"...that a single photon can be in as many as four places at the same time — has now been ...

[Jim__]

demonstrated."

I have read about double slit experiments, of course, but I did not know that part of the theory was that a photon could be in 4 different places simultaneously. Based on the associated article (the one referenced at p 412), I'm guessing that this only holds true for photons that are in a "wave state."

You need a login to Nature to read more than this:

Quantum physics is known for its counter-intuitive principles. One such principle — that a single photon can be in as many as four places at the same time — has now been demonstrated. See Letter p.412

When light is shone through two closely separated slits and onto a distant screen, a periodic light pattern emerges as a result of interference between the light waves emanating from the two slits. Where quantum physics is concerned, some of the deepest mysteries — or, in the opinion of the iconic Richard Feynman, the only mystery — arise when that experiment is performed not with strong classical light waves but with a single particle.

[zbdent]

1. a press release from the photon's publicist refutes the statement,

saying that there are several "photon impersonators" employed nationally ...

[sharp_stick]

2. LOL photon impersonators... well done n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

3. ain't limited to photons

buckyballs have been used to demonstrate wave interference at the molecular level.


In the twentieth century small particles such as electrons and protons (diameter about 1.6 fm) were found to exhibit interference when passed through double slits; light and matter have both particle-like and wave-like properties (particle-wave duality). In 1999 objects large enough to see under a microscope, buckyball molecules (diameter about 0.7 nm, nearly half a million times that of a proton), were found to exhibit wave-like interference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. I blame the cat for this.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. I think the scientific community needs to be brave, and refer to such paradoxes as

'counter-rational', instead of 'counter-intuitive'.

Only the limited intuitive scope of 'naive realists', alas, evidently all but ubiquitous at quite high, professional levels, makes them squeamish about the true nature of reason, and its now manifestly obvious limitations.

Feynman may be iconic, particularly in the US, but he's not in the same league as Bohr, nor ever would have been, to paraphrase an old Aussie saying, "as long as his backside pointed to the ground". Although I can't see the relevance of the disposition of his fundament to anything really - but that's the beauty of mad, demotic figures of speech.

Acquainting myself more closely with Feynman's achievements, I have to admit that, personally, I doubt if he was inferior to Einstein or Bohr as a scientist, maybe even - if such a thing is quantifiable, particularly by a dunce - a tad superior, but that he lacked their philosophical aptitude, their imaginative intuition for the 'big picture'. His m.o. seemed to be more incremental.

Neither Einstein nor Bohr had any problem with paradoxes in physics. Indeed, As Bohr, the Lutheran, accused Einstein, the deist, of 'always dragging God into it', Einstein might well have accused Bohr of 'dragging paradoxes into it'; though both expressed a boundless awe at the infinite-seeming mysteries of the universe.

[WheelWalker]

6. How can I not recommend

what I can't understand?

[gateley]

8. .....

:hug:

[WheelWalker]

10. Blessings, Sister

:hug:

[dimbear]

7. Every particle is always in infinitely many places at one time.

Four doesn't seem like such a stretch.

[patrice]

11. ?

So that our ability to calculate a location for any of them always assumes a normal distribution, depending upon . . . ? . . . having a little trouble imagining what coordinates would be here.

[dimbear]

12. There is a semiconductor device called a tunnel diode, which

depends exactly on this effect. You can be sure that it is real, but understanding it is another story.

{Not specifically the four times thing, nonlocality in general.}

[patrice]

14. I'm not an engineer, but always interested in cognitive processes = just brainstorming here,

for the fun of it, "all sets unlimited" triggered it this time, suggests a means by which to move toward phenomenology that is not dependent upon the limitations inherent to any language.

[Eddie Haskell]

16. The speed of light is a limit

at which time does not exist. Distance is irrelevant and place becomes possibility.

[laconicsax]

9. Too cool. n/t

[rug]

13. Photons are mothers.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. Awesome multi-tasking skills.