[LINK] New experiment observes macroscopic quantum entaglement

post by Spurlock · 2011-12-02T04:18:10.872Z · score: 5 (12 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 4 comments

Two Diamonds Linked by Strange Quantum Entanglement

 

4 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by orthonormal · 2011-12-02T05:05:39.246Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Excellent and awesome news- thanks! I find I prefer the writeup from Scientific American, by the way.

ETA: After looking at my comment, I had to check and make sure I wasn't a spambot. Don't know how to sound less stilted, though.

comment by Spurlock · 2011-12-02T05:56:26.610Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for that link. The one I submitted is definitely not perfect, in particular it strongly implies a violation of the No Comminication Theorem.

comment by kilobug · 2011-12-02T10:28:41.545Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Great to see QM confirmed at macroscopic scale, ruling out "collapse" a bit more, but... the article way of saying things does unsettle me, as you say.

Formulations like "teleport bits of light" and comparison to Star Trek teleportation in the link on it make people think you can violate the No Communication Theorem. And things like "the research could help develop faster computers called photonic processors, relying on quantum effects" (semiconductors already rely on quantum effects, sure photonic processors would be faster than ours, but ours already "rely on quantum effect", and so do laser, it's not just futurist tech, it's actual tech that uses QM) just are ways to sound sensational while risking people to make wrong images in their head.

comment by Raemon · 2011-12-06T02:19:39.207Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't have the background to know whether this was mind-blowingly-awesome or just mildly neat, and I'm surprised by the lack of comments either saying "OMGWOW!" or "This isn't really that big a deal"