More precision from less predictability: A new quantum trade-off

[imatfaal]

I may not know well about those complicated things may be when I get in to astrophysics but i got this link which may add fuel to this hot discussion

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130529191041.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+sciencedaily/matter_energy/physics+(ScienceDaily:+Matter+&+Energy+News+--+Physics)

BTW I really like the discussion!!!

 

 

I have started this thread to avoid a huge branch in a topic on orbital motion.

 

The press release is here (I would really like to hear the views of the press-hype puncturer-general please) because many of the claims, at least to scientific diletente like myself, seem to be contrary to the academic mainstream or wikipedia as I call it.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-05/gu-mpf052813.php

 

Professor Geoff Pryde, co-author and leader of the experimental team, said it is important to note that this is not in direct conflict with the well-known Heisenberg uncertainty relation, which requires only that the position and speed cannot both be predicted accurately beforehand, but it does leave open the important question of whether any quantum restrictions apply to simultaneous measurements.

 

For those with access the paper itself is here http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i22/e220402

 

and for those without the preprint is here http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0370

 

Complementarity restricts the accuracy with which incompatible quantum observables can be jointly measured. Despite popular conception, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation does not quantify this principle. We report the experimental verification of universally valid complementarity relations, including an improved relation derived here. We exploit Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen correlations between two photonic qubits to jointly measure incompatible observables of one. The product of our measurement inaccuracies is low enough to violate the widely used, but not universally valid, Arthurs-Kelly relation.

 

Despite mispelling Podolsky - which I suppose can be almost forgiven - I thought a lot of the EPR paper of 1935 (which this team seems to spend using) were contradicted by Bell's ideas, and that at present the experimental evidence is all greatly in favour of Bell and not hidden variables. And I also have the popular conception they disparage - and even in books verging on not being pop-sci I see it repeated. A few months ago I read a detailed blog (was it Chad Orzel?) explaining Heisenberg (and why it wasn't just the H Microscope) - now this paper seems to claim that even that this more nuanced version is incorrect.