rubber of the tire is probably generating a nice static charge, and the moving metal parts are likely moving through EM fields (unless your test chamber is exceedingly well shielded).

Did you pump all the air out of your test chamber, to minimize that boundary problem? Well then, the rubber and metal bits are probably sublimating. The spokes are busy vacuum-welding themselves to the rim and the hub

Your poor planet-sized computer was overloaded long ago. Perhaps if you incorporated all the matter in the solar system, you might have enough to make such a computer. Of course, you’d need to deal with light-speed delays within the [compressed] mass of your gigantic computer, while also dealing with the computer’s own quantum effects.

Did you want the simulation of that spinning wheel to run in real time, in order to identify and call out the quantum-level events?

What level of approximation would be satisfactory?

Bit of a task, there.

OK, I’m teasing.

I’m sure I’ve left out all sorts of confounding conditions, anyway.