Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Entanglement of Macroscopic Diamonds
New submitter ananyo writes "A pair of diamond crystals has been linked by quantum entanglement — one of the first times that objects visible to the naked eye have been placed in a connected quantum state. 'This means that a vibration in the crystals could not be meaningfully assigned to one or other of them: both crystals were simultaneously vibrating and not vibrating (abstract). Quantum entanglement — interdependence of quantum states between particles not in physical contact — has been well established between quantum particles such as atoms at ultra-cold temperatures. But like most quantum effects, it doesn't tend to survive either at room temperature or in objects large enough to see with the naked eye.'"
this both gives me the chills, and doesn't.
great..... we dump all this money in some eggheads' laps, and all they can think of is to make fancy adult toys
This is a first post, and yet it isn't!
should be an experiment with a cat & some poison
They say that each phonon involves the coherent vibration of about 1016 atoms, corresponding to a region of the crystal about 0.05 millimetres wide and 0.25 millimetres long â" large enough to see with the naked eye.
0.05 mm is roughly 1/4 the width of a human hair. Of course, I still can't see it, because it's just a patch of vibrations on a much larger diamond.
Neat... Now I can get a pair of diamond vibrators and please both my wife and mistress at the same time!
As near as I can understand this they're entangled so that vibrations in one are indistinguishable from vibrations in another, they both do the same thing at the same time (or near it at least)... doesn't this imply the ability to entangle two whatevers and transit information via entanglement induced vibrations?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Entangled diamond jewelry -- how else can you demonstrate the superposition of your commitment to your one true love? (For 10 picoseconds.)
Did you actually read the article? "Cheap words" make up all science and literature. They explained everything they did in the article. Or do you expect them to post all their experimental data on this brief web article?
"When we detect the Stokes photon we know we have created a phonon, but we can't know even in principle in which diamond it now resides," says Walmsley. "This is the entangled state, for which neither the statement 'this diamond is vibrating' nor 'this diamond is not vibrating' is true."
To verify that the state has been made, the researchers fire a second laser pulse into the two crystals to 'read out' the phonon, from which the laser photon draws extra energy.
There is only Xul.
No, that's quantum physics. Seemingly unrelated particles can influence each other. It's been widely known and accepted as fact since Einstein's era. It's just unusual to see it happen with such particles.
I don't respond to AC's.
Unfortunately, this is not the implementation of the universe.
Here are some answers to the question, Does quantum entanglement allow faster-than-light information transfer?, given by scientists.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that a photon is a statistical convenience, not a particle, and a phonon is even less a particle. You can't send "one photon" and detect "one phonon". These are statistical coincidence measurements that detect correlated behavior between the two diamonds after an electromagnetic interaction that can not transfer less than Planck's constant of action. Either diamond would show a 50% excitation in the absence of the signal from the other. Spooky action at a distance is inferred from correlation of the states over a large number of events. Which is why quantum computing is not going to be as fast as everyone thinks it will be.
People here are looking for a physical level of understanding which probably does not exist. QM is *all* mathematics. We have already described entanglement mathematically. Programs are just algorithms and algorithms are just mathematics. So your "simulation" is somewhat redundant? Just a thought.