If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Quantum entanglement is so adorable Oh by the way, your reality is broken   (arstechnica.com) divider line 61
    More: Misc, quantum entanglements, quantum states, quantum systems, speed of light, faster than light  
•       •       •

5128 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Oct 2012 at 7:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-31 08:06:13 AM
My reality isn't broken. It ws always shaped like this.
 
2012-10-31 08:12:12 AM
How high was the article writer? There's nothing new, he's just musing 'oh man, like, science guys think it works like this, and if it does, like, woah!' type drivel.
 
2012-10-31 08:31:58 AM

Rihlsul: How high was the article writer? There's nothing new, he's just musing 'oh man, like, science guys think it works like this, and if it does, like, woah!' type drivel.


Did you read the Nature Physics article? That's the specific experiment.
"Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling"

I don't understand this stuff at all, but I do work with some of the world's best people in the realm of quantum physics, computing and encryption.
 
2012-10-31 08:32:36 AM
If you really want your reality to be broken, well if you believe in god anyway, check out quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Essentially it boils down to math that explains how the universe can self-create.

At least I think it does. I can't really remember exactly. Anyway QCD is pretty reality bending.
 
2012-10-31 08:34:58 AM
Author was drunk.

An easy way to explain how this works is to imagine a two random number generators which both the same seed. Take them to the ends of the universe and then have them both generate the next random numbers. Surprise, they generate the same number.

You can't use this to communicate faster than light, sorry.
 
2012-10-31 08:43:22 AM

MindStalker: Author was drunk.

An easy way to explain how this works is to imagine a two random number generators which both the same seed. Take them to the ends of the universe and then have them both generate the next random numbers. Surprise, they generate the same number.

You can't use this to communicate faster than light, sorry.


Doesn't sound very random then. Might ant to get your money back.
 
2012-10-31 08:46:43 AM
I dunno, the non-locality stuff never really bothered me. If I have a particle A in an undetermined state, and then I take particle B and perform an operation such that B is NOT(A) (if A is spin-up, B is spin-down, and vice versa), by the end of this operation they are both in undetermined states.

But they're still dependent states.
 
2012-10-31 08:49:21 AM

italie: MindStalker: Author was drunk.

An easy way to explain how this works is to imagine a two random number generators which both the same seed. Take them to the ends of the universe and then have them both generate the next random numbers. Surprise, they generate the same number.

You can't use this to communicate faster than light, sorry.

Doesn't sound very random then. Might ant to get your money back.


Yep, this is how computers generate "random" numbers. Hint, they can't generate random numbers. Modern computers use things like Ethernet noise and keyboard/mouse movements to create a random seed. But still two computers using the same seed are supposed to generate the same "random" number.
 
2012-10-31 08:51:45 AM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

/Obligatory?
 
2012-10-31 08:54:16 AM

MindStalker: italie: MindStalker: Author was drunk.

An easy way to explain how this works is to imagine a two random number generators which both the same seed. Take them to the ends of the universe and then have them both generate the next random numbers. Surprise, they generate the same number.

You can't use this to communicate faster than light, sorry.

Doesn't sound very random then. Might ant to get your money back.

Yep, this is how computers generate "random" numbers. Hint, they can't generate random numbers. Modern computers use things like Ethernet noise and keyboard/mouse movements to create a random seed. But still two computers using the same seed are supposed to generate the same "random" number.


Only if they use the same algorithm.
 
2012-10-31 09:00:35 AM
Reality isn't broken, only our understanding.

QE will be used to communicate. Using radio will become obsolete in the next century. As our understanding of "reality" grows, so will the things we can do within the confines of it.

It's convenient for physicists that their current model mostly fits, and for quantum physicists that their model mostly fits, but there is still not a unified understanding. The fact that we still cannot fully reconcile both should give us pause to decide there are "absolutes" we understand right now.
 
2012-10-31 09:16:49 AM
If I got two pieces of paper (special paper where reading the number destroyed the data) and a computer put the same random number on each (entangled) and then put into two envelopes so that nobody saw them, taken a light year apart and then opened.

Wow, instant communication. The pieces of paper have the same numbers on them!

If there was some way to force one photon to a particular state after entanglement which then forced the other photon to the same state then that would be impressive. Please let me know if this is the case and I have not grasped TFA, It would be really good if we could do that.
 
2012-10-31 09:27:21 AM

dready zim: computer put the same random number on each (entangled)


The fact that the same number exists on both does not mean they're entangled.
 
2012-10-31 09:34:19 AM
In another reality I'm a quantum physicist, so I'm really getting a kick...
 
2012-10-31 09:39:00 AM
My reality is fine. because I am not quantized. Stop applying quantum laws to large objects.
 
2012-10-31 09:52:57 AM

LesserEvil: QE will be used to communicate


No it won't. This has nothing to do with our ability to understand anything, and everything to do with the fact that quantum entanglement does not exchange any information, nor does it have any faster-than-light effects.

It's an incredibly useful effect, that has huge implications for computing (you can build a computer that searches the entire space of possible solutions via quantum superposition, meaning your computer can perform 2number of qubits operations at the same time).
 
2012-10-31 09:58:54 AM
It was like that when I got here, boss.
 
2012-10-31 09:59:28 AM

Cooper420: Rihlsul: How high was the article writer? There's nothing new, he's just musing 'oh man, like, science guys think it works like this, and if it does, like, woah!' type drivel.

Did you read the Nature Physics article? That's the specific experiment.
"Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling"

I don't understand this stuff at all, but I do work with some of the world's best people in the realm of quantum physics, computing and encryption.


Wow, it's like you're an authority on not knowing stuff. Congrats!
 
2012-10-31 10:00:08 AM

MindStalker: Author was drunk.

An easy way to explain how this works is to imagine a two random number generators which both the same seed. Take them to the ends of the universe and then have them both generate the next random numbers. Surprise, they generate the same number.

You can't use this to communicate faster than light, sorry.


You may want to brush up on your quantum physics, because that's not how entanglement works.
 
2012-10-31 10:01:58 AM
Getting the entangled partner to point B will be at the speed of light or less.
But once it's there...then there will be no time between.

Satellites/probes will be able to instantly relate info/data from whereever they are. (talk about no lag-time)

If we were able to figure out a way to break down, then rebuild matter with the same pattern,
then it would be as an effective teleport machine.

There is the potential of entangling a very large set of particles,
sending the partner set to a far location, and triggering a singularity in each set...creating a gate/wormhole.

But we've got a ways to go before we can test these out...
 
2012-10-31 10:05:41 AM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Connected through the Force, these particles are.
 
2012-10-31 10:08:50 AM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-10-31 10:10:11 AM

Macular Degenerate: MindStalker: Author was drunk.

An easy way to explain how this works is to imagine a two random number generators which both the same seed. Take them to the ends of the universe and then have them both generate the next random numbers. Surprise, they generate the same number.

You can't use this to communicate faster than light, sorry.

You may want to brush up on your quantum physics, because that's not how entanglement works.



Its not "HOW" it works, but its a good thought experiment to explain why you can't communicate across entanglement.
 
2012-10-31 10:25:40 AM
Disappointed , not one mention of "spooky action at a distance"
 
2012-10-31 10:34:57 AM
Oh by the way, your reality is broken

But can I substitute my own?

/Myth busted...AND confirmed.
 
2012-10-31 10:35:41 AM

MindStalker: Its not "HOW" it works, but its a good thought experiment to explain why you can't communicate across entanglemen


It's actually a terrible thought experiment that looks nothing like the actual situations. A better example is more like this:
You have two random number generators. If the first one returns an even number, the second one will always return an odd number, and vice versa. There's no visible connection or way for them to share information.
 
2012-10-31 10:57:47 AM
Aww. I want my ansible now!
 
2012-10-31 11:30:50 AM

MindStalker: italie: MindStalker: Author was drunk.

An easy way to explain how this works is to imagine a two random number generators which both the same seed. Take them to the ends of the universe and then have them both generate the next random numbers. Surprise, they generate the same number.

You can't use this to communicate faster than light, sorry.

Doesn't sound very random then. Might ant to get your money back.

Yep, this is how computers generate "random" numbers. Hint, they can't generate random numbers. Modern computers use things like Ethernet noise and keyboard/mouse movements to create a random seed. But still two computers using the same seed are supposed to generate the same "random" number.


"Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin."

--John von Neumann
 
2012-10-31 11:31:22 AM
Davros?
 
2012-10-31 11:47:58 AM
For years members of the church of Einstein have been bending over backwards to preserve false belief that FTL communications is impossible. The writer of this has bent so far backwards that his spine must look like a pretzel.

One thing this writer got right is that there is some absolutely some connection between entangled particles, no scientist disputes that. It is only a matter of time before we see this property exploited for FTL communications, it is inevitable.
 
2012-10-31 12:00:39 PM
I'm not a physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I think we're going to discover that it's still a local phenomenon, but we redefine "local" to mean "entangled". In other words, locality in physics depends entirely on quantum state and not on physical location but entirely on some collection of hidden variables.
 
2012-10-31 12:09:37 PM

runner_one: For years members of the church of Einstein have been bending over backwards to preserve false belief that FTL communications is impossible. The writer of this has bent so far backwards that his spine must look like a pretzel.

One thing this writer got right is that there is some absolutely some connection between entangled particles, no scientist disputes that. It is only a matter of time before we see this property exploited for FTL communications, it is inevitable.


Einstein could be correct with non-locatlity being also correct, the same way that Newton was correct within a subset of reality and relativity simply provided an expanded vision that made variable some things that Newton considered constants. What if entangled particles were connected across a spacial dimension we don't perceive and isn't considered in relativistic theories? What if the information flow between them existed but didn't travel through conventional space-time, thus not breaking the speed of light?

I do definitely agree that this will probably have very exciting applications in the future. I hope I live to see them.
 
2012-10-31 01:24:53 PM

t3knomanser: MindStalker: Its not "HOW" it works, but its a good thought experiment to explain why you can't communicate across entanglemen

It's actually a terrible thought experiment that looks nothing like the actual situations. A better example is more like this:
You have two random number generators. If the first one returns an even number, the second one will always return an odd number, and vice versa. There's no visible connection or way for them to share information.


Exactly. But..... this experiment is saying that they could/are. (It's hard to tell since the article doesn't actually have the study in it)

FTA - "Experiments have definitively demonstrated entanglement, and ruled out any kind of slower-than-light communication between two separated objects. The standard explanation for this behavior involves what's called nonlocality: the idea that the two objects are actually still a single quantum system, even though they may be far apart. That idea is uncomfortable to many people (including most famously Albert Einstein), but it preserves the principle of relativity, which states in part that no information can travel faster than light."

So the idea is that things can be linked, even at great distances, which then, if the information is transferred from one location to another, that information would by our understanding of reality, be moving much faster than light speed.

But it's really a question of our understanding of reality. It's a lot like a wormhole. Or even like thinking of the internet as a series of tubes. We think it's funny, but if you told someone from 500 years ago about the internet, that's how they would immediately think of it. But in reality, and I use that term loosely, if two points that are entangled are separated by a great distance, the information may not have to 'travel' at all. It may be present at both points simultaneously when it is 'seen' (collected) by either.

I think I'm understanding that correctly...
 
2012-10-31 01:24:54 PM

burndtdan: What if entangled particles were connected across a spacial dimension we don't perceive and isn't considered in relativistic theories? What if the information flow between them existed but didn't travel through conventional space-time, thus not breaking the speed of light?


Yup. We perceive nothing with our primitive meat computers. Everything that was, is, and will be, is. Everywhere.
 
2012-10-31 01:27:45 PM

burndtdan: runner_one: For years members of the church of Einstein have been bending over backwards to preserve false belief that FTL communications is impossible. The writer of this has bent so far backwards that his spine must look like a pretzel.

One thing this writer got right is that there is some absolutely some connection between entangled particles, no scientist disputes that. It is only a matter of time before we see this property exploited for FTL communications, it is inevitable.

Einstein could be correct with non-locatlity being also correct, the same way that Newton was correct within a subset of reality and relativity simply provided an expanded vision that made variable some things that Newton considered constants. What if entangled particles were connected across a spacial dimension we don't perceive and isn't considered in relativistic theories? What if the information flow between them existed but didn't travel through conventional space-time, thus not breaking the speed of light?

I do definitely agree that this will probably have very exciting applications in the future. I hope I live to see them.


Ding ding ding. I agree.

Also - Sorry for my poor punctuation and semi-random thoughts. Coffee is wearing off.
 
2012-10-31 01:36:48 PM
So,, Sub-space relay network?
 
2012-10-31 01:54:34 PM

runner_one: false belief that FTL communications is impossible



Pretend you have a radio controlled FTL ship that moves twice as fast as light. Park the ship at 6,000,000 meters away from you. Point a high-powered optical telescope at the ship so you can see it sitting out there in space. Send a radio signal to the ship to come to you while looking at it in the telescope. Thirty seconds later, the ship appears next to you. During the next ten seconds you can still observe the ship through the telescope before it you see it acknowledge your command and turn it's engines on.

What happens to the ship you can see through the telescope after its engines turn on?
What happened to the emitted/reflected photons during the transit?
 
2012-10-31 02:07:05 PM
What if the two "entangled" particles are still connected somehow?

Please allow me a weak analogy that communicates the point. If I have a dowel rod that is a mile long (humor me) and I twist it on one end, the other end would be in the same position as the end I twisted and the change would occur instantaneously - assuming the material had no elasticity of course. Its just and example.

If the entangled particles are connected, no information would need to be exchanged at the speed of light. The communication occurs within the structure of the connected particles.

Not a physicist so please feel free to educate me on the absurdness of my theory.
 
2012-10-31 02:09:22 PM
This has been described already in this thread, but here's how I like to think of it.

Each entangled particle is a pointer to the same piece of reality, like 2 variables in a program pointing to the same piece of memory. If you change the value of one, the other is also "changed". Its the only thing I can come up with that doesn't hurt my brain, and it is probably wildly too simplistic... but there ya go.
 
2012-10-31 02:14:35 PM

Earthen: Each entangled particle is a pointer to the same piece of reality, like 2 variables in a program pointing to the same piece of memory


I actually quite like that way of thinking about it. More broadly, I think the universe uses lossy compression. When it doesn't need to know the state of a particle or system of particles (which honestly, is most of the time), it simply drops the state in favor of a wave function. The next time the probability of interaction with another particle system exceeds that threshold, the universe invents a state by applying the wave function.

That kind of "deferred state" maps very naturally to entanglement. Of course, it doesn't establish the physical mechanism that allows this to happen, and that's really the issue that's confounding physicists. The universe that we observe doesn't have pointers or registers or deferred execution. It's made up of things, and things must have some mechanism that allows them to interact with other things.
 
2012-10-31 02:20:33 PM

justtray: But..... this experiment is saying that they could/are


Well, the real issue is that somehow, these particles are sharing information. But we don't have a physical mechanism that lets us understand how. Further, we don't see how it could even be possible for them to exchange information, since information can't travel faster than the speed of light. Hence talk of hidden variables and non-locality.

I think the real issue is that particles are not physical objects, but informational ones.
 
2012-10-31 02:41:27 PM
 
2012-10-31 02:58:15 PM

garron: What if the two "entangled" particles are still connected somehow?

Please allow me a weak analogy that communicates the point. If I have a dowel rod that is a mile long (humor me) and I twist it on one end, the other end would be in the same position as the end I twisted and the change would occur instantaneously - assuming the material had no elasticity of course. Its just and example.

If the entangled particles are connected, no information would need to be exchanged at the speed of light. The communication occurs within the structure of the connected particles.

Not a physicist so please feel free to educate me on the absurdness of my theory.


Even if information is propagating in a wave through solid matter the conventional faster than light restriction applies. I'm unsure if a fictional incompressible material would change things, but this "speed limit" is probably why such a material can't exist in the first place.
 
2012-10-31 03:26:00 PM

Cubicle Jockey: runner_one: false belief that FTL communications is impossible


Pretend you have a radio controlled FTL ship that moves twice as fast as light. Park the ship at 6,000,000 meters away from you. Point a high-powered optical telescope at the ship so you can see it sitting out there in space. Send a radio signal to the ship to come to you while looking at it in the telescope. Thirty seconds later, the ship appears next to you. During the next ten seconds you can still observe the ship through the telescope before it you see it acknowledge your command and turn it's engines on.

What happens to the ship you can see through the telescope after its engines turn on?
What happened to the emitted/reflected photons during the transit?


I believe that's called "The Picard Manoeuvre". It's in an earlyish episode with Ferengi's in I think.
 
2012-10-31 03:27:52 PM
sorry, wrong number...


cache.kotaku.com
 
2012-10-31 03:56:28 PM
 
2012-10-31 03:56:43 PM

t3knomanser: Earthen: Each entangled particle is a pointer to the same piece of reality, like 2 variables in a program pointing to the same piece of memory

I actually quite like that way of thinking about it. More broadly, I think the universe uses lossy compression. When it doesn't need to know the state of a particle or system of particles (which honestly, is most of the time), it simply drops the state in favor of a wave function. The next time the probability of interaction with another particle system exceeds that threshold, the universe invents a state by applying the wave function.

That kind of "deferred state" maps very naturally to entanglement. Of course, it doesn't establish the physical mechanism that allows this to happen, and that's really the issue that's confounding physicists. The universe that we observe doesn't have pointers or registers or deferred execution. It's made up of things, and things must have some mechanism that allows them to interact with other things.


So the universe is like a virtual reality system. It doesn't use ram to fully define things until there is a necessity to?

Interesting. In a way, every major religion kind of states this world is a virtual reality or artificial construct, with the afterlife being 'more real'.
 
2012-10-31 05:25:50 PM

skodabunny: Cubicle Jockey: runner_one: false belief that FTL communications is impossible


Pretend you have a radio controlled FTL ship that moves twice as fast as light. Park the ship at 6,000,000 meters away from you. Point a high-powered optical telescope at the ship so you can see it sitting out there in space. Send a radio signal to the ship to come to you while looking at it in the telescope. Thirty seconds later, the ship appears next to you. During the next ten seconds you can still observe the ship through the telescope before it you see it acknowledge your command and turn it's engines on.

What happens to the ship you can see through the telescope after its engines turn on?
What happened to the emitted/reflected photons during the transit?

I believe that's called "The Picard Manoeuvre". It's in an earlyish episode with Ferengi's in I think.


Bingo
 
2012-10-31 07:41:49 PM

Nemo's Brother: In a way, every major religion kind of states this world is a virtual reality or artificial construct, with the afterlife being 'more real'.


I wouldn't even say every major sect of Christianity holds that idea, let alone every major religion; it's a very Catholic thing. It's certainly not a Muslim thing. Not a Jewish thing. Nor a Hindu thing. So, some Christians and most Buddhists.

In any case, I would be wary about equating the universe to technology. It's potentially useful as an analogy. I'd say that it's parsimonious. The universe doesn't do more than it absolutely has to.
 
2012-10-31 07:42:13 PM

Rezurok: garron: What if the two "entangled" particles are still connected somehow?

Please allow me a weak analogy that communicates the point. If I have a dowel rod that is a mile long (humor me) and I twist it on one end, the other end would be in the same position as the end I twisted and the change would occur instantaneously - assuming the material had no elasticity of course. Its just and example.

If the entangled particles are connected, no information would need to be exchanged at the speed of light. The communication occurs within the structure of the connected particles.

Not a physicist so please feel free to educate me on the absurdness of my theory.

Even if information is propagating in a wave through solid matter the conventional faster than light restriction applies. I'm unsure if a fictional incompressible material would change things, but this "speed limit" is probably why such a material can't exist in the first place.


We can't see dark matter, yet we know it's there. Is it really so hard to believe there could be a mechanism that surpasses space time as we know it in this fashion? Personally, I don't it is that hard to believe. (This was also explained upthread - that it could be connected in a way we simply can't sense or understand, like dark matter)
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report