Uncertainty Sets Limits On Quantum Nonlocality

An anonymous reader writes "Research in today's issue of the journal Science helps explain why quantum theory is as weird as it is, but not weirder. Ex-hacker Stephanie Wehner and physicist Jonathan Oppenheim showed that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sets limits on Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance.' Wired reports that the discovery was made by 'thinking of things in the way a hacker might' to uncover a fundamental link between the two defining properties of quantum physics (abstract, supplement). Oppenheim describes how uncertainty and nonlocality are like coding problems, enabling us to make a quantitative link between two of the cornerstones of quantum theory."

Comments

for the lulz

[Pojut]

I want to believe in quantum physics, but I'm not sure.

Re:for the lulz

[idontgno]

And delicious golden Brownian motion.

Re:for the lulz

[camperdave]

But if you ask most pilots, belief is the only thing that keeps helicopters in the air!

Nonsense! Helicopters fly because they are so ugly that the ground repels them.

Re:for the lulz

[tom17]

He only ruined it if you read the post. Until you observed it, it was both ruined and not ruined.

You just shouldn't have read it.

There's no link to the full article here in pDF

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely not a link to the full article here [Not-PDF warning].

Einstein, Heisenberg...

[srussia]

Heck, they even hinted at Gödel. Why not throw in Monty Hall too... wait, they did.

a coding problem?

[phantomfive]

describes how uncertainty and nonlocality are like coding problems,

In that case, I guarantee there is a bug.

Re:a coding problem?

[Monkeedude1212]

It's because when God was whipping things up he had just switched to Dvorak - and he couldn't find the semicolon because it was under his left hand. To remedy this - he ported the universe to VB.

Define 'observe'

[Twinbee]

Okay, rant time.

Whenever I see a beginner's guide to quantum theory, I always invariably see a phrase similar to:
"Stranger still, the electron doesn't even have properties like position and momentum until an observer measures them. "

And every time, I always think "define 'observe'", because that word is incredibly fluffy, vague as well as being immensely irritating. If a bat miles away happens to look in that direction with nothing in the way, is that counted as an observation? Are there a trillion different ways to observe it, and have they all been tried out to see the phenomenon stands? None, I repeat NONE of the articles I have ever read actually even remotely begins to touch upon that subject.

Re:Define 'observe'

[MozeeToby]

I think the closest plain English definition would be: has an interaction with something. More accurate, but more confusing might be: things are undefined until something happens that requires them to be defined in order for that something to happen. An electron doesn't have a position or a momentum until something occurs which require the electrons position and momentum to be known in order to determine the outcome. That might be a human being with an incredibly complex apparatus measuring the properties of an individual electron, or it might be a chemical reaction that is sweeping through the entire sample of whatever the electron is a part of.

Re:Define 'observe'

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying the the universe uses "just in time" physics.

Re:Define 'observe'

[gsliepen]

The best definition I have heard is this: suppose we have an observer O in state A, and a system S which is in the superposition of the states 1 and 2. When the observer observers the system, the state of S does not collapse, rather the observer and system become one, say OS, and is in a superposition of the states A1 and A2.

You can interpret this in various ways; one could say that this means the observer, or even the whole universe for that matter, branches all the time, and/or all possible states of the observer/universe exist simultaneously, however that again is just a description, not what might really be the case.

Disclaimer: I am a physicist.

Wired article completely misleading

[DrJimbo]

The Wired article "explains" entanglement by talking about Bob predicting what Alice did even though Alice is far away from Bob. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of quantum entanglement and has led to all sorts of wacky (and false) speculations and "theories".

The actual paper correctly says:

Non-locality can be exhibited when performing measurements on two or more distant quantum systems – the outcomes can be correlated in way that defies any local classical description. This is why we know that quantum theory will never by superceded by a local classical theory. Nevertheless, even quantum correlations are restricted to some extent – measurement results cannot be correlated so strongly that they would allow signalling between two distant systems.

Quantum entanglement (QE) provides a correlation not a communication. What this means is that not only can't you use QE to pass signals (or any information) between Alice and Bob, you actually need some other form of after-the-fact communication between them to detect the correlation in order to determine if QE happened at all. If QE was a method of communication then you could verify it by sending Bob a "cheat cheat" of what Alice was going to do or transmit. Instead, you need to look at the outcome of a series of measurements taken by Alice's and the outcome of a series of measurments taken by Bob just to see if QE actually happened.

Correlation is not communication.