Quantum Computers Simulate Particle 'String Breaking' in a Physics Breakthrough
Subatomic particles such as quarks can pair up when linked by 'strings' of force fields — and release energy when the strings are pulled to the point of breaking. Two teams of physicists have now used quantum computers to mimic this phenomenon and watch it unfold in real time.
The results, described in two Nature papers on June 4, are the latest in a series of breakthroughs towards using quantum computers for simulations that are beyond the ability of any ordinary computers.
'String breaking is a very important process that is not yet fully understood from first principles,' says Christian Bauer, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California. Physicists can calculate the final results of particle collisions that form or break strings using classical computers, but cannot fully simulate what happens in between. The success of the quantum simulations is 'incredibly encouraging,' Bauer says.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
String simulations
Each experiment was conducted by an international collaboration involving academic and industry researchers — one team at QuEra Computing, a start-up company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and another at the Google Quantum AI Lab in Santa Barbara, California.
The researchers using QuEra's Aquila machine encoded information in atoms that were arranged in a 2D honeycomb pattern, each suspended in place by an optical 'tweezer'. The quantum state of each atom — a qubit that could be excited or relaxed — represented the electric field at a point in space, explains co-author Daniel González-Cuadra, a theoretical physicist now at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Madrid. In the other experiment, researchers encoded the 2D quantum field in the states of superconducting loops on Google's Sycamore chip.
The teams used diametrically opposite quantum-simulation philosophies. The atoms in Aquila were arranged so that the electrostatic forces between them mimicked the behaviour of the electric field, and continuously evolved towards their own states of lower energy — an approach called analogue quantum simulation. The Google machine was instead used as a 'digital' quantum simulator: the superconducting loops were made to follow the evolution of the quantum field 'by hand', through a discrete sequence of manipulations.
In both cases, the teams set up strings in the field that effectively acted like rubber bands connecting two particles. Depending on how the researchers tuned the parameters, the strings could be stiff or wobbly, or could break up. 'In some cases, the whole string just dissolves: the particles become deconfined,' says Frank Pollmann, a physicist at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in Garching, Germany, who helped to lead the Google experiment.
Fast progress
Although simulating strings in a 2D electric field could have applications for studying the physics of materials, it is still a long way from fully simulating high-energy interactions, such as those that occur in particle colliders, which are in 3D and involve the much more complex strong nuclear force. 'We do not have a clear path at this point how to get there,' says Monika Aidelsburger, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Munich, Germany.
Still, the latest results are exciting, and progress in quantum simulation in general has been 'really amazing and very fast,' Aidelsburger says.
Last year, Bauer and his LBNL colleague Anthony Ciavarella were among the first teams to simulate the strong nuclear force on a quantum computer. Approaches that replace qubits with qudits — which can have more than two quantum states and can be more realistic representations of a quantum field — could also make simulations more powerful, researchers say.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Researchers Scanned the Brains of ChatGPT Users and Found Something Deeply Alarming
Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have found some startling results in the brain scans of ChatGPT users, adding to the growing body of evidence suggesting that AI is having a serious — and barely-understood — impact on its users' cognition even as it explodes in popularity worldwide. In a new paper currently awaiting peer review, researchers from the school's storied Media Lab documented the vast differences between the brain activity of people who using ChatGPT to write versus those who did not. The research team recruited 54 adults between the ages of 18 and 39 and divided them into three groups: one that used ChatGPT to help them write essays, one that used Google search as their main writing aid, and one that didn't use AI tech. The study took place over four months, with each group tasked with writing one essay per month for the first three, while a smaller subset of the cohort either switched from not using ChatGPT to using it — or vice versa — in the fourth month. As they completed the essay tasks, the participants were hooked up to electroencephalogram (EEG) machines that recorded their brain activity. Here's where things get wild: the ChatGPT group not only "consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels," but also got lazier with each essay they wrote; the EEGs found "weaker neural connectivity and under-engagement of alpha and beta networks." The Google-assisted group, meanwhile, had "moderate" neural engagement, while the "brain-only" group exhibited the strongest cognitive metrics throughout. These findings about brain activity, while novel, aren't entirely surprising after prior studies and anecdotes about the many ways that AI chatbot use seems to be affecting people's brains and minds. Previous MIT research, for instance, found that ChatGPT "power users" were becoming dependent on the chatbot and experiencing "indicators of addiction" and "withdrawal symptoms" when they were cut off. And earlier this year Carnegie Mellon and Microsoft — which has invested billions to bankroll OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT — found in a joint study that heavy chatbot use appears to almost atrophy critical thinking skills. A few months later, The Guardian found in an analysis of studies like that one that researchers are growing increasingly concerned that tech like ChatGPT is making us stupider, and a Wall Street Journal reporter even owned up to his cognitive skill loss from over-using chatbots. Beyond the neurological impacts, there are also lots of reasons to be concerned about how ChatGPT and other chatbots like it affects our mental health. As Futurism found in a recent investigation, many users are becoming obsessed with ChatGPT and developing paranoid delusions into which the chatbot is pushing them deeper. Some have even stopped taking their psychiatric medication because the chatbot told them to. "We know people use ChatGPT in a wide range of contexts, including deeply personal moments, and we take that responsibility seriously," OpenAI told us in response to that reporting. "We've built in safeguards to reduce the chance it reinforces harmful ideas, and continue working to better recognize and respond to sensitive situations." Add it all up, and the evidence is growing that AI is having profound and alarming effects on many users — but so far, we're seeing no evidence that corporations are slowing down in their attempts to injecting the tech into every part of of society. More on ChatGPT brain: Nation Cringes as Man Goes on TV to Declare That He's in Love With ChatGPT
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Study Finds 'Huge Surprise' About Ancient Humans in Africa
A new study published June 18 in the journal Nature has uncovered a 'huge surprise' about humans in Africa 50,000 years ago. Previous studies have shown that humans, who arrived in Africa 300,000 years ago and began leaving around 270,000 years ago, are descended from a small group of humans who left Africa just 50,000 years ago. Scientists have long wondered why earlier migration waves didn't leave any genetic traces in modern humans, and now the new study may explain why. To determine results, scientists analyzed evidence such as ancient plant and animal remains from various sites across Africa dating between 120,000 to 14,000 years ago. They reconstructed the habitats and climates in which people lived during those times to better understand the climate, rainfall, and vegetation of those environments. They discovered that modern humans actually began living around 70,000 years ago in the forests of West, North, and Central Africa, environments where temperatures were much harsher."Humans have been successfully living in challenging habitats for at least 70,000 years," study co-lead author Emily Hallett told Live Science. She added that the discovery was 'a huge surprise.' "Our ecological flexibility is part of what enabled our species to disperse across the globe and thrive in each habitat we encountered," she said. "What we see about 70,000 years ago is Homo sapiens becoming the ultimate generalist, and pushing into more and more extreme environments," co-author Andrea Manica explained. "That newly found additional flexibility gave them an edge 50,000 years ago, allowing them to spread rapidly across the whole globe, and thriving in environments that were novel and sometimes very challenging, such as those found at very northern latitudes." The discovery illuminates not only the evolution of humans in Africa, but the evolution of all mankind. Though it's unclear what began pushing humans out of Africa, the researchers say it was likely out of 'necessity.' Study Finds 'Huge Surprise' About Ancient Humans in Africa first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 20, 2025
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
ChatGPT use linked to cognitive decline: MIT research
ChatGPT can harm an individual's critical thinking over time, a new study suggests. Researchers at MIT's Media Lab asked subjects to write several SAT essays and separated subjects into three groups — using OpenAI's ChatGPT, using Google's search engine and using nothing, which they called the 'brain‑only' group. Each subject's brain was monitored through electroencephalography (EEG), which measured the writer's brain activity through multiple regions in the brain. They discovered that subjects who used ChatGPT over a few months had the lowest brain engagement and 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels,' according to the study. The study found that the ChatGPT group initially used the large language model, or LLM, to ask structural questions for their essay, but near the end of the study, they were more likely to copy and paste their essay. Those who used Google's search engine were found to have moderate brain engagement, but the 'brain-only' group showed the 'strongest, wide-ranging networks.' The findings suggest that using LLMs can harm a user's cognitive function over time, especially in younger users. It comes as educators continue to navigate teaching when AI is increasingly accessible for cheating. 'What really motivated me to put it out now before waiting for a full peer review is that I am afraid in 6-8 months, there will be some policymaker who decides, 'let's do GPT kindergarten.' I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental,' the study's main author Nataliya Kosmyna told TIME. 'Developing brains are at the highest risk.' However, using AI in education doesn't appear to be slowing down. In April, President Trump signed an executive order that aims to incorporate AI into U.S. classrooms. 'The basic idea of this executive order is to ensure that we properly train the workforce of the future by ensuring that school children, young Americans, are adequately trained in AI tools, so that they can be competitive in the economy years from now into the future, as AI becomes a bigger and bigger deal,' Will Scharf, White House staff secretary, said at the time.
