Physicists prove Einstein wrong with observation of instantaneous velocity in Brownian particles

May 20, 2010
Physicists prove Einstein wrong with observation of instantaneous velocity in Brownian particles

Enlarge

A 5-micrometer glass bead levitated in air by a single laser beam from below. This optical trap is formed by the balance between the scattering force from the laser beam and the gravitational force on the bead. Tongcang Li, et. al. used a similar optical trap to study the Brownian motion of a trapped bead in air with ultra-high resolution. Their paper is published in Science. Credit: Tongcang Li, the University of Texas at Austin

A century after Albert Einstein said we would never be able to observe the instantaneous velocity of tiny particles as they randomly shake and shimmy, so called Brownian motion, physicist Mark Raizen and his group have done so.

"This is the first observation of the instantaneous velocity of a Brownian particle," says Raizen, the Sid W. Richardson Foundation Regents Chair and professor of physics at The University of Texas at Austin. "It's a prediction of Einstein's that has been standing untested for 100 years. He proposed a test to observe the velocity in 1907, but said that the experiment could not be done."

In 1907, Einstein likely did not foresee a time when dust-sized particles of glass could be trapped and suspended in air by dual "." Nor would he have known that ultrasonic vibrations from a plate-like transducer would shake those glass beads into the air to be tweezed and measured as they moved in suspension.

Raizen's research, published in Science, is the first direct test of the equipartition theorem for Brownian particles, one of the basic tenets of statistical mechanics. It is also a step toward cooling glass beads to a state in which they could be used as oscillators or sensors.

The equipartition theorem states that a particles' kinetic energy—the energy it possesses due to motion—is determined only by its temperature, not its size or mass.

Raizen's study now proves that the equipartition theorem is true for Brownian particles; in this case, glass beads that were three micrometers across.

Raizen says he and his colleagues can now push the limits, moving the particles closer to a for observation.

"We've now observed the instantaneous velocity of a Brownian particle," says Raizen. "In some sense, we're closing a door on this problem in physics. But we are actually opening a much larger door for future tests of the equipartition theorem at the quantum level."

There, he expects that equipartition theory will break down, leading to new problems and solutions surrounding the quantum mechanics of small particles composed of many atoms.

Provided by University of Texas at Austin (news : web)

4.5 /5 (44 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

JCincy
May 20, 2010

Rank: 3.1 / 5 (18)
Why the insult against Einstein? Consider the technology he had available when he made his statement. And then consider the advances he brought to science.
Alizee
May 20, 2010

Rank: 4.5 / 5 (23)
Clarke's 1st law of prediction:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong."

BTW Einstein is not pope and calling someone wrong is not an insult, especially not in science.
axemaster
May 20, 2010

Rank: 4.3 / 5 (7)
"A century after Albert Einstein said we would never be able to observe the instantaneous velocity of tiny particles as they randomly shake and shimmy, so called Brownian motion, physicist Mark Raizen and his group have done so."

Well, perhaps I'm just nitpicking, but they really haven't - at least not in the way the phrasing of the article suggests. Quantum mechanics and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle limit the resolution of experiments in the following way (where UN stands for uncertainty):

(UNx)(UNp) >= Hbar/2

Of course, it's the writer of the article who is at fault here. Oh well.
Kedas
May 20, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I guess that proving theories wasn't really his thing.
He knew he was right about his theories anyway.
gunslingor1
May 20, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
He also knew he was wrong about his theories too, remember cold fussion.
Alizee
May 20, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
When Einstein theorized about cold fusion? You mean fission instead?
Caliban
May 20, 2010

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Perhaps Einstein intended it as a challenge- knowing full well that it would lead to probably much larger discoveries at quantum scale- where all the action is really happening.
theophys
May 20, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
He also knew he was wrong about his theories too, remember cold fussion.

A better example would be Einstein's change in heart over the expanding universe.
Also, I'm pretty sure nobody was putting any significant work into cold fusion until after Einstein died. I could be wrong.
Husky
May 21, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
even when einstein was wrong, he was right by setting up the challenge
Kimberbang
May 21, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
I have always considered the physics breakthroughs of that era to have been a team effort as it were. The lot of them standing on the shoulders of giants. Of course it is easy to give the glory to the eccentric with wild hair!
bugmenot23
May 21, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
(bugmenot account)Not a bad article, why the god-awful exaggerating headline? Physics nubs will think it is one of his actual theories, you know..
ZeroX
May 21, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Not a bad article, why the god-awful exaggerating headline?
Because science is tabloizied on behalf of trivial findings and experiments.
tkjtkj
May 21, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
Why the insult against Einstein? Consider the technology he had available when he made his statement. And then consider the advances he brought to science.

yes, agreed! To suggest he was 'wrong' about the future is an absurd criticism .. and, consequently, non-scientific .. but then, this is physorg ..
ArtflDgr
May 21, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
They made a mistake...
not in their work but in the interpretation and relationships. i will give a hint, as i dont feel like debating and who gives a rats bum any way?

here is the hint... think wavelength, and the time band each is capable of working in, and how a portion of what they are working with happens outside this band.
Alizee
May 21, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
yes, agreed! To suggest he was 'wrong' about the future is an absurd criticism ..

Categorical claims about possibility of future experiments & observation are often absurd statements, too.

Lord Kelvin (1895): "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

Why he told this, if he knew about birds for sure? Such statement simply has no sense...

Kelvin is also known for an address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." A similar statement is attributed to the American physicist Albert Michelson.
Alizee
May 21, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
BTW Both guys (Kelwin or Michelson) were convinced aetherists, too. This just demonstrated, proponents of aether physics played a role of too self-confident mainstream before hundred years. Unfortunately, modern physics didn't learn from their mistakes at all - people are dying and new generation only forgets & repeats old mistakes.

In this connection it may be interesting, the 56-year period of financial crisis correlates well with average length of human generation [Mills (1867), McMinn (1997)].
DamienS
May 21, 2010

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
This article is atrocious (though the research is excellent). Einstein was hardly 'proved wrong'. His great insight was the realization that Brownian motion of particles in a fluid stemmed directly from the kinetic model of thermal equilibrium (how heat worked was still debated at the time). It confirmed that the second law of thermodynamics was essentially statistical in nature.

As an aside, he stated that it would likely be impossible to measure the instantaneous velocity of such particles. This is just a minor and understandable comment. In fact, it still holds true. This experiment doesn't measure BM in a liquid, but in air. That's because the velocities are lower in air. Doing so in water is still not possible.

Nothing like a sensationalist headline - 'Einstein proved wrong', or 'Darwin proved wrong"!
Alizee
May 22, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
.the velocities are lower in air. Doing so in water is still not possible...
Are you sure? The average speed of molecules in water is lower, then in the air because of lower mean free distance.
DamienS
May 22, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Yes.

"Now, Mark Raizen, Tongcang Li and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin have found a way round this problem by studying particles in air rather than a liquid. Because air is much less dense than water its molecules are farther apart and therefore the distance, and time, between Brownian collisions is much greater. Indeed, velocity of a Brownian particle changes about once every 100 µs in air".
http://physicswor...ws/42679
frajo
May 22, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The average speed of molecules in water is lower, then in the air because of lower mean free distance.
Average velocity is not instantaneous velocity.
DamienS
May 22, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
Yes.
"Now, Mark Raizen, Tongcang Li and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin have found a way round this problem by studying particles in air rather than a liquid. Because air is much less dense than water its molecules are farther apart and therefore the distance, and time, between Brownian collisions is much greater. Indeed, velocity of a Brownian particle changes about once every 100 µs in air".

"http://physicswor...9"
labtvonline
May 22, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
I love how long after his death people are still using Einstein as a bench mark. That guy was so far beyond it is not even funny.
ggg
May 25, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
I love how any refuting of Einstein is treated as sacrilege.
I also love how anything that refutes Einstein is accounted as wrong by presumption like the particles that seem to reach the Earth at velocities > c.
I especially love it when something that shows the Einstein was wrong is held up as showing he was right. That is the attraction to a moving magnet experiment which clearly shows that objects are attracted to where the magnet is now; not where it was.
Alizee
May 25, 2010

Rank: 1.8 / 5 (4)
.."Some have maintained that the local movement of an angel is instantaneous. They said that when an angel is moved from place to place, during the whole of the preceding time he is in the term "wherefrom"; but in the last instant of such time he is in the term "whereto." Nor is there any need for a medium between the terms, just as there is no medium between time and the limit of time. But there is a mid-time between two "nows" of time: hence they say that a last "now" cannot be assigned in which it was in the term "wherefrom," just as in illumination, and in the substantial generation of fire, there is no last instant to be assigned in which the air was dark, or in which the matter was under the privation of the form of fire: but a last time can be assigned, so that in the last instant of such time there is light in the air, or the form of fire in the matter. And so illumination and substantial generation are called instantaneous movements." [Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I/53]
frajo
May 25, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
I love how all those students who have been disdained by physics try to take their revenge by "refuting" A.E. :)
Alizee
May 25, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Compare the fundamental Einstein's article "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" at

http://www.albert...-200.pdf

On page 185 Einstein says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitationally in the same way as any other kind of energy". It's a concentration of energy that causes gravity. Matter only causes gravity because of the E=mc2 energy content. A gravitational field is a region of space with a higher-than-average energy density causing additional gravity, requiring an integration approach as per page 201.

Another interesting aspects of Einstein's interest about Brownian motion consist in fact, he explained phenomena, which he probably never saw by his own eyes.

http://physics.sj...Walk.pdf

Attempts had already been made to measure the velocity of Brownian particles, but they gave a nonsensical result: the shorter the measurement time, the higher the apparent velocity.
Alizee
May 25, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
This suggested that if you could measure the velocity in an extremely short (infinitesimal) instant, you would obtain a velocity approaching infinity. But if Einstein's derivations were correct, the mystery was explained because you cannot measure the velocity of a Brownian particle simply by dividing a distance by a time. The experimenters had been measuring the wrong quantity!

Therefore I cannot understand, what Mr. Raizen really means, when he talks "We've now observed the instantaneous velocity of a Brownian particle".

It's just a confirmation of Einstein's work - or simply a nonsense, because instantaneous velocity cannot be seen due the relativity.
Skultch
May 27, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
In notion of dense aether model the God is dual to invisible quantum noise and "angels" are visible representation of it. Due the uncertainty principle, the motion of tiny particles is effectively superluminal, at least a bit.

Maybe just this aspect of quantum motion Einstein had on his mind, when he talked about impossibility to follow quantum noise in causal way. His interest about Brownian motion wasn't accidental at all - he knew, the space-time must remain in eternal noise for relativity be able to work.


Is this "noise" only our ignorance; our limited perspective? Are these ideas of god and angels another placeholder for our current and temporary intellectual limitations?
googleplex
May 28, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I am sure that Einstein did not imply it would be impossible for ever. Infinity is a long time!
Also remember that even quantum theory breaks down at a small enough scale.
Alizee
May 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
..are these ideas of god and angels another placeholder for our current and temporary intellectual limitations?..
IMO Aquinas attributed divinity properties, which are common in quantum world intuitively, but this intuition has a good reason in hypergeometry of extra-dimensions. The projection of harmonic motion of some large object in extra-dimensions into our 3D world leads into experience of chaotic motion of tiny points. The whatever higher intelligence is indistinguishable from chaos from sufficiently unconscious perspective. We cannot pass it through Turing's test. This doesn't say, our Universe is part of intelligent program or omnipotent deity, but we cannot resolve it reliably from out limited perspective, because it doesn't cooperate with us. Therefore the idea of God remains substantiated from certain perspective in the same way, like the idea of hidden order in extradimensions.
Alizee
May 28, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I am sure that Einstein did not imply it would be impossible for ever. Infinity is a long time!
This follows from equipartition theorem - the temperature (and therefore the speed of objects) converges to infinity with decreasing size of objects (ultraviolet catastrophe). Quantum mechanics just limits this temperature to Planck temperature (1.42 x 10E+32 K), which is still high enough, but limited.

Several explanations of equipartition's failure were proposed. Lord Kelvin suggested, that the derivation of the equipartition theorem must be incorrect, since it disagreed with experiment, but was unable to show how. Boltzmann defended the derivation of his equipartition theorem as correct, but suggested that gases might not be in thermal equilibrium because of their interactions with the aether. In 1900 Rayleigh noted the need for a new principle that would provide an "escape from the destructive simplicity" of the equipartition theorem.

Skultch
Jun 02, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
... in hypergeometry of extra-dimensions. The projection of harmonic motion of some large object in extra-dimensions into our 3D world leads into experience of chaotic motion of tiny points. ... We cannot pass it through Turing's test. This doesn't say, our Universe is part of intelligent program or omnipotent deity, but we cannot resolve it reliably from out limited perspective, because it doesn't cooperate with us. Therefore the idea of God remains substantiated from certain perspective in the same way, like the idea of hidden order in extradimensions.


You are all over the place here. I don't think you use hypergeometry correctly, and the Turing analogy isn't apt. I roughly get where you're going, though. Theory, based on theories, based on ignorance; philosophy for the haphazardly educated, like me. :) Still, the "large object" is still a placeholder, and is why I'm temporarily finished with this kind of philosophy. No faith in science or otherwise here. :)
Rank 4.5 /5 (44 votes)
Related Stories
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Calculating Electrostatic force between parallel plates
    created1 hour ago
  • Strength of induced magnetic field inside an inductor
    created4 hours ago
  • increasing time of daylight
    created5 hours ago
  • Light & Sight
    created5 hours ago
  • Wind Turbine Power
    created8 hours ago
  • Steam Table issues
    created10 hours ago
  • More from Physics Forums - General Physics

More news stories

Putting the squeeze on planets outside our solar system

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using high-powered lasers, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators discovered that molten magnesium silicate undergoes a phase change in the liquid state, abruptly ...

Physics / Condensed Matter

created 4 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0 | with audio podcast

Hovering not hard if you're top-heavy, researchers find

Top-heavy structures are more likely to maintain their balance while hovering in the air than are those that bear a lower center of gravity, researchers at New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences ...

Physics / General Physics

created 5 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 1 | with audio podcast

SLAC, Stanford team focuses on high-energy electrons to treat cancer

Accelerator physicists at SLAC and cancer specialists from Stanford are working on a new technology that could dramatically reduce the time needed for cancer radiation treatments. The team ran an initial experiment ...

Physics / General Physics

created 8 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0

Measurements from high-energy collisions lead to better understanding of why meson particles disappear

For several years, physicists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), USA, have studied an unusual state of matter called the quark–gluon plasma, which they ...

Physics / General Physics

created 8 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0

Explained: Sigma

It's a question that arises with virtually every major new finding in science or medicine: What makes a result reliable enough to be taken seriously? The answer has to do with statistical significance -- but ...

Physics / General Physics

created Feb 09, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (15) | comments 46


Google users warned of threat to smartphone wallets

Users of Google smartphone wallets were being warned on Friday that there is a way to crack pass codes intended to thwart thieves from going on illicit shopping sprees.

NASA sees wide-eyed cyclone Jasmine

Cyclone Jasmine's eye has opened wider on NASA satellite imagery, as it moves through the Southern Pacific Ocean.

NASA sees Giovanna reach cyclone strength, threaten Madagascar

Tropical Storm 12S built up steam and became a cyclone on February 10, 2012 as NASA's Terra satellite passed overhead. Residents of east-central Madagascar should prepare for this cyclone to make landfall ...

CIA website offline, Anonymous takes credit

The website of the Central Intelligence Agency was unresponsive on Friday after the hacker group Anonymous claimed to have knocked it offline.

Complex wiring of the nervous system may rely on a just a handful of genes and proteins

Researchers at the Salk Institute have discovered a startling feature of early brain development that helps to explain how complex neuron wiring patterns are programmed using just a handful of critical genes. ...

The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males

A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...