That's what this article seems to suggest:
"Let's say an atom is very likely to have decayed after three seconds, but very unlikely to have decayed after one. Check on it after three seconds, and it probably will have decayed. But, Misra and Sudarshan argue, check on it three times in one second intervals, and it will most likely not have decayed. Every time you check on it, it will revert to its "original" measured state, and the clock will start over. Amazingly, this actually does happen. Researchers observing sodium atoms observed that, "Depending on the frequency of measurements we observe a decay that is suppressed or enhanced as compared to the unperturbed system."
http://io9.com/the-quantum-zeno-effe...orld-977909459
Is that correct? If so, how does the atom "know" to revert to its "original" measured state if it's been observed?
"Let's say an atom is very likely to have decayed after three seconds, but very unlikely to have decayed after one. Check on it after three seconds, and it probably will have decayed. But, Misra and Sudarshan argue, check on it three times in one second intervals, and it will most likely not have decayed. Every time you check on it, it will revert to its "original" measured state, and the clock will start over. Amazingly, this actually does happen. Researchers observing sodium atoms observed that, "Depending on the frequency of measurements we observe a decay that is suppressed or enhanced as compared to the unperturbed system."
http://io9.com/the-quantum-zeno-effe...orld-977909459
Is that correct? If so, how does the atom "know" to revert to its "original" measured state if it's been observed?
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=263157&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire