Slashdot Mirror


Testing Quantum Behavior — From Earth to the ISS

KentuckyFC writes "Einstein famously believed that the instantaeous effect of quantum entanglement would allow 'spooky action-at-a-distance' in violation of special relativity. Every test of entanglement on Earth has so far agreed with quantum mechanics but naysayers continue to point out various loopholes that might allow the results of these experiments to be determined in advance rather than instantaneously as QM suggests. Today, an international team of scientists is proposing the mother of all entanglement experiments, to be performed in space. The plan is to send entangled photons between an observer on the ground and one on the International Space Station. By the peculiarities of special relativity, the high relative velocity between the observers means that both will always be able to claim to have carried out their measurement first, thereby ruling out the naysayers' arguments (abstract). The experiment, called Space-QUEST, would be housed aboard Europe's Columbus module and would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change."

22 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Post by Stooshie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I posted this next week and it's still the first post.

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    1. Re:Post by rugatero · · Score: 5, Funny

      No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

      --
      This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
    2. Re:Post by kclittle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Frist posts like this are just sooooo tomorrow, don't you think?

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    3. Re:Post by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your comment has been moderated: SqRt(-1): Will Be Insightful

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
  2. Slashdotted already? by Thornburg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently the entangled photon link they were using to host the webpage couldn't hold up under the strain of Slashdot.

    1. Re:Slashdotted already? by andrewd18 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was working fine until you tried to observe it.

  3. Re:How do you entangle a photon in the first place by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientist used Entangle!

    It's super effective!

    Photon capture device go!

    You entangled a photon!

    It was added to your photondex.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  4. Spooky by mburns · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember that Niels Bohr denied that such a test of nonlocality was possible. Einstein had said that this phenomenon was "incredible" in his "EPR" article, thus rejecting his own prediction. And Bohr replied in effect that such things were taboo metaphysics.

    --
    Michael J. Burns
  5. Robust enough? by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I understand it, a quantum entangled photon is very fragile. I don't understand how or why it's fragile, but wouldn't that make this extraordinarily difficult to do? The trip to the ISS is pretty bumpy.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  6. Science coverage on /. is crappy by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 5, Informative
    Coverage of science news on slashdot is very often crappy, but we see the worst when it comes to space news.

    would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change.
    "For a change"?!?! Where the hell are you getting your informations about the science done on the ISS? On Fox News? There is *a lot* of science done on the ISS: literally hundreds of small, medium and big experiments have already been completed and the rate is increasing now with the European and Japanese labs on board and will increase even more starting next year with crews of six people.

    Sure it would be nice to do even more, and sure the costs are high (in part due to the STS, a nice but incredibly inefficient LV), but all this group-thinking about the "white elephant" ISS is akin to saying that kernel programming is easy. It's stupid, flat wrong and insulting for the people that get a lot of good work and science done.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    1. Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh, dude, you've gotten me started. I worked on Space Station in the early 1990s and still haven't recovered from the bad taste that experience has left in my mouth. Political boondoggle white elephant doesn't even begin to cover what a stupid mess the ISS is. The only thing worse than setting it up in its shuttle-payload-upmass-hostile 57 degree inclined orbit to allow Russian participation is totally cutting off Shuttle participation in 2010. ISS was DESIGNED for Shuttle resupply during its lifetime and that resupply was first strangled and then totally cut off. Soyuz and Orion taking astronauts to this thing is a joke, and doing resupply by Jules Verne is a criminal waste. The dirty little secret about ISS is that at full mass and max solar array deployment upon completion, this thing is going to deorbit even faster from atmospheric drag than it is now and no way can Progress or Jules Verne is keep the completed assembly reboosted - only the Shuttle could. Do your homework about how far that thing fell during the years following Columbia when no shuttle visited, and that's without the full solar arrays. Once the Shuttle stops going, ISS is heading straight for the Pacific even if it takes a few years to deorbit and get there. And secretly if not in public, NASA will breathe a sigh of relief when it splashes. But I digress. Nobody even knows anymore how much ISS costs anymore because of crooked accounting hiding the drawing of funds from everywhere within NASA, but nobody argues it's at least $100 billion dollars. I cannot prove an absence of good science. Instead, YOU tell ME what the top three discoveries on ISS have been. Hell, just tell me one thing we have learned on ISS that we didn't already know. "Bones decalcify in zero G"? This was new info worth $100 billion?

    2. Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of course this will get moderated off topic (and should) but I can't resist.
      1, Fox News actually went to court and won an advance judgment that said, even if it could be shown that the newscasters had deliberately lied about a concealed source being reasonably unbiased, and it was proved that the source actually worked for a political party and was paid to make the claims that it made, Fox would still be protected by the normal laws about concealing the identity of sources and this situation wouldn't constitute possible malice with respect to libel laws. Name another news agency that has even sought such a protection.
      2. In 2002, there was a study of the media where the only thing that was examined was accuracy of attribution. That is, if a news source quoted a person and said that person was a lawyer in the state of New Jersey, the study checked to see if the person was really liscenced before the New Jersey Bar at the time. If they said a source was a Vice President at a fortune 500 company, the study checked to see two things - was that company really in the 500, and was the guy's title really VP and not Assistant VP or similar. NPR and BBC both scored in the 3.8 to 4 out of a possible 5 range. PRI, MSNBC and ABC ran somewhere near the middle. Where did Fox score? 2.2 - right next to Al-Jazera!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    3. Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 5, Informative
      I agree with a few of your points, but:

      The dirty little secret about ISS is that at full mass and max solar array deployment upon completion, this thing is going to deorbit even faster from atmospheric drag than it is now and no way can Progress or Jules Verne is keep the completed assembly reboosted - only the Shuttle could. WTF? An ATV can give to the ISS a bigger dV than the Shuttle, especially if you consider all the propellant for the boosters on the Zvezda module that an ATV can bring and the STS doesn't. But I agree that the downmass capability of the Shuttle (or something equivalent) would be useful even after 2010.

      Nobody even knows anymore how much ISS costs anymore because of crooked accounting hiding the drawing of funds from everywhere within NASA, but nobody argues it's at least $100 billion dollars. This is an often-cited figure, because it's a nice round number, but it's for the whole project from 1990 to 2017 and including all the activities on Earth. IMHO it's money well-spent for 27 of engineering and science (yes, I know, we are just getting started with science, give them the opportunity to demonstrated its value after the station is completed).
      --
      There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    4. Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fox reports science news just as well as other TV outlets.

      Forgive my modification to your quote, but I think that print offers better coverage of science issues. And while Fox News may report science news as well as CNN does, an astrologer reports as much science as either one of them as well. Fox News is crap. If other TV channels are also crap, well, good job my friend, you're still watching crap.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with the accusation that the ISS is a white elephant. Your claim of "hundreds" of experiments is padded by a considerable number of low value experiments such as archiving (in addition to the regular sampling if I read the list correctly) fluid and tissue samples from the crew of each expedition (there have been 17 returned expeditions so far, hence, 17 "experiments"). Let's put this in perspective. By the time the ISS has run through 2016, it'll have consumed around $150-160 billion between NASA and the other participants. This includes a decade or so of the Space Shuttle which we could have phased out in 2000 or earlier, if it wasn't for the ISS. Even after completion, it'll cost almost $2 billion dollars a year to maintain.

      In comparison. including launch costs the MIR station cost a few billion and the first serious NASA proposal in the mid-80's was around $12 billion in today's dollars, including launches. If NASA had gone with a scaled down station, it would have been completed years ago and generating a similar quantity of useful science (over its lifetime) for a small fraction of the cost of the ISS. The high maintenance cost means that there's a good chance that it'll be cheaper to splash the ISS and launch a new station, than to leave the ISS up there. Finally, I think it's clear that the primary purpose of the ISS has always been to extend the lifespan of the Shuttle (and deliver public funds to NASA contractors) rather to do anything useful in space. In that, it has been remarkably successful.

      I find it odd that ISS supporters have to resort to the numbers game and other vague arguments (like lauding the value of "international cooperation"). If you can't find 5 or so big reasons that justify the ISS, you're not going to make up the difference with thousands of mediocre ones. What justifies almost $2 billion a year in maintenance and the huge opportunity cost of putting almost a sixth of a trillion dollars into this project? As I see it, we could have done a hell of a lot more in space with that money.

    6. Re:Science coverage on /. is crappy by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The parent post is overrated. It's not entirely correct and it's not very coherent.

      I worked on Space Station in the early 1990s and still haven't recovered from the bad taste that experience has left in my mouth.

      That is before any of the hardware had been launched. But it's unsurprising that the OP could be dissatisfied with the experience. Aside from being a government program and all the cliches that entails, the ISS has gone through many redesigns, and the effort of cooperating internationally has been an added source of delay and cost. He's not alone in such criticisms and the ponderous nature of government programs is one of NASA's biggest problems.

      ISS was DESIGNED for Shuttle resupply during its lifetime and that resupply was first strangled and then totally cut off. Soyuz and Orion taking astronauts to this thing is a joke, and doing resupply by Jules Verne is a criminal waste.

      The shuttle is a much more expensive spacecraft to operate than the ATV. The shuttle's advantages are it's manned, it is a versatile work platform, and it can carry cargo back to earth. It's overkill for basic resupply. Although Jules Verne didn't because there was a large amount of pressurized cargo on board, the ATV can carry up to 4.7 tonnes of spare propellant...much more than either the shuttle or Progress. There may also be a commercial option available for re-supply and reboost in the next 3-4 years through the COTS program.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with Soyuz or Orion performing crew rotation. Both of these craft have lower operating costs than the shuttle, and lower projected loss of crew probability.

      The dirty little secret about ISS is that at full mass and max solar array deployment upon completion, this thing is going to deorbit even faster from atmospheric drag than it is now and no way can Progress or Jules Verne is keep the completed assembly reboosted - only the Shuttle could.

      Total BS. The international partners are well aware of how much reboost the ISS needs and are planning accordingly. There is no secret. Progress, ATV, or the shuttle alone can't do all of the reboost, but combined they can. Also, once construction is finished, the ISS will be boosted to a slightly higher orbit to reduce the effect of drag. Lastly, the ISS is at nearly maximum drag, with only one more solar array to be added, but still growing in mass. Added mass works out net neutral. The momentum reduces the effect of drag just as well as it reduces the effectiveness of reboosts.

      And secretly if not in public, NASA will breathe a sigh of relief when it splashes.

      This statement, at least, is based mostly in fact. ISS is somewhat contentious at NASA, but it has its supporters and detractors. There will be quite a few glad not to have to divert resources to it, and plenty others frustrated by the loss of a unique laboratory environment and work platform. I doubt hardly anyone there would argue that it's completely without value, but many feel the money would be better spent elsewhere.

      Nobody even knows anymore how much ISS costs anymore because of crooked accounting hiding the drawing of funds from everywhere within NASA, but nobody argues it's at least $100 billion dollars.

      The contention of crooked accounting is unsubstantiated. If there's crooked accounting it goes on at lower levels, but the OP has provided no evidence of it. NASA funds are accounted for at the higher levels in the annual budget allocations. The problem with accounting for exact costs is that ISS draws on programs that have their own independent budgets. How much of the cost of the shuttle return-to-flight program should count towards the ISS, for example? More on cost here.

      Hell, just tell me one thing we have learned on ISS th

  7. Re:Could it be useful? by locofungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest, but you can't use entangled photons to communicate faster than light.

    I've not RTFA - it's down - but basically the EPR effect allows someone to create two photons and then measure if their polarization is H or V. The result is completely random BUT, both photons will always give the same result.

    Now Alice measures her photon first and lets say we get H, then Bob's photon must instantaneously turn into H (previously it was a mixture of H and V - the dead and alive cat) so that when he measures his photon he also gets H.

    What's already been done is to ensure that Alice and Bob decide what measurement to do, and make the measurement, so close to the same time that it's impossible for there to be any way for Bob's equipment or photon to "know" what Alice is going to do (or vice-versa) except at superluminal velocities.

    But because Alice and Bob are in the same inertial frame there's still, at least in theory, a concept of who did the measurement first and who did it second. (Alice and Bob can have synchronized clocks and record the time they did the experiment. Then they can, using normal communication, tell each other what time they did the experiment and they'll both agree who was first and who was second.)

    What this experiment will do is mean that Alice and Bob won't agree about who was first and who was second. Alice and Bob's clocks cannot remain synchronized, so that according to Alice, and people sitting next to her, she did the measurement first, but according to Bob, and people sitting next to him, he did the experiment first. And BOTH will be correct because the two measurements are space like rather than time like.

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  8. Noooo! by FireIron · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please don't break reality. It's where I keep my stuff.

  9. Re:Derision by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You surely can save money on the purely scientific part of the ISS by removing the human presence. If you are fine with the possibility of humanity never leaving his cradle.

    But the ISS is not only about science, it's also about engineering and learning how to live for long periods off the world (the MIR was pioneer, but its design and MO would be too dangerous to use beyond Earth's orbit). The next target will be the Moon and then probably Mars, but we had to learn how to walk before we can run.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  10. Re:Could it be useful? by TexVex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Classical physics tells us that if you know the angle of polarization of a photon, then its chance of passing through a polarizer is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the photon and the polarizer. If you have a 45 degree photon, it will always pass a 45 degree polarizer, have a 50% chance of passing a 90 degree polarizer, and will never pass a 135 degree polarizer.

    QM tells us that when you have two entangled photons and measure both of their polarizations, the chance the results will correlate is the square of the cosine of the difference in angles between the two polarizers . If you measure them at the same angle, the results always correlate. If you measure them at 45 degrees apart, the measurements correlate 50% of the time. If you measure them 90 degrees apart, the measurements never correlate (the results are always opposite). No matter how you look at it, this means either the results are predetermined at the time the photons are created based on the angles the polarizers will be at the time the measurements are taken, or that one measurement somehow influences the other later so the past isn't immutable.

    Either way you look at it, it means the universe doesn't work the way we expect it to. If you're a glass-half-full person you want to believe in FTL and time travel, and if you're a glass-half-empty person then you think maybe the universe is deterministic.

    That's why this stuff gets everyone who understands its implications all in a tizzy.

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
  11. Re:Could it be useful? by brunascle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they actually are both H and V polarized at the same time. you can think of them as just being "unknown" for the sake understanding why you cant use it to communicate faster than light, but it isnt what's actually going on.

    we know this because in a quantum superposition, different possibilities in the superposition can interfere with other possibilities, making certain results more or less likely. this is shown by the double-slit experiment. shooting photons at a screen through two slits produced not two stripes like you'd expect, but several stripes. this is because each photon went through 2 waves of possibilities, one through each slit, and the waves then collided with each other, making certain ares of the screen more likely to be hit than others.

  12. Re:Could it be useful? by locofungus · · Score: 4, Informative

    That is, unless I'm missing something fundamental.

    Yes, you're missing something fundamental.

    Going back to one photon.

    We'll have four polarization states H, V (the normal horizontal and vertical polarization) and +, - the 45 degree polarizations.

    Now Alice produces a stream of H photons and sends them to Bob. Now if Bob measures to see if they're H/V then he will always get H.

    But if Bob measures if they're +/- he'll get 50/50 + and -, with each individual photon being + or - at random.

    After measuring +/-, if Bob then remeasures H/V he'll again get 50/50 H and V. The measuring of +/- destroys the knowledge about H/V

    If Bob measures at an angle other than 45 degrees then he'll get different proportions but he'll get sin^2 theta with one polarization and cos^2 theta with the other polarization.

    Now lets consider entangled photons that will always give the same result for Alice and Bob. Initially we'll assume that Alice will always measure the horizontal polarization (0 degrees) Now lets consider that the photon "knows in advance" whether it will go through a horizontal polarizer i.e. it has (an infinite number) of hidden variables. Regardless of what measurement Bob does, an ensemble of photons can distribute values amongst these hidden variables so that Bob gets the expected correlations relative to Alice and the angle of his measurement.

    But now let Alice vary her angle as well. Now the correlation depends on the difference in angle between Alice and Bob. But that angle isn't known (and hasn't even been decided) at the point the photon has been created. It could have a big "look up table" saying "If Alice angle is n and Bob angle is m then do/don't go through Alice's filter and do/don't go through Bob's filter BUT the photon that arrives at Bob's detector has to know what measurement Alice will/has done and the photon that arrives at Alice's detector has to know what measurement Bob will/has done.

    But because Alice and Bob independently randomly decide what angle to measure "long" after the photon was created and their independent decisions are made so close together in time that neither can know what the other has/will do when they make their measurement due to the speed of light limit then there is no way for the photon to use its "lookup table" and get the correct statistical results.

    It doesn't matter how you construct that "lookup table", unless you allow some sort of faster than light communication, using the lookup table will give different results to QM.

    If you want the formal maths for that bit of hand waving then lookup Bell's inequality. He actually deduced the inequality that could be tested to prove no local hidden variable theorem was consistent with the results of QM based on measuring particle spins while most of the tests that have been done have used polarization of photons but the underlying theory is the same.

    These experiments have already been done, and Bell's inequality has come down on the side of QM. Because Alice and Bob make their measurements so close together in time, not all observers will agree which one is first but (perhaps unfortunately) Alice and Bob will agree who was first and who was second. What this experiment does is close even that loophole - even Alice and Bob will be unable to agree who made the first measurement and who made the second.

    Tim

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.