arXiv blog

Physicists Build a Memory that Stores Entanglement

The first quantum memory that stores and releases entanglement has been built by researchers in Switzerland.

kfc 09/06/2010

  • 33 Comments
Entanglement is the strange, ghostly phenomenon in which quantum particles share the same existence (actually, the same wave function). So a measurement on one instantaneously influences the other, no matter how far apart they might be.

So-called action-at-a-distance lies at the heart of many of modern physic's most dramatic new technologies: quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation and quantum computation all rely on it.
That makes entanglement important stuff.

"Stuff" is the way many physicists are beginning to think of entanglement: as a resource, rather like water or energy, to be called upon when needed in the new quantum world. These physicists want to be able to create entanglement, use it and store it whenever they need to.

The first two of these--creating and using entanglement--has been the subject of intense research for the last 30 or 40 years. But the ability to store entanglement in a useful way has eluded physicists. Until now.

Today, Christoph Clausen and buddies at the University of Geneva demonstrate not only how to store entanglement but how to release it again in fully working order.

Their device consists of a load of neodymium atoms buried in a crystal of ytterbium silicate, which when cooled, can absorb and store photons. The question that Clausen and co attempt to answer is whether this device can store entanglement too.

So they created a pair of entangled photons, sent one into the crystal and waited until it was emitted again. They were then left with this new photon and the original member of the pair. They then carried out a standard experiment, known as a Bell test, and proved that the pair were still entangled.

That's impressive for several reasons. For a start, for the entanglement to be preserved, the entire crystal has to be involved. This crystal is about a centimetre in size and the idea that entanglement can be exchanged between a photon and an object of this size is amazing.

Next is the ability to transfer entanglement form a flying qubit--the photon--to a stationary one, the crystal. And to do it with photons with a wavelength of 1338nm, the so-called telecommunications wavelength that can pass easily through fibre optic cables. Any other wavelengths are interesting but practically useless for communications.

But the most exciting aspect of all this is that the entanglement survives the process of storage and release at all. Notoriously fragile, entanglement leaks into the environment like water through a sieve. Being able to store and release it is the enabling technology that could make devices such as quantum repeaters work.

There's not shortage of uses for this kind of ability. The quantum internet, to name just one, will require the ability to store and send on entangled photons. At one time, it looked more or less impossibile to do this. Entanglement was just too fragile. Now it looks merely a matter of time before we'll have it on tap.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1009.0489: Quantum Storage of Photonic Entanglement in a Crystal

Update 13 September 2010:
Erhan Saglamyurek points out this paper about a memory device for entangled photons published on the arXiv on the same day as the above item

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

175 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

I can't get no satisf-action

Thanks, that was interesting!

"Entanglement is the strange, ghostly phenomenon in which quantum particles share the same existence (actually, the same wave function). So a measurement on one instantaneously influences the other, no matter how far apart they might be.
So-called action-at-a-distance"

Um, no.

Your own article reject the first part later (new photon, different wave function/existence).

The second is not true in a realistic theory, which is valid too as many world theory is realistic.

In a realistic theory entanglement sets up correlations between the objects (and the environment). The measurement on one decides which of the correlations are still valid, so decides how the measurement on the second will be interpreted.

So here we have no instantaneous causation (action), not even instantaneous correlation, only a choice between correlations.

[As a personal note, I always prefer the realistic version in the choice between theories, since, well, it always works. In the same way a "realist" theory of the world can't be rejected as of yet, while it is actually tested. C.f. example solipsism: not testable.

And now that Hawking presumably takes the favorite quantum theory of many cosmologists, many world theory, and makes it an integral part of his work on how the universe is self-contained, I don't see how alternative quantum theories will stand the test of time. Obviously the universe is self-contained. :-D]

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

For whatever reason, you appear

to be ignoring the reported results.

A process which is already understood and accepted to reliably generate entangled photons was used -- so the assumption of possible entanglement is feasible. And another process which is already understood and accepted to reliably detect entangled photons was used.

So when two agreed-likely-to-be-entangled photons are tested AFTER one of them has passed through this "bulk material" path -- and they ARE confirmed as still being entangled... Your problem with that is what??

"Conservation of Entanglement" a little much to grasp? I thought that had been hypothesized as pertinent to some types of superconductive materials?? (Which, by the way, might be fertile ground for further experiments of this same type...)

And please don't say "it can't possibly have worked, because it COULDN'T possibly have worked" or any other such circular response...

MY immediate reaction was "so, how did they 'store' the second photon of the entangled pair, while they waited for the first photon to be re-emitted??" -- immediately followed by "the fact that both photons WERE found to still be entangled kinda means I don't know and I don't care how the second one was 'stored'..." (wow -- both ignorance and apathy, in a high tech framework -- I'd be so ashamed, except it DOES fall into the "background noise" category)...

My NEXT reaction was to try to visualize a commercializable technique for using this phenomenon. They didn't get into enough detail about whether there is a minimum "bulk mass" requirement, for example, or a crystalline cubic volume...

It IS starting to look like we have a shot at accumulating the entire toolkit of logic functions needed to make something useful out of this whole "illogical theoria".

And another "by the way" observation... ANY time you read a description of quantum mechanical behavior, written in English (or German, or Russian, or whatever) -- just take for granted that the words being used don't quite exactly mean what you THINK they mean. There is no non-mathematical vocabulary available which is going to be internally consistent and coherent in a quantum context. Yet. And when there is, it's going-to-will-have-been-once very similar to the vocabulary necessary to talk meaningfully about verb forms for time travelers...

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

Typical

This is a typical nonsense of theoretical physicists.

There is no such thing as quantum mechanics as it is inconsistent. These hopeless idiots, aka theoretical physicists, still keep talking about photons which they have no idea at all what they are. They did not even understand that they are mixing up several mutually contradicting definitions of photons.

Before making this kind of stupid statement, just learn mathematics and logic and present what QM is consistently.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

If ANYONE in the world who is CAPABLE of running a "standardized" experiment DOES run that experiment -- and gets the same results -- and  then gets the same DIFFERENT results with a characteristic and standardized change to the experiment, we have this "scientific method" which says SOMETHING we all just did demonstrates a reproducible aspect of our shared reality. Some aspect of "the way it IS" was revealed. Whether we have a properly structured EXPLANATION for it or not.

And your argument that not having the EXPLANATION somehow totally invalidates the experiment, THAT argument doesn't hold water. It can't. Because the experiment IS repeatable. The observed effect DOES happen.

And when that observed effect turns out to be a desirable technique to add to a "toolbox" of OTHER "illogical and totally bogus incorrectly-explained" effects, ALL of which are totally reproducible -- well, nobody CARES that you are offended by the academics and body of theory surrounding the whole process. The UNIVERSE doesn't care -- why should anybody else.

And, by the way: your "thought-experiments" which appear to invalidate the concept of inertial frames... Oddly enough, that specific concept HAS given meaningful and consistent results in the more-than-a-few environments where it HAS been applied and where errors would have become pertinent AND visible. In particular, sensor platforms moving at velocities where significant variances in resulting data do in fact fit the predicted curves.

You say it can't work, I say it DOES work. You say "our theory is logically inconsistent". I say okay, maybe (and maybe not) -- do you have an explanation for why it works enough to predict the observed results, then?? Umm, yes, I'll hold...

Again, any "theory" isn't intended to nail down Creation and Everything -- but to the extent that a theory DOES continue to be a useful predictor, gaps in "the logical basis" merely point out "Work Needed Here", not "well, throw THIS theory out completely".

Where I STILL see hope in what you present, and what you represent, is that the occasional re-evaluation from basic principles MAY clarify the situation when we attempt to surmount the current "what next?" block obfuscating the next wave of refinements to "theory".

My FEAR is that your "protesting too much" may in fact interfere with some person following some RIGHT-with-hindsight path toward clarifying what you say is wrong -- because that path is now subtly labeled "Here Be Dead Horses (which get beaten regularly)".

Unfortunately, that still leaves you on the same bench with ZephirAWT... As soon as the BS gets just so deep (and predictable), people stop trying to dig down to the possibly meaningful foundations... But I have to admit, it is your gods-given right to muddy the waters as you choose. Personally, I'd rather become part of the SOLUTION (and not get skipped as soon as I am recognized), but to each our own destiny.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

To begin with as usual this poster's "response" is not. What he wrote here has nothing to do with what I wrote to which he is supposed to be responding. This constitute "meaningless response" using his own term.

It was Einstein who correctly and incisively pointed out that in physics, it is a theory which tells experimentalists what kind of experiment to conduct.

Before him, Bertrand Russell criticised the way theoretical physics makes advances. He said, theoretical physics is a process of self-refutation. He  correctly pointed out that the experiments which falsify existing theory is framed assuming (or using) the existing theory.

In rational thinking this kind of reasoning which was discussed by Einstein and Russell is NOT. Only a fool will "think" in this corrupted way.

What these corrupted empiricists do not understand is that logic is an ultimate empirical fact. We mankind learned logic from our experience with physical world. Physical reality does not support A and notA at the same time!

So, the reasoning of physics which embraces inconsistency is itself a worst violation of empiricism.

As I said, to understand a theory requires a paradigm which transcends the theory. Empiricism cannot be correctly understood by empiricists. This is just like Marxism and Capitalism which were destroyed by Marxists and Capitalists themselves respectively as they did not understand their own theory.

All of this gives us a stern warning that the whole process of physics is dis-functional, invalid.

1. What physicists call "empirical verification" of a physical theory makes no sense at all as it assumes the validity of the theory to be verified. Moreover, even an elementary school child will understand that it makes no sense at all to claim that by making finitely many observations physicists conclude that their theory is valid. Their theory contains infinitely many theorems to be "verified".

2. Empirical falsification of a physical theory also makes little sense at all. It is framed using to be invalid theory. This error, again even an elementary school student will readily understand.

Status of rationality in theoretical physics is so embarrassingly low and it is not even funny anymore.

When I presented the following contradiction in relativity theory:

"Assume a train runs on a track and when its front touches the track at point F and its tail touches the track at point T, lighting strikes F and T. An observer at the middle of the train will observe that F and T are hit at the same time as they are points of the frame of the train. But he will observe that F is hit first and then T is hit as they are also points of the frame of track."

Many theoretical physicists responded saying that it is no contradiction at all. They said that an observer located at on the right bisector of FT will observe that F and T are hit at the same time.

This episode clearly shows a hopeless situation theoretical physics is in. Many of them are in fact quite established theoretical physicists. A theory is inconsistent once "a" contradiction is deduced. This makes the rest of the theory pointless. It is just like adding an extra axiom 5=7 to number theory. This makes the resulting theory  inconsistent as

5-5= 7-5
2 = 0
1 = 0
x = 0.

So all numbers x are equal to 0.

What physicists are saying in their defense of Einstein is that but we still have 7+2 = 9. Inconsistent theory proves "anything".

The problem is that with this kind of total ignorance on simple logic and mathematics, they preach us commoners how to think. Record shows that it was them who were supposed to be experts in logic and frame-event analysis of relativity theory. Critics were rebuked for the lack of logic and incompetence in frame-event analysis. It is now clear that it has been physicists who do not know what they are talking about when they discussed logic of physics and event-frame analysis. Anyone who understands a simple rational logical reasoning will immediately see that there is a fundamental flaw in a theory which is based upon the thought experiments which are shown to be invalid in the theory itself. I am talking about that in SR all thought experiments used to frame SR are "invalid" according to SR because there is no causality between the emission of light and the reception of light. These thought experiments are based upon the emission and reception of light.

After all, this poster did not understand what Einstein said. He did not know that there is no such thing as classical interpretation of the accelerator experiments as these experiments are framed assuming relativity theory and QM. He did not understand a critical point against the empiricism that all experimental verifications are basically viciously circular. They go as follows: as a theory is correct the theory is correct. He does not understand a simple fact that as Popper said, there is no such thing as experimental verification of a theory. A theory contains infinitely many predictions and by checking  several of them we cannot verify the theory. To be rationally correct, we have no idea if the speed of light is constant or not.

After all, as Popper said, if a theory is shown to be inconsistent with experimental result, it is invalid. If it is shown to be logically inconsistent it is not even wrong.

Best regards,

AKT


Reply

hlzr

1 Comment

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

With regards to your `contradiction' in special relativity, it depends on which inertial frame the observer is in and which inertial frame the events happen in.  Should the events happen in the same frame as the observer (i.e. both on the railway car), then they would perceive the events as simultaneous. Should the event happen in the frame the observer is not in (i.e. observer on the railway car, event on the platform), then the observer would experience one event before another (in my example, the lightning strike in the direction of travel [at the front of the train] would be perceived to happen first by the train rider).

Also, the idea that there is `no such thing as quantum mechanics' is a little silly as it is merely an idea of how to cut the world and not a thing. You can argue with its validity but not its existence.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

Explain your view using the following contradiction:


Assume a train runs on a track. Assume when the front and the tail of the train touche the track at F and R respectively lighting strikes A and B. According to an observer in the middle of the train, A  and B are hit at the same time as A and B are points of the frame of the train. Burt as they are also points of the track, he will observe that A is hit first and then B is hit.

Where is the problem you are talking about. You are also responsible for refuting all other contradictions I pointed out.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Advertisement

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

You still don't get it. NObody is "responsible" for refuting ANYthing you say here. And looking back over three months of your attempting to convince people that they ARE "responsible", you have had a small handful of responses -- which you thoroughly savaged. You yourself have admitted to several cases where people have attempted to respond, people who are judged to be "qualified" to answer -- and you dismiss and deride THEM too.

Small little man... You reached a point where you couldn't follow "the latest stuff" so you retreated to a "notable" era (so "personality-cult"-ish) and cling desperately to a nihilistic "manifesto", rejecting any input which contradicts your position.

We're glad you found a way to keep "busy" without actually playing in traffic or blocking hallways.

In the meantime, I'm investigating a browser add-on which MIGHT just allow me to not ever have to SEE any posting which contains "AKT", or "scieitific" or "Best Regards", ever again.

Kind of like wearing a filter mask to help get rid of a malodorous stench.

Reply

gordonwh

12 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

@AKT:
"Assume a train runs on a track. Assume when the front and the tail of the train touche the track at F and R respectively lighting strikes A and B."

Are you suggesting we assume that lightning hits A and B simultaneously? In what frame are we in then? Think about it and there's your answer. Where's the contradiction?

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

Slytherin takes an unexpected blow! (or)

How we slopped from QM to SR. Again.

Clarity in all things.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

I do not understand why you have trouble here. I am saying that A,B are hit at the same time in the frame of the ground. Why does it not cause the contradiction in the perspective of the oberver located in the middle of the train?

I think you better ask  Einstein this question. It was him who used this argument to derive the loss of simultaneity. My thought experiment is almost identical to Einstein's thought experiment for the loss of simultaneity. I just moved the points where lighting hits to where the trains head and tail touch the track.

As I said that loss of simultaneity is myth. First of all, using precisely the setting of Einstein's thought experiment we can prove that SR proves both loss of simultaneity and negation of it.

It goes as follows:

Assume a train runs on a track. When an observer on the train is on the right bisector of AB lightning strikes A and B. Einstein argues that this observer will observe that A and B are not hit at the same moment using classical argument. But he missed that due to the CSL, light path and the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source of the light. So, this observer will observe that A and B are hit at the same moment. It is ironic that CSL falsifies the loss of simultaneity.

In the setting of my argument which is a slight modification of Einstein's argument, I should say that due to CSL, what is simultaneous in the frame of the track is also simultaneous in the frame of the train.

Moreover, the concept of simultaneity itself is ill defined. As I said and so did Einstein, we can place synchronised clocks every where in a frame. This can be done by protocol. Assume everybody in a frame is told that at point P at 12:00 light is flashed. Then at point Q, we can set time 12:00+t where t=d/c where d is the distance between P and Q. So, if lighting strikes at A and B at the same time, an observer in the train can observe that A and B are hit at the same time by reading the clock located at A and B. So, in this sense, the loss of simultaneity is false too.

This argument kills entire standard model too. Assume an observer on a train is looking at synchronised clocks in the frame of the track. The time of the track he observes by looking at a clock right in front of him and that observed by looking at far away clock are not the same. This means that time is depending upon the location of the clock. This makes Poincare symmetry fail. Time is depending upon translation.

If you are confused about this simultaneity problem, we can make the argument simpler. Assume two bikers A and B run in parallel on a road. Assume that A sends light signal to B. From the biker's perspective light reaches B. But from the perspective of the road, light misses B.

After all, I think the problem here is related to the problem of measurement. I think philosophers are correct in quickly rejecting positivism. Reality and what we observe are different things. This problem appears in the discussion the following paradox: Assume a trainruns on a track. Assume synchronised clocks are placed along the track. Assume that when operators at the front and tail of the train observed 12:00 on the clocks right in front of them on the track, they mark the tracks. Assume A and B are marked points. Then a ground observer  will observe that the length d of the train is that of the line segment AB. But if we accept the LC, this observer will observe the length of the train shorter than d.

This paradox shows that when we use different measurement method, we may well end up with the different result for the same quantity. Things like length contraction appears because we stick to the optical measurement.

Notwithstanding, it may be worth to discuss other contradictions too. Any of them demolishes SR. How about SR proving both GT and LT for example?


Thank you for sincere scientific response.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 521 Days Ago
  • 09/12/2010

Loss of simultaneity?

Interestingly enough, I was just reading through an "expanded" discussion of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (however THAT should be stated) -- and they basically explained in great detail how it is GUARANTEED that two variables which HAVE the basic uncertainty "issue" will ALWAYS have some basis in reality for manifestation of that uncertainty. Anything from uncertainty in EXACTLY where the lightning hit, to WHEN the lightning hit, to variations in clock-tick-rate because of variations in the acceleration due to gravity...

In other words, it is PERFECTLY possible to postulate a thought experiment which IS, in fact, impossible to perform in reality, because REALITY won't accept or allow one or more of YOUR "logically imposed" constraints.

AND, the implication was, if you THINK you've found a set of constraints which produces an inconsistency -- you're WRONG. As in "you haven't done all your homework correctly" wrong.

How are you with perpeptual motion machines?? Any thoughts about how the Laws of Thermodynamics are inconsistent or invalid??

People are laughing at you for this. Worse, if someone FINDS your mistake, YOU, the logical "scientist" (or whatever you consider yourself), WILL reject that finding. You've done it before. You have no "scientific" honor. You are tainting our space here.

Actually, you have, do, and will rub me the wrong way. You can't teach, you won't share, you don't try, you have no excuse for your actions. Polite society says you don't exist.

Reply

stuffnix

1 Comment

  • 506 Days Ago
  • 09/27/2010

Re: "No such thing as Quantum Mechanics"...

Hmm - Well, the two clocks might tell Mr. Observer the time of the respective event but - Mr. Observer couldn't read out these records AT THE SAME TIME even if they happend at the same time and the clocks recorded the same time. If he watched the records of the events, he would get one event (Alarm led or alike) earlier...

Might be I'm wrong, but to get the information out of the clocks cost time also!

Stuffnix

Reply

rsanchez1

213 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

Re: Typical

Physicists have debated what quantum mechanics is for decades, and they still don't know what it really is. That doesn't stop them from making predictions and carrying out experiments to see what they can do with what they know. These scientists claim they can store and release entanglement at their will. What if they make a breakthrough in quantum computing with that technology? What will you say then?

All I'm saying is that a better theory, one that reveals the true nature of the quantum world and gives us a complete understanding of nature, is necessary, but in the meantime scientists can still make meaningful discoveries with what they have. You can say they are saying idiotic things, but at the end of the day they're still producing experiments with results.

Reply

Advertisement

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

LOL...

"Can't argue with reproducible results" is only true for certain values of "rational discourse."

If the argument gets any more convincing, MAYbe the quantum tunneling occurring in my CPU chip will spontaneously stop happening. Or all the phased array radar units in the world will hiccup and burn out. Or all the gyroscopic inertial platforms in orbit will suddenly start to drift... And gods forbid all the GPS units out there suddenly 'fess up and get lost. THAT would be fun. For certain values of "fun".

Moving on. Other actually meaningful stuff to consider...

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: LOL...

LOL is a typical expression of intellectually challenged people. It just does not belong to scieitific community.

When the foundation of contemporary physics is shown to be bunk, what kind of people will ask if we could move onto more meaningful discussions. Intellectually challenged?

No matter how much this individual desires more meaningful discussions, the very problem that the standard model is a pure nonsense will not go away.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

rsanchez1

213 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: LOL...

Let me just clarify that I'm with you, I think modern physics needs some sort of "makeover" to have it make more sense than the mess we have now. Dropping everything we have won't help. Perhaps discoveries such as the one describe in this article are the beginning to more radical discoveries that eventually push the frontiers of physics so far out that physicists will have no choice but to come up with a better theory if they want to continue pushing those boundaries.

In addition, the physics community could also benefit from being more open-minded...

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: LOL...

It is tragic that the juvenile fever of  revolutionary activities of the last century made physics community violate the Post Principle. It is important because we can readily back track and repair the damage when error takes place. Now everything is changed and either relativity nor QM has classical limit. So, there is no way to back track and correct errors.

I personally am very pessimistic about the future of Physics partly because the field is filled with people like ... who act against the principle of science and mess up the healthy scientific discussion. I went through so many of these irrelevant people. But more seriously without the Post Principle engaged in the development of the last century, we really do not know where to start.

The only thing I suggest is to go back to the late 19Th century electromagentic theory. The error here resulted in the entire mess of contemporary physics.

If you have good idea let me know.

Best regards,

AKT

PS: Einstein's classical limit is false. It holds at v=0 only. Galilean relativity theory allows v to be any speed. Moreover, Bohr's correspondence principle is false. it works only for Planck's energy quanta. Taking n to be infinity will not establish link between quantisation's (first and second) and classical measurements.

Reply

geostar1024

9 Comments

  • 517 Days Ago
  • 09/16/2010

Re: LOL...

> The only thing I suggest is to go back to the late 19Th century electromagentic theory. The error here resulted in the entire mess of contemporary physics.

Contemporary physics might be a tad messy in places, but it undeniably works.  For example, the reason we have GPS and solid state electronics is due to the understanding of the universe we gained through the use of general relativity and quantum mechanics (respectively).  You may try to dispute the validity of contemporary physical theory, but you live with the results of all that theory every day.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: Typical

QM is already framed precisely and it is false. It is inconsistent. Nothing more can be said. Engineering is something different. Engineers do not care about theory. They use whatever is available to obtain what they want.

For example, engineers can deal with a mass which has the shape of an aircraft and make it fly as the pilot wants to even though they have no idea why. This has nothing to do with physics which is restricted to the idealised situation where all masses are point masses.

Einstein's attempt to extend mechanics to physical objects of arbitrary size shape such as a reference frame which moves naturally ended up with inconsistency.

If quantum computing works and gives us polynomial time computation of NP hard problems, it says nothing. It is the definition of NP hard problem that these problems can be computed in polynomial time when we use nondeterministic computation. Moreover, quantum computing has nothing to do with physics. It is engineering.

The purpose of physics is to explicate this universe  and the purpose of engineering is to create what we want in this universe.

As far as applied complexity theorists are concerned, they do not care whatever non deterministic computing mechanism is used. All they are interested in is to solve NP hard problems in polynomial time using some nondeterministic computation. Theoretical complexity theorist will not give dumb to how to implement such non deterministic computing machines. For them everything is already done: it is not bloody quantum  physicists who showed that there is a category of NP hard computing world. It was done by complexity theorists. This is characterised by using non deterministic polynomial computing.

Intellectually all what is juicy is already done by talented complexity theorists. Naturally expected those physicists and engineers working on the quantum computing do not understand what they are trying to do in correct context. Just narrow minded stupid people they are. The realisation of quantum computing just does not make any contribution to complexity theory.

Considering the incompetence of physicists exposed in logical thinking, it is not surprising that all of pure nonsense is taking place with glorification in the NEOCON driven false science.  When Reagan took over the US politics, the doom of American science started, and when Clinton became the US President, the foundation of American science was destroyed. This idiot proclaimed that the days for research for the sake of knowledge was gone. He was singly responsible for the destruction of once great American Research establishments like AT & T Lab (previously Bell Lab), IBM Thomas Watson Research Centre, Xerox Park etc. etc. Academic research went down following these under the Clinton idiocy.

Best regards,

AKT

P.S.

After all, David Bohm presented a more acceptable theory and he was persecuted for that. His publications were blocked and he was labeled as "occult scientist". Even occult is better than the false physics of the 20Th century. At least there is no double standard, no pretention. These thick skinned gentlemen in academic physics thought they were excellent as they knew how to use the language of mathematics which general public did not know. It was stupid of them that they did not notice there is a higher being than the king of science, namely metaphysicians. Now they are nailed  mathematically and logically. Their idiocy and lie have been exposed. Now they are looking for "more meaningful" issues. Whenever they try their diverstion tactics, I will be there to make sure that they will stick to the real issue of the validity of the 20Th century physics.

Reply

naasking

29 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: Typical

After all, David Bohm presented a more acceptable theory and he was persecuted for that. His publications were blocked and he was labeled as "occult scientist".

Another post full of misinformation: David Bohm was not persecuted or blacklisted as you say, nor was he ever considered an "occult scientist". I've given up pointing out how your logical arguments are flawed, but hopefully you'll at least accept indisputable factual corrections.

Reply

Advertisement

AKT

453 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: Typical

The information is there in the book late Prof. James Cushing wrote, "Quantum Mechanics: Contingency in hegemony".

He documented his experience with American QM physicists. He said, when he asked American QM physicists about Bohm, either they never heard of him or they said that Bohm must be wrong as he contradicted Copenhagen.

After all the real issue is that Bohm's QM follows the Post Principle.

Standard QM changed the classical mechanics in two ways. First the introduction of probabilistic indeterminacy in predicition. Second the action at a distance. Bohm showed that quantum systems are deterministic and probability is not the intrinsic issue. He showed that the probability is  the consequence of our incapability to match up with the sensitivity of the system. So, for us the same experiments are not at all for the quantum systems. This appears as different results for the "same" experiments. He changed the classical physics by adopting the action at a distance feature which he called implicate order.

So, Bohm changed classical physics in only one aspect. Thus he satisfied the minimum change principle of Post.

Because of the introduction of quantum potential, he needs no QFT. This is yet another improvement.

You should learn to substantiate your cllaim. Facts speak out.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

Arrogance and stupidity

> A process which is already understood and accepted to reliably generate entangled photons was used -- so the assumption of possible entanglement is feasible. And another process which is already understood and accepted to reliably detect entangled photons was used.

I have shown that nothing is understood here. These people did not even know that their concept of photons is flatly invalid. There are at least three mutually contradicting concepts of photons mixed up in theoretical physics.

1. Planck's photon as energy quanta. This is just a convention to get the number correct at the black-body radiation. No mathematical process of quantising energy was presented.

2. Einstein's photon as quanta of em waves. As EM wave equation is not an energy equation, the standard technique of the first quantisation does not apply here. Moreover, the Fourier expansion of sinusoidal function gives us nothing new. So Dirac's second quantisation does not work here either. Einstein's quantisation of em waves remain just as a convention despite that the to be quantised is a mathematical equation. To make the matter even more embarrassing, his photon with speed c and rest mass v contradicts SR. The rest mass zero assumption worked as planned by Einstein to remove the diverging rest mass and energy as the formulas for them contained rest mass as a factor. But the length contraction formula

d = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) d'

causes a mathematical contradiction at v=c. This cannot be removed by assuming the rest mass to be zero.

3. Dirac considered photons as quanta of not em waves but em fields. Em waves and em fields are different things.

Before physicists talk about "photons" they must come up with precise definition of photons which integrate all of the above mentioned photons as all of them are used everywhere in contemporary physics.

The whole thing resembles to what happened to economics in America. Despite serious warning from critics, Reaganomics of trickle down economy was pushed and overwhelming majority of Americans went for that many for the "fear" of being labeled as "commies". As predicted precisely by the critics, this turned America's economic activity to nothing but fraud, financial fraud. Through unprecedented fraud, the rich became unthinkably rich and the rest became desparately poor. Money did not trickle down!

It appears quite clear that for the fear of being thrown out of the privileged class of theoretical physicists, many followed the dogma blindly leading the entire community to the breakdown which we are experiencing.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 527 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

Re: Arrogance and stupidity

YOUR title pretty much says it all. And makes it pretty clear why you're not having much luck being heard. Anywhere.

And since I suspect there WILL be a few more people who will unknowingly respond to you in attempting rational discourse, we'll probably be seeing you around. And around. And around.

You are being totally ridiculous.

You essentially insist (without understanding that's what you're doing) that you have nothing of value to discuss (because any basis for conversation is totally flawed), and I finally have to agree. I have no more time or energy for pointless discourse. Nothing more to say to you.

"Best Regards".

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Re: Arrogance and stupidity

As usual, this individuals posting here has no scieitific contents. It is not a response to my posting.

After all this individual did not know that accelerator experiments assumes QFT. There is no such thing as classical interpretation of accelerator experiments.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 526 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

Standard line

> All I'm saying is that a better theory, one that reveals the true nature of the quantum world and gives us a complete understanding of nature, is necessary, but in the meantime scientists can still make meaningful discoveries with what they have. You can say they are saying idiotic things, but at the end of the day they're still producing experiments with results.

This is a standard line coming from those logically challenged people aka physicists. All of them should learn some basic logic and mathematics. Popper made it very clear that the empirical truth and logical truth are different things. The former is contingent and the latter is absolute.

It is reasonable to say that some kind of tolerance is needed for empirical falsity of physical theories. I accept that even if several disagreements are found between a theory and empirical reality, still the theory has some relevance and validity.

But when it comes to logical  and mathematical inconsistency, it is a completely different story. Metaphysically speaking, an inconsistent theory is useless because it proves anything, A and notA for any A. It fails to discern what is true and what is false. This is why meta physicians such as logicians, philosophers and mathematicians reject inconsistent theory out of hands. Popper who build a bridge between science and logic clearly stated that logically inconsistent theories are NOT physical theories. 
Even empirically they are useless as by proving A and notA for all A, it contradicts to all empirical findings A.

The problem I am discussing with the 20Th century physics such as the standard model is that the theories are logically and mathematically inconsistent.

When we have no idea what photons are at all, it makes absolutely no sense to have theories which involve photons for example.

It is not that we have a bit troubled theory. It is that we have no theory.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

luddite

407 Comments

  • 525 Days Ago
  • 09/08/2010

beam me up scotty

Quantum mechanics is an interesting device,
Which can measure the amount of matter in light,
And the energy that's gained,
Most clearly explains,
Why photons always converge in mid flight.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 521 Days Ago
  • 09/12/2010

USING quantum entanglement to DO anything:

Of course, I don't know enough about "current technology" and the latest concepts, but I will give this admittedly-fairly-obvious observation:

What we NEED is the quantum-technology equivalent of the PCR reaction in genetic biology. For a LOT of reasons, but for THIS discussion, because I would like some way to "propagate" or "clone" a specific "entanglement" so that we can work with multiple copies of that exact same entanglement. I understand that this 'weirdly' increases the odds of that entanglement being accidentally resolved (since supposedly ANY copy "degrading" would cause ALL copies to degrade).

As soon as we can do that, we have gained the distinct advantage of "NOW we can DO stuff".

For example, if we can "non-destructively TEST" whether an entanglement is still "viable" -- WITHOUT destroying the viability (and still have the REST of that "clone group" available to work with), then we can do statistical sampling across isolated populations of mixed clone groups (need some potential for error-detection-and-correction) and detect when an entanglement IS purposefully "destroyed" at some spooky distance ("Ah, they pushed the button").

And I'm reasonably sure that I'm letting my tail hang out and reveal that I'm not far enough up to speed on the whole concept -- because "non-destructively testing for entanglement" seems like another non-trivial issue.

"Cloning", however -- if you have a physical bulk-mechanism which allows for the "storage and delay" of an entangled photon, is it meaningful to discuss "splitting in half" a bulk which currently "contains" a photon, conceivably to then somehow extract one photon ("half a photon" I realize is meaningless, mostly) from each half of the bulk?? While I'm sure it can't be that easy, it has that same "quantum queasy" feel that all the rest of the known operators have.

Also: one comment made in the original post implied that we can USE the wide range of "COLORS" available (since one specific telecom-related frequency is given as "an optimum"). Don't overlook the information content available from population dynamics when we can uniquely identify one photon family from another by color, and MIX families (and "clone groups") to distinguish between packaged sub-groups.

And I guess I have no choice -- I'll have to educate myself about this stuff, 'cause there's a couple of other ideas "not yet fit to print"...

Reply

Advertisement

geostar1024

9 Comments

  • 517 Days Ago
  • 09/16/2010

Re:  USING quantum entanglement to DO anything:

Regarding your thought about splitting a bulk medium that is currently storing a photon:

I would think that doing this would destroy the state of the photon because of the drastic changes to the wavefunctions of the components of the bulk medium that would be occurring.  But, then, I don't know how fragile the photon's state would be in that bulk medium (though according to the article, it's considerably stabler than when dealing with isolated particles). . .

Also, I'm not sure there's any way to non-destructively test the entanglement of two objects.  About the best you can do is measure the state of one object, observe the effect on the other one, and conclude that since the state change of the second object occurred in a shorter time than it would take a photon to traverse the distance between them, the objects must have been entangled.  And, if this were possible, it would allow faster-than-light communication, because you could continually test the "entangledness" of the second object, and know exactly when it became unentangled (indicating a measurement was made on the first object).  Of course, our current physics forbids faster-than-light communication . . .

Anyway, just some things to consider.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 517 Days Ago
  • 09/16/2010

Re:  USING quantum entanglement to DO anything:

I agree with your concern about splitting the bulk medium perhaps impacting the embedded wave function -- but the possibility exists that we're talking about a distributed embedment which may in fact have something resembling a holographic "redundancy" and/or resiliency... I wouldn't bet big money on it, but if it DOES work it WILL be big money.

And there is a strong likelihood that non-destructive testing of entanglement isn't possible, since the whole point is that "observation" of the entangled particle is what CAUSES it to lose entanglement (as a retroactive "history" for the particle falls into place)... BUT -- again, the issue with quantum behavior is that it ISN'T amenable to "intuitive" expectations. And some of the latest "toolbox techniques" for using quantum properties in a computational sense seem to give some hope of yet MORE classes of "illogical" constructs and mechanisms for theorists to argue about while engineers actually "get over it" and start to make stuff happen...

Reply

geostar1024

9 Comments

  • 517 Days Ago
  • 09/16/2010

Re:  USING quantum entanglement to DO anything:

Agreed. While these theoretical questions are certainly interesting and useful to discuss, the actual experiments will be far more interesting, especially if they show something outside current theory. . . .

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 521 Days Ago
  • 09/12/2010

Little details...

Is this a "one photon at a time" operation, or (please, please) something like a "first in, first out" process?? Or do we know WHAT can be done to the bulk crystal material without "damaging" the enclosed goods?? I have this mental image of something similar to a multi-crystalline sample of iron pyrites.

"One photon at a time" has some drawbacks, BUT "economy of scale" and "assembly line" technologies in general would seem to still allow for "bulk" parallel "processing"...

Reply

Brian H

60 Comments

  • 512 Days Ago
  • 09/21/2010

Edit note

"form a flying qubit" ==>  from ...

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement

Recent Posts From
arXiv blog

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement