Search FQXi


Georgina Parry: "John, it doesn't necessitate the scrapping of SR but within the..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Akinbo Ojo: "Peter J, Thank you for your frankness in answering the questions. With..." in Why Quantum?

Pentcho Valev: "Is Physics in Danger ? Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of..." in Faster than Light

Jason Wolfe: "If the speed of light were to be changed locally by some technologically..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Jonathan Dickau: "Yes Steve, String theory has not lived up to its promise, and where it has..." in Why Quantum?

Vladimir Rogozhin: "John, "Hope dies last." Hope as transcendental. Violence, lies,..." in How Should Humanity Steer...

click titles to read articles

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?
Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

July 25, 2014

A Whole New Quantum Ball Game
Searching for the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds, with microscopic polystyrene balls.
by Sophie Hebden
FQXi Awardees: Hendrik Ulbricht
February 25, 2011
Bookmark and Share

University of Southampton
Polystyrene isn’t just useful packaging. You can also use it to test a pillar of modern physics—should you want to. That’s just what Hendrik Ulbricht is attempting to do, by making ever bigger polystyrene balls that could reveal where the quantum realm ends and where the classical world begins.

When quantum mechanics arrived on the scene in the early part of the twentieth century it wrought havoc with our common sense view of the world. Think that light is a wave and electrons are tiny billiard-ball-shaped particles? Think again, because experiments showed that light can sometimes behave like a stream of bullets, known as photons, while small particles, such as electrons, can display wave-like properties. The question is, can we find the line beyond which objects are too big to show this dual-quantum behavior?

With an FQXi grant of around $140,000 in hand, Ulbricht, at the University of Southampton, UK, is searching for this quantum limit—if it exists—by recreating one of those classic experiments using microscopic balls of polystyrene of increasing size. His polystyrene test has all the elements of Thomas Young’s nineteenth-century two slit experiment, in which light from a single source is shone through a pair of slits and onto a screen, where an interference pattern of light and dark bands appears. This happens because the light wavefronts have spread out from each of the two slits and interfered with one another, canceling out some parts and reinforcing others—similar to the way concentric ripples from two raindrops on a puddle interfere.

Pushing Boundaries

Over the years, interference patterns have been created by firing single electrons, atoms, and even large molecules at the slits. Those experiments confirm that these particles have a wave-like nature, somehow interfering with themselves before landing on the collection plate. Ulbricht hopes to push the quantum-classical boundary a big step further by demonstrating interference using polystyrene balls that are a thousand times heavier than the largest molecules tested so far.

Ulbricht traces his interest in physics to school, where a teacher lent him Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. At university, he resolved to try to solve a problem that Hawking had outlined: the unification of quantum mechanics and gravity. "But I soon realised that this is all very heavy stuff that I couldn’t solve quickly," says Ulbricht. "Also I had the feeling that experiments are the thing, and for this question there are no good experiments."

Instead Ulbricht opted for an experimental PhD, which eventually led him to a molecular interference lab at the University of Vienna, Austria, with Markus Arndt and FQXi-member Anton Zeilinger.

Will Ulbricht’s optical grating experiment reveal a quantum limit?
"Ulbricht has a good theoretical background and a good feeling for implementing things to make a successful experiment," says Arndt, who has been carrying out interference experiments with particles over the last decade.

Ulbricht’s main challenge in carrying out his tests is to create a coherent beam of polystyrene balls. The balls come in a solution, which Ulbricht squirts into the focus of an optical trap, where a laser pins down the balls and holds them in an electric potential between mirrors. There the balls are cooled to stop them jiggling, and then released, so that they drop under gravity through an optical grating. The grating—the equivalent of Young’s double slit—is composed of a standing light wave, similar to a standing wave on a guitar string, that is created by shining a laser at a mirror. The electromagnetic potential varies from high to low along the optical grating, like a series of slits and barriers in a standard grating.

The final step is to examine the distribution of the polystyrene balls on a glass plate beneath the grating, using a microscope. "Nobody has done it with polystyrene before but it looks very promising," says Ulbricht.

Quantum Breakdown

Steven Carlip, a quantum gravity theorist at UC Davis, notes that the technology has only recently become good enough to test these big masses. "A lot of us hope that something interesting will happen when you get to high enough masses," says Carlip. "Maybe quantum mechanics will break down."

Is it new physics? Or
is the reason we don’t
see large quantum objects
just a technological issue?
- Hendrik Ulbricht
Talking about the breakdown of one of the most successful theories of modern physics may sound dramatic. But some quantum paradoxes make people uncomfortable. For instance, most interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot explain how we get from a wavefunction—the mathematical description of an object before it is observed, when it can be in two places at the same time—to seeing a quantum object in one place, when we measure it. The standard, not-too-fussy explanation is that the wavefunction collapses when you observe it. But this extra ingredient shouldn’t be necessary if everything is quantum mechanical.

To fill the gap there are lots of non-standard theories that attempt to explain the transition. The most popular is decoherence—the idea that interactions with the environment, for example, through collisions with gas atoms or radiation, in effect, measure the particle, causing it to localise and become classical.

"There is no question that decoherence exists," says Ulbricht. "But the question is whether that is really the reason why we don’t observe macroscopic quantum objects. Is it new physics or is it a technological issue, of being able to stop the particle interacting with the environment?"


Rival theories of wavefunction collapse predict a quantum breakdown at different masses between a million and ten billion times that of a hydrogen atom and both Ulbricht and Arndt hope to discriminate between them. But there’s a problem: At the upper end of that mass scale, gravity could affect the experiment by accelerating the particles towards the grating, making their wavelength too small for interferometry.

To get round this, the tests may have to be carried out in microgravity. "Ulbricht’s experiment is preparing the way for such space-based experiments," says Ardnt.

If Ulbricht’s polystyrene balls do make it into space years from now, it will be good news for quantum mechanics, because it means that the theory will have held up in all his Earth-based tests.

Carlip’s money is on quantum mechanics’ continuing success. "I would bet that Ulbricht will continue to see interference as long as his experiment is accurate enough," he says.

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!
  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

  • You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

  • You may use bold (important) and italics (emphasize) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.

  • You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor

Your name: (optional)

Important: In order to combat spam, please select the letter in this menu between 'U' and 'W':

Recent Comments



All that exists at any point in time is a finite number of adjacent spatial possibilities which the entity could occupy next (directions if you want, but not dimensions). There is no 'time' within any given reality, because that is concerned with the rate at which this movement (or any other form of change) occurred. And if there is change that means there is another reality (or physically existent state is better) which has superseded the original. The two do not exist...

incredible, 11 posts, I see 3 posts .You are really bad persons simply.

A comportment of stealers simply.

Lets chat.

My clock converts a circular earth orbit into an eliptical one.

And the result is six minutes difference from sidereal time per year.

Approx we take this figure to 10,000 digits of pi accuracy as the formula uses Pi.

A cicular orbit can be in as many as 11 dimensions but these are unstable when an orbit is converted to an elipse it becomes stable in three dimensions plus one of time.


read all article comments

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.