News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gravity: We might have been getting it wrong by pdonis on Friday January 24, 2020 @07:55PM (#22143850)
> we've already observed quantization of gravitational potential

No, we haven't. We've observed that, under appropriate conditions, gravitational potential has to be included in the potential term in the Hamiltonian. But the potential term in the Hamiltonian is not quantized; it's not part of the quantum state and it does not exhibit quantum properties. The only things in the experiment that exhibit quantum properties are the neutrons themselves.

Re:Gravity: We might have been getting it wrong by trhway on Friday January 24, 2020 @08:33PM (#22144046)
>gravitational potential ... it does not exhibit quantum properties. The only things in the experiment that exhibit quantum properties are the neutrons themselves.

It is like saying that discrete orbits of electron say nothing about quantization of associated EM potential.

>The only things in the experiment that exhibit quantum properties are the neutrons themselves.

And those properties are position and momentum.

They specifically chosen neutrons to avoid effect of other forces and the paper is pretty clear that position and motion of neutrons were primarily affected by gravitational field, and as result the neutron position got quantized :

"... we conclude that the measurement manifests strong evidence for quantisation of motion in the gravitational field as is expected from quantum mechanics

...

the quantum theory we derived neglecting gravity is unable to reproduce the shape of the neutron height distribution even on the largest scale.

..."

Do you think the height of observed "steps" in neutron position would be the same or different if the experiment were repeated in different gravity, say Moon?

Re:Gravity: We might have been getting it wrong by pdonis on Friday January 24, 2020 @08:53PM (#22144119)
> It is like saying that discrete orbits of electron say nothing about quantization of associated EM potential.

That's right, they don't. There is no such thing as "quantization of EM potential". The electromagnetic field is quantized, if you're using quantum field theory, but in QFT there is no "EM potential". In non-relativistic QM, the EM potential term in the Hamiltonian is not quantized and does not exhibit quantum properties. Even in models which add relativistic corrections, such as the models used in the late 1940s to predict the Lamb shift, the "quantization of the EM field" only applies to the "quantum electromagnetic field" external to the atom; it does not apply to the EM potential due to the nucleus.

> the paper is pretty clear that position and motion of neutrons were primarily affected by gravitational field, and as result the neutron position got quantized

No, the neutron positions were not quantized "as a result" of the gravitational field. They are already quantized in the absence of a gravitational field, as shown by numerous previous experiments. The only thing this experiment shows, as I've already said, is that under appropriate conditions, you have to include the gravitational potential in the potential term in the Hamiltonian.

Re:Gravity: We might have been getting it wrong by pdonis on Friday January 24, 2020 @09:32PM (#22144247)
> Do you think the height of observed "steps" in neutron position would be the same or different if the experiment were repeated in different gravity, say Moon?

Obviously since the gravitational potential would be different, the neutron position "steps" would be different. That still doesn't change the fact that the experiment is not showing "quantized gravitational potential". It's only showing that "quantized neutron position", which is already well established by other experiments, is affected by the gravitational potential in the same way as it would be by any other classical potential in the Hamiltonian.