Chinese team entangles eight photons, breaking record

One last time. Verschränkung means 'shared enclosure' not 'entanglement'. Erwin got the translation wrong. You are just adding to the confusion. Not even in the conventional sense can 'particles' be 'entangled' by any will of the imagination.

One last time. Verschränkung means 'shared enclosure' not 'entanglement'. Erwin got the translation wrong. You are just adding to the confusion. Not even in the conventional sense can 'particles' be 'entangled' by any will of the imagination.

Food for though: Maybe Erwin's English wasn't as bad as you think it was. The particles *are* "entangled" in the sense that they have shared mutually dependent, covarient properties. Also, since these properties can be shared over unlimited space, I'm not convinced that "enclosure" wouldn't be even more misleading. Erwin did not translate Verschrankung literally, and maybe that's a good thing; maybe Verschrankung wasn't the best term to begin with.

Oh, and one more thing. Thanks for making the point, but I'd advise against trying to turn it into a "cause célèbre" on Physorg. There's no way you are going to get Physorg staff to adopt non-standard terminology in their articles, so bringing this up every time entanglement is mentioned will end up making you look like just one more of the site's many resident cranks.

Of course Erwin didn't translate "Verschränkung" literally.

"One of the mutually shared, covariant, dependent properties" is enclosure. One, of many, defining properties of space. That was the gist of the original word in German being use in the German discussion between Erwin and Albert.

If you were bilingual, raised that way, in a family of nothing but theoretical physicists, translating their and others work, discussing the translation becomes pointless.

When authors, raised the same way, say: "Yes, those are my words, there are no better words for this language", you have translated successfully. Erwin is not around anymore. I can not ask him: "Are those your words?" I can ask every living bilingual German/American theoretical physicist this. A hopeless endeavor, even for the sake of everyone's better understanding.

"Verschränkung" is the best term. In German. Obviously, no German will disagree with this. The meaning in German, in physics, in theoretical physics ...cont...

...cont...
simply requires no more contemplation in German. The understanding in German is sufficient, necessary and complete. What is not complete is how does space manage such a property?
The emphasis is shifted, away from matter, onto the space, that matter is embedded in.

As I said, this was for the last time. I will not despair. Countless contributions, useful as well as useless, are discarded daily. I have given someone "food for thought". If clarity was an attribute of those thoughts, I have more than serve my purpose to offer any comment or thought coming from me.

I am more than aware of the vicious personality clashes taking place on this Website. Physorg staff is furthest from my considerations when addressing others' comments.

Thank you for your reply and advice. We both know, there will be a day, where this point will be superseded, obsolete, and no longer a source of confusion or puzzlement.

If you were bilingual, raised that way, in a family of nothing but theoretical physicists,

I was, but French/English, not Germany/English so I pretty much have to take your word on German semantics. And my family were mainly physicians rather than physicists :)

"Verschränkung" is the best term

Like I said, I defer to your German. From what you say I gather it's the best word in the same sense that in English "airplane" is just the best word for an, well, an airplane, with not much more contemplation required.

One final (?) thought. While "shared enclosure" might well give someone a better impression of Schrodinger's meaning in German, both it and entanglement evoke the notion of being linked together. Ultimately, though, the term used will not matter a great deal to anyone who just shuts up and calculates. In that context translation truly becomes pointless.

Sorry. Please discount this post.

Verschränkungis, Verschränkung-sin't.... So the birthday gift came wrapped in Christmas paper, what's the big deal?

Oh, wait, 'gift' means poison in German. Never mind. Any comments on the article content?

The way I read it 'entanglement' is a much better translation than 'shared enclosure'. (And yes, I am bilingual german/english: native german and have lived several years in the US with a background in electrical engineering - which includes a little quantum physics)

The literal meaning of 'Verschränkung' (which does include a sense of 'enclosure') is not the primary meaning you get when you think of the word in german. In german, if you use the word 'Verschränkung' you'd think more in the direction of 'having your arms crossed' or similar - which evokes the meaning of an inerlocking/mutually locked/codependent system.

In english the closest mental equvalent would be a 'gridlock' - but with only two instead of four components involved.

Any comments on the article content?

Ja! I think it's wonderbar. They'll probably be able to push this to a dozen entangled (ahem!) photons in short order without radically modifying their setup. And every step that we make towards developing the ability to maintain particles in an entangled state brings us closer to being able to have precise control over quantum states. So if nothing else, I hope pride will help keep them sharing their progress with the wider scientific community.

This is a great achievement, but I'll be more impressed when real world applications arrive. Think how great news of faster than light communications would be. Isn't this where the real world entanglements (or whatever)are headed?

Think how great news of faster than light communications would be.

Entanglement cannot be used for daster than light communication. For that you would have to put information into the system - in effect measuring it - which would destroy the entanglement.

A satellite sends a stream of photons to Earth and their entangled partners to Mars. The Mars photons are modulated in some way and the earth photons instantly modulate.

I know this is WAY beyond current tech., but just a scenario.
I'm sure some on Physorg can think of more elegant examples.

The literal meaning of 'Verschränkung' (which does include a sense of 'enclosure') is not the primary meaning you get when you think of the word in german.

Yes. Well observed. "primary meaning" references colloquial use in German.
The discussion taking place between Erwin and Albert was anything but colloquial. The risk they took, to add additional meaning to a colloquial word and it's meanings is, in my function as a translator, a disservice to the target language. You see the confusion today. Even dismissed as "semantics" by commentators on this thread. They simply don't grasp the intended meaning in either language.

I as said, this will be the last thread addressing this misunderstanding. You can defer to my German. Careers, livelihoods, reputations mutually depend on my correct translations and interpretations. All that I do and earn as well for a partial living means I am at stake here also - just as much as the person I translate for.

Translations are...cont...

...cont...
Translations are a source of epic misunderstandings and less-than-well-intended agenda. All translation morphs meaning. The one to one equivalency in meanings is practically non existence for all translations.

If I address the bilinguals here, I am "preaching to the choir". We simply 'know' the 'difference' in meaning. We also know any monolingual is at any multilingual s' whim.

This is shamelessly exploited in ALL walks and endeavors of ALL human life on this planet. It is the source of ALL misunderstanding. We have a double burden. We expect ALL monolinguals to have a PERFECT command of their language.

And the reality check says:
Most of the world can not read, write, spell, or speak.
Look at the comments on this Website if you need evidence.

Gawd said the same thing as I just did above:

Ultimately, though, the term used will not matter a great deal to anyone who just shuts up and calculates. In that context translation truly becomes pointless.

This is why I equivocate a language that needs no translation.
This is why I say there is only one language. Human language.
This is why I say there a way to EFFORTLESSLY 'learn' ALL 7000 'parts' of the human language.
This is why I push people's work advocating a theory of the origin of human language.

I WANT translation to become pointless. That is the point of greatest understanding among ALL.

And the reality check says:
Most of the world can not read, write, spell, or speak.

I will not despair. For the sake of everyone's children.
I will translate. And always harbor the hope no one needs this...when speaking just one language, the human language.

A satellite sends a stream of photons to Earth and their entangled partners to Mars. The Mars photons are modulated in some way and the earth photons instantly modulate.

That's the point: you cannot 'modulate them in some way' which would induce the counterpart to act accordingly.

..was going to type up an explanation but the wikipedia entry on "non-communication theorem" does a better job

If you reflect on our comments, in light of our bilingualism concerning the translation of the word 'Verschränkung', a few insights become apparent.

.1)"The way I read it 'entanglement' is a much better translation than 'shared enclosure'."

Yet...

.2)"In english the closest mental equvalent would be a 'gridlock' - but with only two instead of four components involved."

This is interesting.

German Mindset |----------------------| American Mindset

Where on this: |----------------------| are the words:

entanglement.....shared enclosure..... grid lock ......... to be found?

The midway point on the line as the point representing the best compromise to coming closest to both mindsets only in respect and context to a meaning in theoretical physics.

I believe the word 'gridlock' finds the midway point in your mind. Where do you place the other two words on this line?

Do you understand my way of representing this to find the best of all possible meanings?

Do you understand my way of representing this to find the best of all possible meanings?

No.

The language is quite clear and the tranlation as 'entanglement' serves its purpose (it captures the essence of what Schrödinger meant perfectly).

I think you're getting too hung up over semantics here.

Hush, as much as I understand that the language barrier can be a major source of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, I don't think the translation of one lousy word plays a defining role in someones ability to grasp the concept.

Either you grasp the concept and it's absolutely irrelevant how you call the "whole thing", or you don't grasp it and it is still almost absolutely irrelevant how it is called, because as a science student, you should be rather interested about how it works, rather than how it's labeled..

And as such, I also believe that the majority of confusion about "entanglement" emanates from wrong interpretation of the concept (coupled with excess imagination), rather than translation of its "labels"..

Directly from the paper:[quote]eight-photon Schrödinger cat state[/quote]Seems like our chineese colleagues have a sense of humour after all ;-D Entangled and not.

And from the article:[quote]© 2010 PhysOrg.com[/quote]Noes! The ultimate proof of timetravel! :-O

Hush, as much as I understand that the language barrier can be a major source of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, I don't think the translation of one lousy word plays a defining role in someones ability to grasp the concept.

Either you grasp the concept and it's absolutely irrelevant how you call the "whole thing", or you don't grasp it and it is still almost absolutely irrelevant how it is called, because as a science student, you should be rather interested about how it works, rather than how it's labeled..

And as such, I also believe that the majority of confusion about "entanglement" emanates from wrong interpretation of the concept (coupled with excess imagination), rather than translation of its "labels"..

Directly from the paper:

eight-photon Schrödinger cat state

Seems like our chineese colleagues have a sense of humour after all ;-D Entangled and not.

And from the article:

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

Noes! The ultimate proof of timetravel! :-O

How nice, I press [edit] to fix the broken quotes, and it reposts the whole thing as a new comment.

My apologies. Seems like the java code for [edit] is broken somehow atm :-(

it captures the essence of what Schrödinger meant perfectly

Why discuss a translation where the meaning is perfectly clear? The discussion between Albert and Erwin. In other words, what is perfectly clear to Erwin in German, does not carry the right meaning to any other language.

I don't think the translation of one lousy word plays a defining role in someones ability to grasp the concept.

So whether the signs in math are plus or minus makes no difference. It is only "one lousy" sign.

And as such, I also believe that the majority of confusion about "entanglement" emanates from wrong interpretation of the concept (coupled with excess imagination), rather than translation of its "labels".

What is the right interpretation?

"Hung up" is science using one word to which no definite concept was assigned. Physic is a physical science. Physics has to bear the burden of a language that has physical meanings. Otherwise physics returns to source: Math.

"Entanglement" has reached macroscopic dimensions. What is "entangled"? What is not?

What is the right interpretation?

The maths of it.

You can call it anyhing you want: entanglement, Verschränkung, superdeloopymagizzlfrag, ... whatever.

The things we are dealing with here are not open to perfect analogy since all our anlogies come from a macroscopic view of the world.

But analogies - for them to be useful - must be more basic than the thing you are using them as anaolgy for.

However, in this case we're going at it backwards: using stuff that is the effect of the fundamental things we are trying to describe (a macroscopic idea of stuff being 'entangled') as analogy for the fundamental principles we observe. This can only lead to confusion.

Stick to the formulae and everything will be fine.

Richard Feynman explains it best (last sentence in this video, though the rest is worth watching as a lead up):

youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

You have no need for a physical interpretation?
You have excused QM to provide physical interpretations?

Yet electrical engineering without physical interpretations is inexcusable?

I UNDERSTAND "in terms I am more familiar with." Those terms are the GERMAN terms. The German word NEVER stood under discussion in terms of understanding what was meant. What stood under discussion was the TRANSLATION to convey the SAME meaning under which in was understood in GERMAN.

Of course, we don't have to concern ourselves with the meaning. We have a language on which to fall back on, in which the word makes MORE sense and creates LESS apathy (who cares?). The target language is a victim of neglect, lack of attention, much to the detriment of English speakers' understanding. It is NOT my understanding that suffers, my additional language provides for the necessary understanding.

If you want to live and work with a language that does not have the capacity to convey deeper understanding, fine.

So if I understand correctly, a photon is a "wave" more or less until "observed", and then it's a "particle" on a point in that wave?

So if that is how, generally speaking, that works, what is the likely hood that "entangled particles" are really the same "wave" displaying different "observed particles" in different "locations", therefore technically "the same item"? That's all layman conceptual stuff, I know, but still, would the math support something like that?

The wikipedia Non-communication theorem referenced above also has an opposing viewpoint which concludes:

Zeilinger and Dopfer's experiment does not prove superluminal communication, but neither does the no-communication prohibit all forms of communication. If superluminal communication is prohibited, it is not because of the no-communication theorem. Thus, the question of superluminal communication remains open.

The wiki also references:
http://www.analog...ew.shtml

An interesting alternate view

I am willing defer to your point as being the only known observed to date. But I think you should be willing to admit the book is not completely closed on the subject.

As I said, this was for the last time. I will not despair. Countless contributions, useful as well as useless, are discarded daily. I have given someone "food for thought".

But it's not actually 'food' for thought is it? I mean your brain doesn't actually eat it for sustenance does it? I'm sure, like your vershrinkingtum or whatever, it's only a clever turn of phrase. There's probably a more formal word to describe it but I don't feel like looking it up. I'm sure it's there though. Wichtige Wendungen vielleicht?

As I said, this was for the last time. I will not despair. Countless contributions, useful as well as useless, are discarded daily. I have given someone "food for thought".

But it's not actually 'food' for thought is it? I mean your brain doesn't actually eat it for sustenance does it? I'm sure, like your vershrinkingtum or whatever, it's only a clever turn of phrase. There's probably a more formal word to describe it but I don't feel like looking it up. I'm sure it's there though. Wichtige Wendungen vielleicht?

-Although the phrase isn't really literally 'turned' is it? Because that would make it much harder to read or perhaps completely illegible. Don't you think?

I provided motivation for doubt. To doubt the language or words you use to work and play.

The quote is a quote. Not my words. Simply to address the commentators own words directly.

Entanglement is not the correct translation. The thread dialogue makes this clear. Case in point:

"In english the closest mental equivalent would be a 'gridlock'"

There is a disconnect between the word 'entanglement' and the "mental equivalent" of what is being observed.

My assertion, that this 'disconnect' arises from a word that is poorly translated, stands.

And when one asserts this is much ado about nothing, this is the same as saying the signs in math mean nothing as well.

I don't see how "shared enclosure" is good in any way at all, but that may be due to my total lack of knowledge of the actual math or even the concept itself. I'm not talking about how well it matches "Verschränkung," I'm talking about how well it matches reality.

When I think of the word enclosure, I FIRST think of an actual physical object, like a real box. Maybe "shared virtual enclosure" is better? Or "shared logical enclosure" or something else.

Since the word enclosure is a noun referring to a real material thing, it seems to me that the word "entanglement," being absent of the 'noun' attribute, is better.