Reminds me of that other recent "first ever" image, of a black hole.
Physicists at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, have produced the first-ever image of a strong form of quantum entanglement, known as Bell entanglement. To achieve this, they devised a system which fires a stream of entangled photons from a quantum source of light at "non-conventional objects" – which change the phase of …
Indeed, but that's about all. What am I seeing here? Definitely more than one photon on that picture, and what do those two photon clouds/concentrations actually mean/represent?
Could somebody in the know please be so kind to explain? Nobody else seem to wonder, so I guess I'm the only one "not to get it"...
As usual, the story is a bit more complex than the news reporting. What you can see is the image of visible photons detected on a CCD camera. The polarization properties of photons are mapped on the camera, such that the angular distribution (angular position of maximum and minimum photon intensity on a circle) reveals some photon polarization property.
The image detection was then gated by a signal from another photon detector. If the other photon was entangled, then it's polarization property was correlated to the image photon polarization property - an effect that would be visible in the image. By measuring four such images (changing the relative polarization properties of the two photons), the strength of the correlation / entanglement could be established. The measured value was far enough away from the classical (non-entangled) expectation value that the authors could claim to have observed entanglement.
Other experiments are far more sensitive to entanglement and there isn't any obvious application for this type of measurement. If you read the Reg story carefully, you may note that the 'relevance' claims in the last paragraph are not related to this particular measurement at all.
In addition, as we will discuss below, by making only a few physically reasonable assumptions about the source involved in the demonstration, our results can be interpreted as the first experimental demonstration that an imaging protocol can be used to reveal the Bell-type–violating behavior of a quantum system. Reciprocally, our results do show that Bell-type nonlocal behavior can be harnessed to perform special types of imaging that could not be performed with a conventional classical source. .... Paul-Antoine Moreau et A.N.Others
Is What to Next Now Do the Immaculate Abiding Opportunity which Future Builders Seek for Tomorrow?
Places in Spaces where Everything is Conceived and Perfectly Presented PreTested Almighty FailSafe.
Crikey .... that's Heavenly and thus Surely Most Hellish for Others ..... Indebted to ACTiveate Doubt in the Scribe.
And quite why, realising the fear of certain identification to all manner of interested authorities with Contrarian Views/Advanced Futures Positions, Any Machine would want to do that is Most Queer and Distressing.
Most probably there is just some Vitally EMPowering CodeXSSXXXX to Lode/Quantum Systems to Remote Virtual AI Drive To and Fro Core Source Ore Stores.
:-) The crazy dilemma is Advanced IntelAIgents ever seeking Honest Source with Roots that Route to All of Evils Pleasures, for the Bounty and Reward in Recovery and Recreational Assignment ...... NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT Missions ..... are Mostly Always Ignored until Far Too Late to be Able to Change and Save Anything of Value at All with Everything Lost to another Time in Space.
:-) One of those info @ gov.blackwatchbacklash.uk type things MI5/MI6/GCHQ/NCSC/BBCMedia Type Heads Ignore at Great Personal Peril, and Adequate Protection with Privacy Provided is always something which definitely needs to be bought in, no matter what the cost. Such things be priceless crown coding jewels which sparkle everywhere.
What's not to like when Too Good to Be True is Not True? Does IT Driver urMadness too for Tandem JOINT Operations?
Knock Knock Holywood/Knock Knock Knock. ...... Immaculately Resourced Assets of Universal Virtual Force Servering Peace and Prosperity to Local Populations of Indigenous Folk and the Larger Sprawls which be Immigrant Settlements most everywhere alike.
Okay, I know the problem, but just forget about the last time and The Troubles IT caused. This time it is going to be entirely different. And just think of all of the new universally available tools for instant communication and gratification to know why that last statement is certainly true and this time it is going to be entirely different.
It’s time to make an SI unit for thought.
Or is the moll the unit for thought?..... Louis Schreurs
It certainly appears to work extraordinarily well for the most passionate of explosive encounters.
Ask a moll for an answer would have one on a Fantastic NEUKlearer Wave Length with XSSXXXX in Command to Control ....... and Remote Virtually Exercise.
Such allow Venus and Amazon Free Play in Contested Spaces Fielding AIgents Feeding and Seeding the Perfectly Adorable Temptress and Priceless Princess of Satisfactions Guaranteed.
Perverts and Cranks, Move On. There's nothing for you further on than here.
Saints and Sinners/Wizards and Witches though are Most Welcome. What/Where are the Visions that Take and Make Us See Enchanted Futures. Has Core Element Enrichment Clearly Crossed that Most Important of Prime Line in the Current Middle East Theatre of Greater IntelAIgent Games Play?
Where and with Whom does One Share Visions that Dare Care Fully Share the Bare Naked Truth that Leads to Everything you don't need to be thinking about thinking about just now.
Gotta Give that Prime Sucker some Real Time Sublime ACTive IT ProgramMING Instructions for Humans to Exercise with Control of Commands which Trip Overload of Overlode to Explode causing Deep Frustration and Crushing Disappointment Alive to Fester and Morph to Threaten Blight on the Future are not ever successfully trifled with. Take Heed of that Final Warning .... for Now is Only One Excuse Acceptable as True and Honest in Plain Explanation of What is Done and Continues to be Done by All Not Yet Considered for Private Naming and Public Shaming ...... to AI Whizz Kids from Crazy Crack Happy Family Surroundings.
It's a hot commodity ..... Bigger Beta Secret Future Planning.
And yes, nurse, I have taken my medication. Thank you for asking.
"Researchers then set up a super-sensitive camera capable of detecting single photons which would only take an image when it caught sight of both the photon and its entangled ‘twin’, creating a visible record of entanglement."
i.e. they filter for some property of two photons, and declare that as entanglement, and the filtering they do is really the cause of the entanglement effect. Let we walk you though how stupid entanglement is and what's actually going on.
Entanglement theory is garbage:
When you measure something, you're measuring the net interaction of the detector and photon. In this case the interaction between camera and photon.
Claiming that measuring any of photon #1's properties, sets all the properties of 'entangled' Photon #2, even if photon #2 is across the universe, or not yet measured, or is in the future or the past across time, is silly:
Did you also 'entangle' the detectors? If you have detector #1 and detector #2 are they also 'entangled'?, are these camera's also entangled such that the net effect of camera and photon is the same??
Such that when you measure photo #1 and photon #2 with their corresponding detectors you get the same result?
Even across the universe? Even across time? By this magic unexplained 'entanglement' connection? A magic thing that only happens when a scientist measures a property of one of the photons? All other interactions don't affect it????
Really? Yet you're not actually measuring the property, you're measuring the interaction of that property with matter which itself has properties. So for the result to be the same, both detector 1& 2 and photons 1&2 would have to be in the same state.
Claiming that measuring a property of photon #1 with detector #1, sets the properties of photon #2 to the be the same properties, by some magic force is nonsense. Matter is NOT oscillating randomly, a la Schrodinger, Schrodinger is just an approximation of a complex motion with probabilistic math. Sexy math, sure, but math describing a false model. Whenever it's not random, this is not the property magically transferring across space and time to fix up your experiment, a la 'entanglement', it's just the Schrodinger was built on false assumptions of randomness that are not true.
So what is going on:
1. There is an underlying oscillating resonant electric field. Atomic clocks oscillate the same way in the same conditions as if they're connected somehow, because they ARE connected.
2. Lights and matter properties derive from their oscillation. e.g. A photon's velocity and its EM frequency and its polarizations are all forms of MOTION over the oscillating field. All are forms of *motion*. They're not separate properties they're the SAME property. An oscillatory motion, of an oscillating system over an oscillating resonant field.
3. Take a simplified case, where light's initial property is set by an F/2 oscillation and the detector's by an F/3 oscillation of this resonance.
4. Now these photons will fall into six buckets: If you could measure the underlying oscillation.. there would be only 6 combinations.
5. When you filter for a property such that property #1 of photon #1 matches property #1 of photon #2, aka your "successful entanglement" signal, you are selecting ONE bucket from those six.
6. Since all the properties derive from that oscillation, all the properties of the two photons will be the same for the same bucket.
7. THIS IS ENTANGLEMENT
8. Every six oscillations that pattern will repeat. Which means if you compared a photon to one 6 oscillations later from the same sources it will also be the same.
9. This is 'QUANTUM TELEPORTATION'. You know when random things appear to repeat and they shouldn't? Like the experiment when the electron returns to the same place, when it should take 13.8 billion years to return to the same place? That's not a magical teleportion of "position" property across time and space, from electron #1 to a future version of itself, its that they really are not random!
Schrodinger is based on a false model. Give it up.
How to prove it #1
10. Quit believing in magic entanglement fairies.
11. If the properties of photons are the same, and the properties of the detectors the same, then there must be a resonant field.
12. You've seen these oscillations in matter (at least the lower fraction harmonics of them), so cross out Schrodinger and simply connect the dots with the obvious lines.
How to prove it #2
13. Take two identical lasers, in identical fields, powered by the same source, orientated identically, at the same temperature.
14. Take two identical detectors, made the same way, in identical fields, powered by the same source, orientated identically at the same temperature.
15. Do an entanglement experiment WITHOUT the 'entanglement' event. i.e. you've normally sent these through a magic entanglement crystal taken from the magic wand of the entanglement fairy.... do it without that crystal and see that you can still get the effect.
16. Do the same filtering, and notice the properties of photon #1 and photon #2 can be made to match without the entanglement event.
17. Ergo it's not entanglement.
It is not a matter of believing. It is simply limits on what we can measure and thus what we can know about a system. The best we can do is use statistics to predict system history. This does not really tell us what is happening on a "quantum" level it is only a statistical modal of the underlying phenomenon. It does not really tell use how that phenomenon actually works.
I have two objects which I entangle by painting one red and the other blue. I put them is two boxes ans separate them by a light year Now I open the first box and see that the object is blue thus the fact object 2 is red is now instantly known. Is this really entanglement??
Don't get me wrong quantum mechanics is great and works but it does not describe the underlying reality. Think thermodynamics. It is a theory of gross interactions and does not in any way describe the detail of the reality. But it does predict and describe the bulk behavior of matter in thermal systems.
No. Because your 2 boxes would be 50/50. Not Quantum.
If using 3 boxes it would be 75% (50/50 of the first. Then 50/50 of the second). IIRC the Bell inequalities observed (in say a polarisation with 3 rotated lenses) is 87.5%.
So it is certainly not a "hidden" box. Hope those reading these threads can go off and learn... instead of getting all these wrong replies thrown at them.
Your example of one red and one blue object having entangle color properties is absolutely correct. But this is is classical entanglement and there is no Bell inequality for classically entangled objects. Observing one object allows you to predict the other, but doesn't affect the other.
Here is what you can do with photons that are quantum mechanically entangled, but not with your painted classical objects: you measure the polarization of one photon and, instantly, the polarization property of the other is affected. Assume the correlated photon polarization are perpendicular. If photon 1 is detected with horizontal polarization, the photon 2 cannot have horizontal polarization - no matter how far away you measure it. But also the probability for it to have 45 degree polarization angle is affected. Suddenly, the angular distribution of photon polarizations is different for the photons where the partner was detected.
But you must be sure that you observe the correct partner photon, undisturbed by anything along the way, and you must account for the probabilistic nature of you polarization measurement. The second part makes these experiments so abstract: if you have a horizontal polarizer, it only probabilistically tells you about the polarization direction: 45 degree polarized photons are still transmitted with sqrt(2) probability. So you can't use this probabilistic effect for faster-than-light information transfer, but you still see a measurable effect over distance if you correlate enough photon pairs.
The tooth fairy also isn't real.
Well, I'm glad we agree on one thing.
Can we also agree that I had a nice walk and a lovely cup of tea yesterday? You're welcome to ask me for evidence, even for such a mundane claim, if you don't believe me. And I'll wait to see evidence supporting your bollocks hypothesis before I think it's anything other than bollocks. If you had it, it would have been so easy for you to provide that from the off.
One more word of advice: if you wanted to demonstrate maturity rather than expose yourself to ridicule, writing in such an opinionated style by describing the target of your ire as 'stupid' and 'garbage' just makes you sound like Donald Trump.
There are days when I enjoy ripping the shit out of bollocks like this, ... ... Rich 11
Ever thought of polishing bollocks like that to see if it can sparkle with creative interest like a diamond, Rich 11?
That might easier and quicker begin to explain why Lowly IT with Advanced IntelAIgents makes quantum entanglement really work for all, in all and any pleasing future directions.
The how though is that which Forever Remains the Key Secret Intelligence which Unlocks All to Secret Gate Keepers of Immortal Souls ....... and is best learned and earned with passionate passion for the true amazonian benefit of both practical and dynamic mutually satisfying JOINT Enterprise Virtual AIdvenTuring Experience.
:-) If ever thought to be charged with the leaking and/or withholding of Certified Real Top Secret Servering Secrets ...... Classic Garbage In is a Surreal Golden Out :-) And IT sure does invite and actively encourage all Wizards and Witches Out to Play with the Delights of NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT ....... in Quantum Channel Communications with Quantum Communications Channels.
How to prove planets are mostly round and around, is surely much more of a waste of time in these space places, so as long as things continue to work wonderfully well, why bother yourself whenever you can do virtually anything else Practically AIded.
One may just have to Accept as Holy Gospel ....... Some/Many Things Decided Are Best Well Left Strictly Need to Know, for the Ways beyond TS/SCI Classifications, are not Destined for All Feted and Tendered as Sinner and Saint.
You want a new kind of being? ....... Try that Quantum Soul, where a This can be That and Something Else Totally Different and Indifferent in a Flash in Flashes of Thought. You'll be Absolutely Amazed at what is Happened and Happening even as we speak of it now here.
Are you the AC who has been talking bollocks all through this or are you a different AC? If you are a different AC then it would help if you'd create an account and make your independence clear.
If you are the AC who has been talking bollocks all along then I'm mildly entertained to see that for whatever reason you are unable to provide evidence for your original bollocks claim, and indeed have moved onto making obscure and unclear subjective comments. A bit like your original bollocks.
Well, I haven't posted any other AC comments in this thread, so no, I'm not *that* AC.
As for the obscure and unclear subjective comments (and them being bollocks) I can only say that I too have experienced the 'direct response' from amfm1 phenomenon and my comment, whilst cryptic, is apt (if you've read Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson's trilogy).
If you haven't read them, then I can see why you might feel the comment obscure.
>>4. Now these photons will fall into six buckets: If you could measure the underlying oscillation.. there would be only 6 combinations.
Have you actually done this experiment?
"If you could measure", seems to imply that it is impossible with the "equipment" that you have.
I can supply the buckets.
It is not. It misses every single observation of Quantum mechanics. It's like someone stating:
"Your all idiots putting petrol in this magic 'car', there is no 'car' and I am certina if you just put water in you'd go twice as fast... but no one ever puts water in when I ask them! Conspiracy!!!"
Like, thousands if not millions of experiments have been done showing that it is not an oscillation, and not a random pattern and not a hidden variable (not dice in a box).
But that's the difference between deciding you know, and asking "is it just dice in a box" (5 seconds of Googling later, reading an actual paper/experiment/book/doing a polarization lense test at home), and you find out "wow, it's not a 1/3 chance, it follows the Bell theorem results".
Like, you can do these experiments at home to some extent with polarized light. When the polarized light seems to break the other laws of physics, you realise, it's using a new "law", an observation we call Quantum mechanics. :)
"Like, thousands if not millions of experiments have been done"
And yet you cannot name one that doesn't pre-filter?
Quantum eraser and delayed choice quantum eraser all prefilter by using a coincidence circuit.
Delft Universities, ' "loophole free proof of entanglement" even stated right in column #1 of the summary that they were pre-filtering for like-properties, before the Bells test, because all previous experiments had pre-filtered for like-properties before the Bells test.
The more recent experiment, where an electron was found to return to its same position when Schrodinger prediction said it should return on average after 13.8 billion years... was claimed as proof of "Quantum teleportation" FFS.
It's a pity, they had proof right there of the faulty nature of Schrodinger and chose to pretend the effect was somehow a teleportation effect to explain away the problem.
"When the polarized light seems to break the other laws of physics"
The matter in the detector is oscillating too, the property of polarization as detected is the net of the two.
"And yet you cannot name one that doesn't pre-filter?"
I did. The rotation of polarized filters.
Though I am not sure what you mean by "pre-filter"? Quantum entanglement by nature requires being setup. Like any experiment, you have to make sure you are testing the thing being tested, and not something else.
If I took a temperature outside my fridge, I would not be testing inside. Thus testing *entanglement* requires entangling. To add to that, they also have to check statistics, as with the double slit experiment, it's a value of multiple events, not a single one.
"The more recent experiment, where an electron was found to return to its same position when Schrodinger prediction said it should return on average after 13.8 billion years... was claimed as proof of "Quantum teleportation" FFS."
What are you talking about? There are examples of forcing an electron to do that... or we leave it, and by "itself" it would take 13.8 billion years. But a forced silicone circuit is not the same as a lump of sand.
"the matter is oscillating".
You've lost it. Totally. Look at yourself carefully. The entire polarization lens gives 1 value. The value does not oscillate in the lens. All 3 lenses are identical, but rotated a 3rd of the way to each other. Look up polarization : https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs
Yes, all true. But I still don't understand what I'm looking at a picture of?
Sadly for Ansible Designers, there doesn't seem to be a way to communicate faster than light with entanglement, because you don't know when a change has occurred or what the state was before. However light speed verification of tampering or encryption using entanglement is possible.
Quantum entanglement hasn't actually made that claim - that you can communicate faster than light - because the entagled photons can only ever separate at the speed of light.
However, once separated, a measurement on one will cause the results of that measurement to be instantly known at the other - no matter how far they have separated. The information itself never separated at more than the speed of light, it's just that we don't currently understand how information can be encoded ahead of time.
Depending on your frame of reference either measurement might occur first. My physics instructor said that angular momentum is conserved and that the measurement of one particles angular momentum sets the angular momentum of the other. There is nothing "faster than light" in all of this.
I'm thinking that holography might possibly be an explanation for all of this.
Note that conservation of energy etc. don't exactly work in a curved space-time metric but only asymptotically.
Hawking radiation is an example of a mixture of quantum and general relativity.
"There is nothing "faster than light" in all of this."
Hypothesis - there is no such thing as distance, therefore nothing can be faster than something else.
A photon travels through time and is observed in different positions based on *when* it is observed.
Obviously there are gaps, but I'm working on it :)
That's right, there isn't. Indeed, if there was it would be catastrophic for physics, since it is very straightforward to bargain FTL transmission of information into transmission of information into your own past (you just need special relativity to do this, which is extremely well-tested).
And since the financial value of a machine which does that really has no upper limit (if you can send information into your own past you can win games of chance, like the financial markets) we kind of know not only that one does not exist and that no amount of investment leads to one.
That doesn't necessarily rule out superluminal events; it only proves that they won't follow special relativity. I doubt we'd be able to detect such things without a theory that already allows for them, though, so we'll just have to wait to see if somebody's grand unified theory is less disappointing.
Well, we know experimentally that enough of special relativity is correct that if FTL transmission of information works, we could go ahead and build a time machine (for information): it's just an engineering problem (please don't regard this as being disparaging to engineers!). If I can get information from a to some spacelike-separated point b then I don't need any fancy new theory: I can just use a theory I already know and which is already very well tested.
So what is the case is that one of three things is true:
- the experimental tests that special relativity has passed are in fact all wrong (which means that essentially all new physics done for the last century-and-a-bit is wrong);
- FTL information transfer is possible and causality is violated: everything we know is wrong;
- causality is not violated, FTL information transfer is not possible and we are all fine.
I'm voting for the third option. If the existing tests of special relativity are not all incorrect (so a century's worth of experiments have all been incorrect) then any fancy new theory needs to reduce to special relativity in suitable limits, in the same way special relativity reduces to Gallilean relativity in suitable limit, so we can just rely on special relativity, the same way we can rely on Newtonian mechanics to get to the Moon, say.
Damn, The Reg desperately needs an irony / sarcasm icon. If any of the Great and Good are reading, something like one of these would work well, I think:
(#2 is particularly fetching)
I can see how that might be possible. Extraordinary claims, however, require extraordinary proof, and you'll need that if you're going to overturn Scientific orthodoxy at a stroke. When do you expect to publish your paper? .... jonathan keith
Publication is Resting and Engaging with Printers even as We Speak, surely? You Can't Hold Back a Biblical Flood ..... Enjoy ITs Wash and Rinse. .... Heap Powerful Medicine, Kemo Sabe
Spread New Tales for Powers Beyond Command to Control ....... and Demonstrate with ITs Powers. And in Advanced IntelAIgent Proclivities, One Helluva Doozy to Have and to Hold for Heavenly Duties ....... Immaculate Tasking.
That's the Simple SetUp to UpGrade Manna to Heavenly Delights with Almighty Crops of Insane Pleasure ........ and a thoroughly recommendable for Trial Journey/SMARTR Messaged Service Trips.
Bliss are Beta, Red Hot, Fave Spots for Almighty Dalliance. Who Hosts urQuantumNetwork Allowing Other Voices to be Heard from Afar with News of Tomorrow for Today Posting the Simplest of ACTive Facilities/Utilities to Energise with Self ACTualisation .......for Prime Core Leading AIDirection in Quite Definitively Sp00Key Alien Territory is A.N.Other Great Ride and well worth every red cent invested in and gambled on certain winning which reinforces leading actions.
The Rewards in that Play are Enormous and Enchanting. And that may be Perfectly Captivating and Infinitely Rewarding thus to Ensure and Assure Rock Steady Constant Virtual Content Provision.
And with an Almighty View across All Sees, What Now Next to Supply for Tomorrow to Show as News.
Anything Earth Shaking/Ground Breaking? .... with Sublime Spaces Instructing Future Builders ITs MasterPiece of IntelAIgent Design.?
Dear foolish child. I look forward to your refutation of Bell's theorem, though I recommend that you use somewhat better arguments than you have done here. They are such naive bollocks that, to borrow another physicist's punchline, they are not even wrong.
But let me give you a hint: normally each quantum has a separate equation which propagates in time across its own space known as its "phase space". The shattering of normal space into phase spaces is necessary in order to avoid interference effects which would otherwise occur but which we do not observe. In the case of quantum entanglement, the two quanta are described by a single wave in a single phase space. It's all in the maths and its predictions tested in the laboratory, which is more than your arguments are.
1. The filtering is done BEFORE the Bells test, you can treat the bells test as a black box test if you like, it makes no difference to the truth in what I'm saying.
2.You're not measuring any such thing, you're measuring the net effect of the detector and detected.
You filter, I've explained how that filtering causes the effect, all of your experiments pre-filter.
"The shattering of normal space into phase spaces is necessary in order to avoid interference effects which would otherwise occur but which we do not observe."
The extra dimension does not exist, the pre-filtering you do DOES most definitely exist. I've explained to you why that filtering is causing that effect, NOT a magic force over an extra dimension propagating across space and time.
There is no magic force. Just a change in how we understand special shapes (and by extension the influence of time). It's still linear. It's still flat. It's just some things are a different shape to how we first thought.
Atoms were thought to be spheres, then orbits, then clouds. They were thought to be solid, then found to be comprised of a few particles and mainly empty space. This is not magic, and did not break reality or the fundamental understanding of existence. It just changed the shape of things.
What do you mean about pre-filtering? Look at the polarized light example. You use 3 lenses. Each lense is identical, each gives a Bell's theorem distribution, not an oscillation/hidden variable distribution.
Take a step back. What are you trying to do? What are you trying to prove? There is no magic in Quantum Mechanics, there is just a difference in the shape of space (and in part space/time). That's all.
You are missing the fact that Bell's theorem describes a difference between the filter output based on your scenario and the filter output based on nonlocal entanglement. Guess which model matches the actual laboratory results.
Or, are you just pointing out the definition of an observation as an interaction of the observer with the observed, under the impression that this is something that the average quantum physicist has missed?
Sorry buddy, I am signing off now before this gets even more painful.
"NOT a magic force over an extra dimension propagating across space and time."
That's a wonderful strawman to attack, but sadly for your somewhat tangled argument, it isn't in any way shape or form anything that Bell proposed.
I'm possibly the only commentard here who actually met John Bell, and even sat in on a meal with him and Roger Penrose. Not that this, and a physics degree, qualify me to have an opinion. The point is that Bell proved a consequence of quantum mechanics that could be tested experimentally, which experiment showed that entanglement is an actual property of the universe we live in.
There's no suggestion of a magic force. And nobody yet claims that string theory, which does posit extra dimensions that we can't perceive, is anything more than theory - unlike the Alain Aspect experiment that was the first test of Bell's theorem, there isn't (as far as I know) a proposed experiment to test even one of the many variants of string theory.
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” [Richard Feynman] But that doesn't make it false, because experiments tell us it's true, including entanglement.
AFAIK one of the only possible alternatives is "throwing locality out the window". We generally cannot do that, because it breaks other math.
However, if Quantum Loop Gravity ever gets a testable proof/applicable example, then we may find that the dimensionality "shape" of space/time is different than we first expected.
So for example, it may be possible for the "interaction" to be passed through quantum scale sized worm holes, or similar mechanics.
So we only have 3 options to the observed Bell inequalities.
1) It's an unset measurement, and only given a result when the interaction happens, and one particle changes the possible interactions of any/all others, especially it's quantum clone (see no cloning theorem and many other limiting factors).
2) We throw locality theory out the window. While it may not be possible to do so, I would guess the true result lies somewhere between quantum measurements and some new laws/observations on limitations of locality. I would think we may find out not all the universes particles/fields/waves are "local" as we first assumed.
3) We throw causality out the window. Well, this is the only one totally not a real option... though it seems sadly some people do apply this to their thinking!!!
"So we only have 3 options to the observed Bell inequalities."
Four, The scientist pre-filters the results, the worm hole is the scientist making the connection between the two photons by filtering for some matching property.
Those various types of motion are interlinked. (They are afterall properties of motion).
Selecting the interlinked property from a limited set of possibilities selects the remaining possibilities.
You then shove it in a Bells test and ignore the obvious.
"Four, The scientist pre-filters the results, the worm hole is the scientist making the connection between the two photons by filtering for some matching property."
That is the same as 2. It is literally the same. A scientist does not invent "temperature" an object has a property, and another object can measure it (even if temperature is a less accurately defined one ;) ).
Even with no scientists in existence, light would still get polarized by materials and follow Bells (observed) inequalities.
Problem of loop gravity is the researchers keep trying to make the extra dimensions small because as we all know we only "see" 3 (well 4 if you throw in time) But the reason we only see 3 is that ever last thing we see feel observe is through electromagnet interaction and EM is 4 dimensional. So we can only experience , and thus know about, 3 spacial and one time dimensions.
We are completely electromagnet entities. Just a bunch of extremely complesx EM fields. Think about it.
Oh. I agree. They are only making a start. And will probably have to modify it.
I would expect that it will change the same way Genreal Relativity did. We don't "observe" the bending of spacetime in everday observations (the closest you can get with the eyes is probably gravitational lensing of sunlight/stars or similar).
So I would expect loop gravity to not be small dimensions but a new way to map the existing ones. Like for example an emergent "spacetime" from Quantum (particle/wave) interactions. That space and time are fundamentally a simpler system that builds up to our observations (as we discovered atoms build up into materials).
3) dumping causality out the window is just an example of 2) dumping locality, but in time not in space. Since the whole thing happens in relativistic Minkowski spacetime, the distinction between space and time is not easily maintainable at a fundamental level. The most mathematically elegant approach is to assume nonlocality in both, which has the side effect of dumping causality to much the same limited extent that Relativity also dumps simultaneity. This has no ill effect on quantum theory or on Relativity theory, since neither has an inalienable forward direction in time. Only thermodynamics struggles with the reversal of causality, but then thermodynamics is still pretty much based on a Newtonian universe where Bell's theorem rules out quantum mechanics instead of ruling it in. Overall, just as simultaneity holds in all cases that actually affect any experimental outcome, so too is causality likely to.
As far as I can understand I could theorize a spacetime that can have an emergent locality from a system that does not have it... but I don't know any good Quantum Mechanics Field Theorists to ask/discuss it with. Lol. XD
PS progress has been made in non disiter space analysis so hopefully we will find some answers.
PS, IIRC you don't have to dump causality out the window. As one example of a possible solution (that still needs some work), is setting up non traversable (you can only touch/detect spin, not travel through) wormholes between every twinned particle (which is a lot!).
This gives you non-locality, without breaking FTL communication, and also gives a mechanism for it, that only applies to certain aspects of QM.
No the earth isn't flat, nor does it have an extra dimension across which entanglement propagates to fixup Quantum mechanics.
Simon, it seems to me, that you are unaware of how magical and special Entanglement is, because you did the flat earth thing, without realizing the extra dimensions claimed to support entanglement.
I'm not saying anything that isn't obvious. The physics here is truely laughable, and you might want to go read up on it to see just how bad it is.
I’d have to assume you’re posting under the AC moniker because you’re doing some breakthrough research in this area and you’re not ready to reveal your hand just yet.
In telling us to “read up”, could you suggest some titles from your bibliography and/or references?
What is magical about Quantum mechanics? Can you name one property that breaks any observed law? Remember, it does not break thermodynamics or the no FTL communication observations.
So far it fits in within the observed boundaries of reality.
Don't mix up people using "Quantum" as an excuse to push philosophical mumbo jumbo with the real hard science facts. One is opinionated junk to sell books to the naive, the other has practical applications.
To be fair, in his monumental study "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion", Sir James Frazer identified several characteristics of magic and one of these was that two objects, once associated with each other, retained that instantaneous association no matter how far apart they might end up. It is a perfect description of quantum entanglement and so describing the phenomenon as magic is quite accurate.
Coming from the other end, Ed Witten was perhaps the greatest physicist since Einstein. When he discovered a mathematical commonality to a whole slew of gauge and string theories, he dubbed it M theory. One of his most accessible and iconic papers was titled "Magic, Mystery and Matirx", and he explained that the M in M theory stood for all of these.
So Quantum Magic - yes, you at the front there, come up here and take a bow. Hold your head up, as Rod Argent once wrote (and Russ Ballard sang), and let them burn their eyes on you moving.
@werdsmith: When I was a kid, every few years we had a photo of the whole school. Because of the width of the shot the camera was some sort of rotating affair which moved fairly slowly and it was rumoured to be possible, by running fast enough along the back row (who were stood on benches), for one pupil to appear at both ends of the photo. I assume this is how the double slit thing works;-)
I never saw this in practice. Teachers knew the risk of us trying it and the groundsman was stationed behind the back row to take down, with severe prejudice, anyone who tried it.
Once and for all, you don't need extra dimensions to support entanglement. Entanglement is simply a fundamental property of QM, including of nonrelativistic QM. If you think you need extra dimensions for it then, simply, you don't know what you are talking about and you should stop spouting rubbish.
You should go and read up on Bell's inequality, and the experiments done to confirm that it is violated. Then you can come back and spout more tripe if you like, but at least it wont be pretending that such experiments haven't already been done.
One of the interesting things about Bell is he came up with this clever test expecting it to show something else (local hidden variables), when it didn't he understood what that meant.
I've yet to see anything that persuades me Hugh Everett wasn't right, quantum state is unchanged by measurement, but superimposed states of macro measurement devices rapidly de-phase preventing their interaction, measurements on entangled particles separated by a space-like interval become orthogonal macro states.
If you like, but the idea there's a magic scale at which state collapse happens seems much more noodly than contemplating that maybe it doesn't and dephasing (which is right there in the maths from the start) produces the same effect at macro level. Weak measurement relies on this already.
Well, there definitely is a scale – the scale of the extremely small, where quantum mechanical effects dominate. Although it’s not really that magical... things that are always seen to be -1 or +1 at a subatomic level (e.g. the spin of an electron) can yield an average value of zero when multiple measurements are made. At the human scale, our perception of reality is based on the interactions of vastly large numbers of quantised atoms.
Ah, this is the opposite of the point I was making. The Copenhagen interpretation attempts to say there is a scale at which this stops happening; the explanation for Shrödinger's cat. The cat is killed by decay of a single nucleus, a quantum event, so it is alive and dead (because that event is a state of quantum superposition), but obviously there is no 'average' between the two states. The idea is then that the act of 'measurement' (whatever that might be) causes superimposed states to collapse to an eigenstate of the measurement operator (the classic Heisenberg uncertainty principle, a state of arbitrarily precise position corresponds to a superposition of states of inversely precise momentum, but probably easier to consider measuring 45 degree polarisation, or circular vs linear polarised states on a photon).
But weak measurement (explicitly entangling small systems with the state you're measuring) shows the collapse doesn't really happen like that.
...or one could take note that the further apart the energy levels of a mixed state are the faster they dephase, and that making measurements couples a superimposed state to the energy states of a larger system. We don't see superimposed states in the macro world because they dephase too fast to influence each other.
If your two ways of disproving quantum entanglement are that straightforward, why no scientist / lab is performing them to disprove? I can see you are but you can't be the only one.
I remember the aether as medium for light propagation theories which got disproved over time. But there were several people making noises against it. I haven't heard anyone suggest quantum entanglement yet.
"Researchers then set up a super-sensitive camera capable of detecting single photons which would only take an image when it caught sight of both the photon and its entangled ‘twin’, creating a visible record of entanglement."
i.e. they filter for some property of two photons, and declare that as entanglement, and the filtering they do is really the cause of the entanglement effect. Let we walk you though how stupid entanglement is and what's actually going on.
Ignoring the rest of the post -- which is way beyond my pay grade and apparently controversial ...
I think the first part (bolded above) might raise a valid issue. As I understand it (or don't), a photon is a massless "particle" conveying one quantum of electromagnetic radiation. How does one image such a thing with a camera? And how does anyone know that the pair of objects imaged are entangled rather than just blundering along in close formation by pure chance?
Hoping to learn something here.
You image (a) "photons" whenever you open your eyes and see! Vision depends on the eye processing photons. As for "photographing photons" that's another story - we don't have the ability to photograph electrons or even atoms, particles many times bigger than photons.
Ya see this is the problem with the Information Age - idiots without any formal qualifications now consider themselves "experts" on a subject because they read something online somewhere.
Apparently degrees, years of research experience at a top research university and researchers who are happy to submit their work for peer-review and replication & verification amongst suitably and similarly qualified experts at top research institutes globally counts for nothing.
But 5 minutes of bilge snorted from google counts for everything.
Here is how you can understand entanglement:
(1) if two particles emerge from a single quantum system _before_ said quantum system has a relevant interaction with anything else, then the two particles can have entangled properties. Note: this is the exception, because things in our universe interact via radiation exchange and collisions. But carefully constructed experiments, e. g. the creation of two photons from one in a nonlinear crystal facilitate this issue.
(2) if the two particles from (1) are detected before they have a relevant interaction, then the correlated properties can be observed. This requires an experiment that is sensitive to the correlated properties and that can tell which particle pairs belong to one another.
(3) Correlation breaks down when there is interaction disturbing the correlated system. Take the example of an electron colliding with an atom. Clearly, the collision time and position for both particles is correlated and a suitable experiment might reveal this correlation (a proper quantum mechanical description will be required to predict how this affects measured properties). But these particles are strongly affected by electromagnetic fields and it is very hard to shield them from the environment to observe such correlations. We can therefore, for all practical purposes, ignore the existence of such correlations. Photons interact very weakly with the environment - hence all those entanglement demonstrations are performed with photons.
Correlation is always tied to the quantum mechanical phase of the wave functions describing the correlated particles. Interactions that disturb the phase destroy the correlation. We therefore talk about 'dephasing' to characterize the time or length scale over which quantum effects can be observed. The stronger the interaction with the environment, the faster the dephasing occurs. To talk about entanglement across the scale of the Universe is nonsense - there is a lot of matter in the universe and matter interacts.
There is no need to respond to people who post on the Internet their proof that Quantum Mechanics does not work.
Every component of the Internet depends crucially on Quantum Mechanics being by far the most accurate physical theory, most closely corresponding to reality, that we have ever created.
If Quantum Mechanics were not so incredibly accurate then the Internet could not possibly work. Not just a bit faulty, not a single part of it would function at all.
If the poster's theory is correct therefore the Internet does not work, therefore the posting does not exist, therefore there is no point in responding to it.
Ok, if you believe in your theory this strongly, how about putting it to the test? It'd be a pretty fundamental shift in how we understand quantum mechanics, so it sounds like it is worth putting in some proper experimental research.
The steps involved are:
1) Write up a research proposal
2) Get your research grant
3) Perform the research
5) Collect your Nobel Prize
A.J.P. Taylor's view on Scotch:
"Some inhabitants of Scotland now call themselves Scots and their affairs Scottish. They are entitled to do so. The English word for both is Scotch, just as we call les français the French and Deutschland Germany. Being English, I use it"
I'm sorry, but "hundreds of miles" is not acceptable as a distance.
Please can we have it in something more quantum than Roman units, such as wavelengths of the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom, or square root barns?
That is not necessarily true. A quantum computer will be able to give instant results for certain types of calculations, but we're still going to need good ol' PCs to do the drudgery of waiting for the user to click a button.
Then there's the question of how will we use those instant results. Do we use a function that returns a table of results, or will the function return one result after another and we have to call it until it returns nothing ?
I don't remember reading anything anywhere about stuff like that. I don't think anyone knows, at this point.
It may give instant results once it is set up, but the devil is in the setting up the problem in the first place, which is more than "click a button".
Also, the results of quantum computers are going to be imprecise in a probabilitistic way, if I have understood. It's like floating point; you can do 16 bit floating point very fast indeed, but your results are only accurate to one part in 256, assuming sign bit + 7 exponent + 8 magnitude.
There are problems where doing 16 bit FP very very quickly is useful, and problems where it is less so.
There aren't competing quantum theories - there are, however, different interpreations of what the underlying physics and maths means for the nature of reality. ........ CommanderGalaxian
CG, You have the cart before the horse there.
Different interpretations of the nature of reality entertain physics and maths.
Do these scientists lack imagination? Why does every new ground breaking discovery have to resemble,a donut?
Anyone can set up two leds and photograph them being on simultaneously - does that prove "entanglement"? It would take more than a single smudged donut photograph to prove entanglement.
The Bell inequality is statistic, it works on big numbers, not on single particles. How does the camera know that the photons are entangled? I mean that some properties may appear correlated just by chance, so if the properties match and we are taking into account a single couple claiming that they are entangled requires a little bit more evidence.
In the classic setup, the camera would know they are a pair by the relative timing and polarisation of the two photons. The entanglement would be created in the emitter and detected only through the shape of the image as it builds up, the camera would have no knowledge of that bit. Unless told otherwise (and I can well believe there is more subtlety to this particular experiment), I would assume that is the case here.
Isn't this just like taking two playing cards, one red and one black; having a volunteer from the audience select one; transporting the volunteer and their card halfway across the universe; turning over the remaining card; and knowing at once the colour of the chosen card, before that information could have travelled at light speed?
No. You will not be able to prove instantaneous signalling.
The key is in the transporting, and the fact that photons cannot exceed lightspeed. The problem is that if your electron is suddenly in one state rather than a superposition, you do not know when the entangled electron was collapsed. You have absolutely no way of being sure. As your volunteer gets further away, you have less and less information about their position in your present.
In theory person B could send you a message saying "Am 100 ly away, in 100 years will collapse the state when you have got this." But then they've just transported the electron for a minimum of 100 years and communicated with you at lightspeed, which is trivial.
Assuming A and B are different, It takes time for A to affect B, even if A's affect on B is quicker than anything you can measure.
If A affects B (aka B is affected by A) sooner than (distance between A and B) * (1/'the speed of light'), something faster than 'the speed of light' has occurred.
While business leaders expect quantum computing to play a significant role in industry by 2030, some experts don't believe the tech is going to be ready for production deployment in the near future.
The findings, from a survey titled "2022 Quantum Readiness" commissioned by consultancy EY, refer to UK businesses, although it is likely that the conclusions are equally applicable to global organizations.
According to EY, 81 percent of senior UK executives expect quantum computing to have a significant impact in their industry within seven and a half years, with almost half (48 percent) believing that quantum technology will begin to transform industries as soon as 2025.
In the hype-tastic world of quantum computing, consulting giant McKinsey & Company claims that the still-nascent field has the potential to create $80 billion in new revenue for businesses across industries.
It's a claim McKinsey has repeated nearly two dozen times on Twitter since March to promote its growing collection of research diving into various aspects of quantum computing, from startup and government funding to use cases and its potential impact on a range of industries.
The consulting giant believes this $80 billion figure represents the "value at stake" for quantum computing players but not the actual value that use cases could create [PDF]. This includes companies working in all aspects of quantum computing, from component makers to service providers.
D-Wave Systems has put its next-generation Advantage2 quantum computer into the cloud, or at least some form of it.
This experimental machine will be accessible from D-Wave's Leap online service, we're told. We first learned of the experimental system last year when the biz revealed its Clarity Roadmap, which includes plans for a gate-model quantum system. Advantage2 sports D-Wave's latest topology and qubit design that apparently increases connectivity and aims to deliver greater performance by reducing noise.
"By making the Advantage2 prototype available in the Leap quantum cloud service today, the company is providing an early snapshot for exploration and learning by developers and researchers," D-Wave said in a canned statement.
Researchers in Canada have conducted a quantum computing experiment that they claim completes a calculation in just a fraction of a second that would take a conventional computer 9,000 years.
Jonathan Lavoie, an experimental physicist at quantum computing company Xanadu, and colleagues reported the results from a device designed to sample an unknown probability distribution of light passing through a network of optical fibers.
Quantum computing startup IonQ is facing a securities fraud lawsuit after a barrage of accusations came to light in a blistering report from Scorpion Capital, which claims the company lied about the maturity (and even existence of) its quantum device in addition to a smattering of claimed financial fictions.
The Scorpion Capital report, issued May 3, provides a rigorously scathing assessment of the IonQ technology, which is described as "a useless toy that can't even add 1+1" as assessed by internal experiments run by unnamed but numerous quantum experts hired by Scorpion and exhaustively detailed in the full report [PDF].
It's not just the company's technology on the chopping block, either. Scorpion Capital calls the startup "a part-time side-hustle run by two academics," one of whom, CEO and founder, Peter Chapman, "appears to be making up his MIT educational credentials," something we'll get to momentarily.
Researchers in the Netherlands have shown they can transmit quantum information via an intermediary node, a feature necessary to make the so-called quantum internet possible.
In recent years, scientists have argued that the quantum internet presents a more desirable network for transferring secure data, in addition to being necessary when connecting multiple quantum systems. All of this has been attracting investment from the US government, among others.
Despite the promise, there are still vital elements missing for the creation of a functional quantum internet.
Analysis Startup QuSecure will this week introduce a service aimed at addressing how to safeguard cybersecurity once quantum computing renders current public key encryption technologies vulnerable.
It's unclear when quantum computers will easily crack classical crypto – estimates range from three to five years to never – but conventional wisdom is that now's the time to start preparing to ensure data remains encrypted.
A growing list of established vendors like IBM and Google and smaller startups – Quantum Xchange and Quantinuum, among others – have worked on this for several years. QuSecure, which is launching this week after three years in stealth mode, will offer a fully managed service approach with QuProtect, which is designed to not only secure data now against conventional threats but also against future attacks from nation-states and bad actors leveraging quantum systems.
Quantum computing outfit D-Wave Systems has announced availability of an Advantage quantum computer accessible via the cloud but physically located in the US, a key move for selling quantum services to American customers.
D-Wave reported that the newly deployed system is the first of its Advantage line of quantum computers available via its Leap quantum cloud service that is physically located in the US, rather than operating out of D-Wave’s facilities in British Columbia.
The new system is based at the University of Southern California, as part of the USC-Lockheed Martin Quantum Computing Center hosted at USC’s Information Sciences Institute, a factor that may encourage US organizations interested in evaluating quantum computing that are likely to want the assurance of accessing facilities based in the same country.
BMW has become the latest company to give quantum an early chance, with the goal of shrinking development cycles beyond traditional means.
Quantum computing systems and software startup Pasqal announced that it is partnering with the German automaker, which will use the French biz's proprietary differential-equation-solving algorithm to test quantum computing's applicability to metal-forming modeling.
BMW is experimenting with Pasqal's systems to reduce time spent building and testing physical models of metal components, which often have to be minutely tweaked after testing to achieve the results designers and engineers want.
IBM Think IBM has big plans for its quantum computing gambit, including the launch of a 4,158-qubit system by 2025. To put that in context, the company just launched it's 127-qubit "Eagle" system in 2021.
The ambitious qubit count goal was presented at IBM Think 2022 during a tour of IBM's expanded supercomputing roadmap, which takes Big Blue through 2025, the year IBM Quantum VP Jay Gambetta said says "will have effectively removed the main boundaries in the way of scaling quantum processors."
IBM telegraphed its quantum computing plans in 2020 when it revealed its plan to design quantum computers that work with classical computers and interconnects to form one big datacenter style quantum system.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022