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.

(Medium)   Entangled photons produce quantum images of invisible targets they never hit. Mind blown   (medium.com) divider line 45
    More: Cool, photons, quantum, ghost imaging, quantum entanglements, wavelengths, THz, Anton Zeilinger, physicists  
•       •       •

3407 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Jan 2014 at 11:56 AM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-27 10:58:23 AM
Spooky action at a distance indeed.
 
2014-01-27 11:55:37 AM
I have no idea what this means, so here's a thermal image of a fart. Hopefully without entanglement of any kind.

cdn.arwrath.com
 
2014-01-27 12:17:34 PM
 
2014-01-27 12:31:52 PM
So.....we really are living in The Matrix.

Physics is cool, but once you get to the quantum level shiat gets weird.
 
2014-01-27 12:33:57 PM
Isn't this just the double slit experiment?
 
2014-01-27 12:44:10 PM
The whole concept of quantum entanglement just completely screws with my head.
 
2014-01-27 12:44:26 PM
FTFA: The important point is that there is now way of telling the photons in the final beams apart. It is impossible There to know which of the red photons interacted with the target and which didn't.

Anyone have a link to the English translation of this story?
 
2014-01-27 12:47:37 PM

murray208: Isn't this just the double slit experiment?


Not even a little bit. In this case, the photons that impact the target are not detected at all while the photons that are detected never get near the target. They effectively took a picture of something behind the camera that was also invisible to the camera.
 
2014-01-27 12:49:21 PM
I should have added: IANAP.
 
2014-01-27 12:51:58 PM

ChubbyTiger: murray208: Isn't this just the double slit experiment?

Not even a little bit. In this case, the photons that impact the target are not detected at all while the photons that are detected never get near the target. They effectively took a picture of something behind the camera that was also invisible to the camera.


So, uh... What exactly causes this to happen? The words quantum and entanglement imply to me that two particles are connected somehow even though they aren't touching. Am I wrong? Is it way more complicated than that?

/knows how to look this stuff up for himself, but finds that farkers who know this stuff explain things a lot better.
 
2014-01-27 12:53:44 PM

ThatBillmanGuy: The words quantum and entanglement imply to me that two particles are connected somehow even though they aren't touching.


It's like your catechism class with Father Riley, then.
 
2014-01-27 12:56:08 PM
To just ask basic questions that are not moronic you need fifteen years of maths when it comes to quantum mechanics.  I'm glad there are such people.
 
2014-01-27 01:01:21 PM
Wait - does this mean that the Australians are on the brink of developing photon torpedoes?  Know who else messed around with - ?  Oh, never mind.

/slaps the back of own hands for typing that
 
2014-01-27 01:03:35 PM

ThatBillmanGuy: /knows how to look this stuff up for himself, but finds that farkers who know this stuff explain things a lot better.


Okay, so I'm pretty sure I understand everything about the setup... except why it works.

You take a beam of light, split it into two parts: One that sees the image (red) and one that doesn't (yellow).
Then, you take another beam of light, and split it in two. But neither of these see the image.

Then, you take the two red beams, combine them, and dump them. You don't care. So the only signal (half of the red) that saw the image is not being recorded in any way.

Then you take the two red beams, one which knows nothing, and one which is connected via quantum entanglement to the red beam that saw the image, but also didn't directly see anything, and combine those. Then, by measuring the combined yellow beam, you can figure out what the red beam saw, even though it's invisible in the yellow spectrum.

But yeah, I have no idea why or how you can do that.
 
2014-01-27 01:30:26 PM
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-01-27 01:31:24 PM
I can see some awesome potential for crystallography type stuff with the projected image in visible light...  Someone smarter than me tell me if this could be (eventually) used to take 'photographs' of molecules and stuff!
 
2014-01-27 01:40:21 PM
Can it be developed to the point where in 40 years we're able to take a picture but connect the camera to photons on the other side of the world and have it bring back a photo of that, rather than this? Or am I completely failing to grasp at all what is going on here to such a level that I could be a Daily Mail science reporter?
 
2014-01-27 01:41:41 PM

JayCab: The whole concept of quantum entanglement just completely screws with my head.


You're not alone.  I've done a lot of reading on it and still have only a basic understanding.  I've tried to watch lectures on it but all went WAY over my head.  Who needs nonsense conspiracy nuttery when actual science is so damned strange and fascinating!
 
2014-01-27 01:44:04 PM

Slaxl: and have it bring back a photo of that, rather than this?


As I wrote that I was looking at a glass on my table I was imagining pointing the camera at, which is why I said "this". Slight brain freeze moment when I forgot that you can't all see what I'm looking at. Or can you?
 
2014-01-27 01:48:47 PM
Ya know, if someone wants to impress me with quantum images, they should at least be intelligent enough to make sure their writing is intelligible.
 
2014-01-27 01:53:03 PM

nmrsnr: ThatBillmanGuy: /knows how to look this stuff up for himself, but finds that farkers who know this stuff explain things a lot better.

Okay, so I'm pretty sure I understand everything about the setup... except why it works.

You take a beam of light, split it into two parts: One that sees the image (red) and one that doesn't (yellow).
Then, you take another beam of light, and split it in two. But neither of these see the image.

Then, you take the two red beams, combine them, and dump them. You don't care. So the only signal (half of the red) that saw the image is not being recorded in any way.

Then you take the two red beams, one which knows nothing, and one which is connected via quantum entanglement to the red beam that saw the image, but also didn't directly see anything, and combine those. Then, by measuring the combined yellow beam, you can figure out what the red beam saw, even though it's invisible in the yellow spectrum.

But yeah, I have no idea why or how you can do that.


Dammit, I thought I spoke English
 
2014-01-27 02:40:17 PM
This is how Superman's x-ray vision works.
 
2014-01-27 02:46:11 PM
Man, those Iranians are getting  really good with their nuclear missiles.
 
2014-01-27 02:56:09 PM

d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net


Zeilinger 's cat?

 
2014-01-27 02:57:39 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-27 03:34:41 PM
Wait, so let's say we had a satellite in space with this beam and prism rigout inside. The two beams were then beamed to opposite sides of the planet. There would be photon receivers on Earth that would then beam the silhouetting photons at an object and the imaging photons on the detector. If you replaced the object with another one, how long does it take for the change to be detected on the other side of the planet? Would it be instantaneous? Because if the object is already being "detected" by the photons at the point where the beams are interfering in space then is there any reason why the change in object wouldn't immediately arrive at the satellite? The photons at the interference point aren't "receiving" any information from Earth. There's no reason for the change to take any amount of time, because the photons in the satellite seem to already "know" that the change has occurred exactly when it happens. Now, whether the imaging photons carry the imaging data instantaneously doesn't seem as clear. I would think that the interfered imaging photons would have to move at the speed of light to the detector as would be normal. But I can imagine that the instantaneous process of the silhouetting photons works in reverse for the imaging photons. Do those photons respond immediately to changes as well? Could this process result in FTL communication? Zero latency anywhere on Earth? In the solar system? Am I talking out of my ass? I'm not a physicist. I'm an economist.
 
2014-01-27 04:03:18 PM
Foxxinnia:

Short answer is no, you can't use quantum mechanics to transmit information FTL.  In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which is the quantum mechanical theory of photons and their interaction with matter, is explicitly relativistic, meaning it obeys all of the usual special-relativity restrictions on FTL transfer.  In your example, replacing the object would not instantaneously alter the wavefunction everywhere in the universe.  Changes propagate at light speed.
 
2014-01-27 04:07:24 PM

Foxxinnia: Wait, so let's say we had a satellite in space with this beam and prism rigout inside. The two beams were then beamed to opposite sides of the planet. There would be photon receivers on Earth that would then beam the silhouetting photons at an object and the imaging photons on the detector. If you replaced the object with another one, how long does it take for the change to be detected on the other side of the planet? Would it be instantaneous? Because if the object is already being "detected" by the photons at the point where the beams are interfering in space then is there any reason why the change in object wouldn't immediately arrive at the satellite? The photons at the interference point aren't "receiving" any information from Earth. There's no reason for the change to take any amount of time, because the photons in the satellite seem to already "know" that the change has occurred exactly when it happens. Now, whether the imaging photons carry the imaging data instantaneously doesn't seem as clear. I would think that the interfered imaging photons would have to move at the speed of light to the detector as would be normal. But I can imagine that the instantaneous process of the silhouetting photons works in reverse for the imaging photons. Do those photons respond immediately to changes as well? Could this process result in FTL communication? Zero latency anywhere on Earth? In the solar system? Am I talking out of my ass? I'm not a physicist. I'm an economist.


Nope, sorry.  Sadly, the information is not useful.  When the wave collapses, BOTH entangled particles immediately assume the state opposite the other.  You can call the states 0 and 1, but all you will know is that If this one's 0, the other one IS 1.  They don't "know" the status of the other one per se, they just simultaneously exist in 2 polar states where prior to contact they had both existed in a probability wave.  I'm not a physicist either, I'm a computer guy but that's sort of how it was explained to me.  So in theory, that information does seem to travel faster than light (actually absolutely instantly, regardless of their distance from each other in space-time) but no useful information can be conveyed that way because you have no way of knowing which state either will be.

Hopefully someone can come along and explain that a lot better than I can.
 
2014-01-27 04:14:56 PM
So what's the second beam for?
 
2014-01-27 04:42:07 PM

nekom: Foxxinnia: Wait, so let's say we had a satellite in space with this beam and prism rigout inside. The two beams were then beamed to opposite sides of the planet. There would be photon receivers on Earth that would then beam the silhouetting photons at an object and the imaging photons on the detector. If you replaced the object with another one, how long does it take for the change to be detected on the other side of the planet? Would it be instantaneous? Because if the object is already being "detected" by the photons at the point where the beams are interfering in space then is there any reason why the change in object wouldn't immediately arrive at the satellite? The photons at the interference point aren't "receiving" any information from Earth. There's no reason for the change to take any amount of time, because the photons in the satellite seem to already "know" that the change has occurred exactly when it happens. Now, whether the imaging photons carry the imaging data instantaneously doesn't seem as clear. I would think that the interfered imaging photons would have to move at the speed of light to the detector as would be normal. But I can imagine that the instantaneous process of the silhouetting photons works in reverse for the imaging photons. Do those photons respond immediately to changes as well? Could this process result in FTL communication? Zero latency anywhere on Earth? In the solar system? Am I talking out of my ass? I'm not a physicist. I'm an economist.

Nope, sorry.  Sadly, the information is not useful.  When the wave collapses, BOTH entangled particles immediately assume the state opposite the other.  You can call the states 0 and 1, but all you will know is that If this one's 0, the other one IS 1.  They don't "know" the status of the other one per se, they just simultaneously exist in 2 polar states where prior to contact they had both existed in a probability wave.  I'm not a physicist either, I'm a computer guy but that's sort of how it ...


But using imaging, you could use an image and get some sort of communication.
 
2014-01-27 05:27:11 PM
Gives new meaning to false coloring to photos.
 
2014-01-27 05:50:14 PM

nekom: Nope, sorry.  Sadly, the information is not useful.  When the wave collapses, BOTH entangled particles immediately assume the state opposite the other.  You can call the states 0 and 1, but all you will know is that If this one's 0, the other one IS 1.  They don't "know" the status of the other one per se, they just simultaneously exist in 2 polar states where prior to contact they had both existed in a probability wave.  I'm not a physicist either, I'm a computer guy but that's sort of how it ...


Ambitwistor: Short answer is no, you can't use quantum mechanics to transmit information FTL.  In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which is the quantum mechanical theory of photons and their interaction with matter, is explicitly relativistic, meaning it obeys all of the usual special-relativity restrictions on FTL transfer.  In your example, replacing the object would not instantaneously alter the wavefunction everywhere in the universe.  Changes propagate at light speed.


I don't fully understand, but thanks for taking the time to explain.
 
2014-01-27 06:02:28 PM
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute....

Wait...

Just stop.

These scientists.  Brilliant.  Amazingly smart people.  Prove quantum entanglement can take a picture.  And the picture they take?  They take a picture of A CAT?!?!

I just...

I'm.... I'm going to bed.
 
2014-01-27 06:20:51 PM

Lonestar: But using imaging, you could use an image and get some sort of communication.



It doesn't work unfortunately. It's kind of like if you put a black card and a white card in separate envelopes and then randomly sent them each to points A and B different sides of the galaxy. If the person at side A opened up their envelope (and knew about the setup) then that person would immediately know the color of the card in the envelope at B, but a person at the B side would have no idea what was in his envelope and wouldn't be able to tell whether the envelope at A is opened or not. Thus the envelopes do not help us to communicate faster than light.

Quantum is like that, except that the cards would be simultaneously black and white until the envelopes were opened.
 
2014-01-27 06:33:00 PM
murray208:
It doesn't work unfortunately. It's kind of like if you put a black card and a white card in separate envelopes and then randomly sent them each to points A and B different sides of the galaxy. If the person at side A opened up their envelope (and knew about the setup) then that person would immediately know the color of the card in the envelope at B, but a person at the B side would have no idea what was in his envelope and wouldn't be able to tell whether the envelope at A is opened or not. Thus the envelopes do not help us to communicate faster than light.

Quantum is like that, except that the cards would be simultaneously black and white until the envelopes were opened.


Now THAT is a good analogy.  It's a hard thing to get one's head wrapped around, no doubt about it.
 
2014-01-27 06:40:27 PM
Slaxl:Or am I completely failing to grasp at all what is going on here to such a level that I could be a Daily Mail science reporter?

Since you can ask a simple coherent sentence, and admit a failure to grasp the topic, no.
 
2014-01-27 06:43:23 PM

nekom: JayCab: The whole concept of quantum entanglement just completely screws with my head.

You're not alone.  I've done a lot of reading on it and still have only a basic understanding.  I've tried to watch lectures on it but all went WAY over my head.  Who needs nonsense conspiracy nuttery when actual science is so damned strange and fascinating!


Amen, brother.

/once, long ago, I told a friend, "I don't need computer games, I have the *best* computer game in the world. I have a *compiler*."
 
2014-01-27 07:53:20 PM
my dad used to entangle photons in his basement

here's a shot of his blackboard

web.archive.org
 
2014-01-27 11:40:57 PM

Drunken_Polar_Bear: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute....

Wait...

Just stop.

These scientists.  Brilliant.  Amazingly smart people.  Prove quantum entanglement can take a picture.  And the picture they take?  They take a picture of A CAT?!?!

I just...

I'm.... I'm going to bed.


Better than a naked selfie.
 
2014-01-28 08:28:53 AM
The cool thing here isn't the entanglement alone. It's using the indistinguishable photon approach through the split beams

It's as if they said to nature, don't worry, we won't give up your secrets, we'll use an indistinguishable beam, and that way you can show us the state of your entangled photons. Nobody will know.


/physics
 
2014-01-28 01:35:24 PM
Can someone please explain this to me like I'm three?
 
2014-01-28 08:41:24 PM

JayCab: The whole concept of quantum entanglement just completely screws with my head.


ecx.images-amazon.com

you should read this book.  it is a short read and explains it as well as symmetry
the math is accessible for those with simple algebra.
 
2014-01-28 08:52:26 PM

Herr Morgenstern: Can someone please explain this to me like I'm three?


quantum entanglement was discovered as the fallout of a math equation that was used to describe symmetry.

This fallout was discovered after the equation seemed to describe symmetry perfectly.

This fallout made it seems like "oh, we got it wrong, because this means that quantum entanglement must exist" -- for a while physicist just assumed the equation was useful but just didn't represent symmetry reasonably (which is ok, because we assume that models we use for describing the world are only mostly correct).

it turned out that our world is actually more math than we thought -- that the "fallout" of the equation actually described an actual quirk.

What is quantum entanglement?

a particle has something called "spin".  Don't worry what spin is, but just know that if a particle hits another particle they will have opposite "spin" (whatever that is).

and if you examine one of the particles and determine its spin -- you are sure that the other particle is exactly the opposite spin (even without examining it).

This allows you to have more information about a particle than you would otherwise expect to have (because if you examine the spin of a particle you can't examine other features of the particle because they will be destroyed by the examination process)
 
2014-01-28 09:00:31 PM
of course I made a brain fart.

It is not symmetry it explains, but "superposition"

here is the preview:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tDFeS8Lg9ScC&printsec=frontcover#v= on epage&q&f=false
 
2014-01-28 09:18:34 PM

keithgabryelski: JayCab: The whole concept of quantum entanglement just completely screws with my head.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

you should read this book.  it is a short read and explains it as well as symmetry
the math is accessible for those with simple algebra.


i just found my copy -- the math is accessible for the simple descriptions -- there are some unwieldy math also.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report