Let Quantum Physics Officiate Your Wedding

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Let Quantum Physics Officiate Your Wedding

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @10:52PM from the physics-of-love dept.

disco_tracy writes "Conceptual artist Jonathon Keats has come up with the ultimate in a nondenominational wedding ceremony: quantum entanglement. From the article: 'Keats has designed an entangling apparatus, which, when situated in a sunny window and exposed to the full spectrum of solar radiation, divides pairs of entangled photons and translates them to the bodies of a nearby couple.' As unusual as it seems, the ceremony is serious business to Keats, who says, 'The quantum marriage will literally be broken up by skepticism about it.'"

55 of 70 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Non-monogamous discrimination! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-11 22:58 · Score: 1

Even in quantum physics! :(
1. Re:Non-monogamous discrimination! by donotlizard · 2011-05-11 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  As if the concept of marriage isn't depressing enough.
2. Re:Non-monogamous discrimination! by jamesh · 2011-05-11 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry to hear of your pain.
3. Re:Non-monogamous discrimination! by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-15 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but then each pair of particles is at best partially entangled with each other.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
A different way by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-11 23:00 · Score: 2

My version of the quantum entanglement wedding ceremony employs lasers with nice coherent, monochromatic light.
And sharks, of course,

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
1. Re:A different way by flnhst · 2011-05-11 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  And sharks, of course,
  With friggin' lasers on their head.
2. Re:A different way by maxume · 2011-05-11 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  You spotted a joke!
  Good for you.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
3. Re:A different way by migla · 2011-05-11 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  You spotted a joke!
  Good for you.
  I spotted someone who spotted someone who spotted a joke!
  Good for me.
  
  --
  Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
4. Re:A different way by Vectronic · 2011-05-12 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  I spotted a joke, which started the whole world crying
5. Re:A different way by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-12 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  You didn't miss much.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
6. Re:A different way by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-12 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  I spot those who don't spot jokes. Do I spot myself?
7. Re:A different way by metacell · 2011-05-12 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Chuck Norris doesn't spot jokes. He just looks grim, and the joke stops being funny.
8. Re:A different way by ThatMegathronDude · 2011-05-12 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same joke from the last movie^H^H^H^H^H asshole on the internet!
9. Re:A different way by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2011-05-12 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Chuck Norris doesn't spot jokes. He just looks grim, and the joke stops being funny.
  A Chuck Norris joke about Chuck Norris making jokes unfunny. That's such an excellent comment on the meme that it's almost back around to funny again.
10. Re:A different way by mr_mischief · 2011-05-12 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  .., Almost.
11. Re:A different way by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-15 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  I spot those who don't spot jokes. Do I spot myself?
  Yes.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
one method to prove that... by muckracer · 2011-05-11 23:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Many marriages do exist, but when you look closer....don't.
1. Re:one method to prove that... by Darinbob · 2011-05-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think if you use the entanglement device with someone other than your spouse it can end the marriage too.
Re:Skepticism? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-05-12 00:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Pop-quantum physics is, alas, absolutely fucking rife with nonsense derived from the interpretation that the "observer" in ye olde Schrödinger's cat thought experiment means "conscious, in the way I imagine myself to be, observer" rather than "virtually any outside interaction that disrupts the closed system". From that fount much bullshit flows...
Eh... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-05-12 00:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Why do we need all this fancy optical apparatus when good old-fashioned two-body superposition can easily be achieved at home, without additional hardware(unless desired, of course)?
1. Re:Eh... by metacell · 2011-05-12 01:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It can even be entangled, have rotation and spin.
2. Re:Eh... by Darinbob · 2011-05-12 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  You can be top or bottom depending on preference, sometimes it is charming, sometimes strange.
Schrödinger's Wife by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-12 00:07 · Score: 3, Funny

So does this mean you can be married and single at the same time, so long as no one is observing you?
1. Re:Schrödinger's Wife by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-12 00:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The problem is that girlfriends abhor an un-collapsed wave function.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Schrödinger's Wife by metacell · 2011-05-12 01:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It means you can be entangled with many different partners at the same time, as long as no one is observing you...
3. Re:Schrödinger's Wife by jkiller · 2011-05-12 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  The real question is whether or not she's in the trunk.
4. Re:Schrödinger's Wife by jIyajbe · 2011-05-12 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Almost; you'd actually be (1/sqrt(2))*married + ((1/sqrt(2))*single. But, imagine the superpositions!
  
  --
  "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
5. Re:Schrödinger's Wife by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-15 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  It means you can be entangled with many different partners at the same time, as long as no one is observing you...
  No, at least not completely, due to the monogamy of entanglement.
  (And no, I'm not making this up.)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
6. Re:Schrödinger's Wife by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-15 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the single part can also be imaginary:
  (1/sqrt(2)) (|married> + i |single>)
  Of course you can make the married state imaginary instead:
  (1/sqrt(2)) (i |married> + |single>)
  Note that both states are orthogonal to each other.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
7. Re:Schrödinger's Wife by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-15 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, quantum murder: As long as nobody looks, the victim isn't dead yet.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Combine this by WizardMarnok · 2011-05-12 00:09 · Score: 2

Combine this with weddings for animals. I want a pair of cats in sealed boxes to get wed. THEN we can have a serious scientific discussion.
1. Re:Combine this by VortexCortex · 2011-05-12 00:28 · Score: 2
  
  Schrödinger's cat does not exist in two states until the opening of the box. The cat entered the box in one state, and will exit it in only one state. The equations must be manipulated as if the cat were in multiple states in order to contain either outcome in a single expression, but in fact the cat will be in only one state: An undead zombie cat, both living and not.
2. Re:Combine this by metacell · 2011-05-12 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  lol, you got me with that one
Re:Oops by DudeTheMath · 2011-05-12 00:10 · Score: 2

'Til doubt do us part?

--
You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
Why photons? by codeButcher · 2011-05-12 00:40 · Score: 1

Seems to me that divided pairs of entangled electrons are much easier absorbed by the bodies of the couple to be wed.
That, and the prospect of getting a nice shock, which should make people think a bit harder about whether they really want to get married...

--
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I thought it would be a Schroedinger's wedding by JamesP · 2011-05-12 01:12 · Score: 1

So you can be married and not married at the same time

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Re:Skepticism? by metacell · 2011-05-12 01:26 · Score: 1

Wait - does that mean I *can't* wish things into being?
Hold on... you said WED? by new+death+barbie · 2011-05-12 01:28 · Score: 1

I thought you said, WET.
I'm... ummmm... I'm not telling the cats, just yet. But there's no doubt in my mind, they're alive in there.

--

It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
Re:Skepticism? by Nimey · 2011-05-12 01:29 · Score: 1

It would have helped if whomever came up with that analogy hadn't said "observer", and instead been more precise.
It's an example of science needing more people who know how to communicate ideas with the common people.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Taken on Faith by cygnwolf · 2011-05-12 01:50 · Score: 1

I'm surprised that nobody has commented on the line about taking Science on Faith.....

--
Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
Re:Skepticism? by Colonel+Korn · 2011-05-12 02:02 · Score: 1

Pop-quantum physics is, alas, absolutely fucking rife with nonsense derived from the interpretation that the "observer" in ye olde Schrödinger's cat thought experiment means "conscious, in the way I imagine myself to be, observer" rather than "virtually any outside interaction that disrupts the closed system". From that fount much bullshit flows...
There have been serious arguments among academic philosophers based on that misconception.

--
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Is this for real? Who would do this? by Rogerborg · 2011-05-12 02:23 · Score: 1

It's just some scamming weirdo gabbling nonsense words and peddling invisible snake oil.
If he wants to do that, he should do it the proper way: put on a silly outfit, give himself a self aggrandizing title, and pretend to cast spells to compel a Beardy Invisible Sky Giant to approve of the union. That's the way it's done dammit.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Oops by c0mpliant · 2011-05-12 02:36 · Score: 1

Brilliant joke! Best joke in these comments!

--
There is no -1 disagree
Re:Skepticism? by radtea · 2011-05-12 03:16 · Score: 2

Pop-quantum physics is, alas, absolutely fucking rife with nonsense
The word that comes to mind is "incoherent"...

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Re:Is this for real? Who would do this? by xyourfacekillerx · 2011-05-12 03:17 · Score: 1

Uh, wouldn't the act of interacting with the photons that encounter the face destroy the entanglement?
Quantum Physics by geekoid · 2011-05-12 03:48 · Score: 2

DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
Quantum physics is spooky, not stupid.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Oops by funwithBSD · 2011-05-12 04:44 · Score: 1

Only if you open the box...

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:Is this for real? Who would do this? by ToiletDuk · 2011-05-12 04:51 · Score: 1

My thoughts exactly. Being absorbed by the skin is an observation effect as far as the universe is concerned and would collapse the wave function.
Re:Oops by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-05-12 05:32 · Score: 1

That's not saying much...

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Many Worlds interpretation by itsdapead · 2011-05-12 05:34 · Score: 1

I just hope that you don't subscribe to the Many Worlds Interpretation, otherwise, immediately after your quantum wedding, you will be served with quantum divorce papers because:
1. In some possible universe you will have screwed the head bridesmaid on your wedding night
2. In some possible universe you will have won the lottery and become a multi-millionaire, and your soon-to-be-ex-partner wants half!
3. Your beloved really didn't appreciate you continually playing "My Beloved Monster" by Eels at the reception...

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
And your vows will be... by sabt-pestnu · 2011-05-12 05:36 · Score: 1

"If you're going to be That Way about it, I'll use stronger lasers, next time!"
Or perhaps...
"A cutting laser, Igor? I vow I'll make you pay for this, if it's the last thing I do!"
Yes, go ahead and use a laser for your ceremony. It'll make for a brief, but shining moment in the life of your bride, one she'll remember for the rest of her life.
Skepticism - the marriage killer by TomRC · 2011-05-12 08:27 · Score: 1

'The quantum marriage will literally be broken up by skepticism about it.'
I just want to say that I doubt the legitimacy of all weddings performed by quantum entanglement.
It's a wedding.... by brunes69 · 2011-05-12 23:08 · Score: 1

"It's just some scamming weirdo gabbling nonsense words and peddling invisible snake oil."
Sounds like most religious ceremony to me.
At the end of the day a wedding is nothing more than a legal contract. All of the other stuff is just ceremony. I think this is a great way to do a ceremony that at least has some grounding in reality.
Re:Oops by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-15 10:22 · Score: 1

Well, it will give interesting new legal problems, given that in a quantum wedding, you can say "yes" and "no" at the same time.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Grayscale by maxwell+demon · 2011-05-15 10:39 · Score: 1

Your photon will not unlikely to be reflected instead of absorbed, so you might not get entangled with her. She will most likely absorb her photon, and thus get entangled, but possibly not with you but with whoever or whatever absorbs that photon. :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.