In the quantum world, diamonds can communicate with each other

Dec 02, 2011 By Joel N. Shurkin
The vibrational states of two spatially separated, millimeter-sized diamonds are entangled at room temperature by scattering a pair of strong pump pulses (green). The generated motional entanglement is verified by observing nonclassical correlations in the inelastically scattered light. Credit: Dr. Lee and colleagues, Image Copyright Science|AAAS

Researchers working at the Clarendon Laboratory at the University of Oxford in England have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing "quantum entanglement," one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics.

Entanglement has been proven before but what makes the Oxford experiment unique is that concept was demonstrated with substantial solid objects at room temperature.

Previous entanglements of matter involved submicroscopic particles, often at .

This experiment employed millimeter-scale diamonds, "not individual atoms, not gaseous clouds," said Ian Walmsley, professor of at Oxford's Clarendon Laboratory, one of the international team of researchers.

The experiment is reported in this week's edition of Science.

When zapping one artificial diamond with ultrashort they managed to change the vibrations of a second diamond sitting a half a foot away without touching it.

Entanglement originated in the mind of Albert Einstein, who ironically came up with the notion trying to disprove quantum mechanics, a branch of physics he mistrusted all his life.

Under the theory, if two particles, say electrons, are created together, some of their attributes will become "entangled." If the two are then separated, doing something to one instantly affects the other. This would happen whether they were next to each other or across the universe.

For instance, electrons act as if they have tiny bar magnets that point up or down, described by an attribute called "spin." If the two are entangled through their spins -- up or down -- and a scientist measures the spin of one, the spin of the other will react even if one is on a lab table in Oxford and the other were on a planet near the star Antares, 1,000 light years away. Instantly.

This would mean that the information about the change traveled faster than the speed of light -- which Einstein said was impossible -- or that long distances are some kind of illusion.

Einstein disparaged it as "spooky action at a distance." The German physicist Erwin Schrodinger used the term "entanglement" in a letter to Einstein. He didn't believe in quantum mechanics either.

"I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics," the late physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained.

Nonetheless, is now the paradigm for nature at the atomic level. It serves as the foundation of much of modern technology, from lasers to transistors. And entanglement comes as part of the package. Physicists have been demonstrating it in laboratories since the 1980s, and it is being used in laboratories experimenting with the building blocks of quantum computers.

The diamonds Walmsley and his international team used were approximately 3 millimeters (a tenth of an inch) square and 1 millimeter thick.

"We used short pulse lasers with pulse durations of around 100 femtoseconds (a quadrillionth of a second). A femtosecond is to a second as a nickel is to the debt of the federal government generally speaking," he said.

They chose diamonds because they are crystals, so it was easier to measure molecular vibrations, and because they are transparent in visible wavelengths. Light from the lasers altered a kind of mass vibration in the diamond crystal called phonons, and the measurements showed they were entangled: The vibrations of the second diamond reacted to what happened to the vibrations of the first.

Performing the experiment with ultrafast laser pulses enabled the researchers to catch entanglement, which is usually very short-lived in large objects at room temperature.

"It remains a counterintuitive way of thinking about objects," Walmsley admitted.

"It's a very nice and clever piece of work with potentially big implications," said Sidney Perkowitz, a physicist at Emory University in Atlanta, and author of "Slow Light: Invisibility, Teleportation and Other Mysteries of Light," a book partially about entanglement. The macroscopic size, and the fact that this was done at room temperature, would be important steps toward a practical quantum technology for telecommunications and computing, and toward deeper understanding of how the quantum world and the human-scale world are related."

Explore further: Berkeley algorithms help researchers understand dark energy

Related Stories

Quantum physics: Flavors of entanglement

Sep 27, 2010

The entanglement of quantum objects can take surprising forms. Quantum physicists at the University of Innsbruck have investigated several flavors of entanglement in four trapped ions and report their results ...

Quantum optical link sets new time records

Aug 17, 2011

Quantum communication could be an option for the absolutely secure transfer of data. The key component in quantum communication over long distances is the special phenomenon called entanglement between two ...

A solid case of entanglement

Jan 11, 2010

Physicists have finally managed to demonstrate quantum entanglement of spatially separated electrons in solid state circuitry.

Three tiny qubits, another big step toward quantum computing

Sep 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The rules that govern the world of the very small, quantum mechanics, are known for being bizarre. One of the strangest tenets is something called quantum entanglement, in which two or more objects (such ...

Recommended for you

Tiny magnetic sensor deemed attractive

7 hours ago

Ultra-sensitive magnetic sensor technology pioneered at PML may soon be commercialized for a host of applications from detection of unexploded bombs and underground pipes to geophysical surveying and perhaps ...

Beams come knocking on the LHC's door

8 hours ago

Over the weekend, proton beams came knocking on the Large Hadron Collider's (LHC) door. Shooting from the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) and into the two LHC injection lines, the proton beams were stopped ...

Climate control in termite mounds

10 hours ago

When they make their way into homes, some species of termites can be destructive pests. Their fungus-harvesting relatives in Africa and Asia, however, are known for their construction prowess, collectively ...

The secret of dragonflies' flight

10 hours ago

Dragonflies can easily right themselves and maneuver tight turns while flying. Each of their four wings is controlled by separate muscles, giving them exquisite control over their flight.

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

El_Nose
1.5 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2011
If the two electrons are entangled through their spins -- up or down -- and a scientist measures the spin of one, the spin of the other will react even if one is on a lab table in Oxford and the other were on a planet near the star Antares, 1,000 light years away. Instantly.


WRONG -- not instantly -- in the time it would take the speed of light ( or a nuetrino , verdict is still out ) to get there in a vaccuum... information cannot not travel faster than c.

As the next paragraph points out but never corrects explicitly.

Slightly sloppy ...
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2011
react even if one is on a lab table in Oxford and the other were on a planet near the star Antares, 1,000 light years away. Instantly.

I think they are using the word 'react' wrongly here. Forcibly changing the spin (or other entangled property) of one entangled entity does not change the property i the other.

Only MEASUREMENT of an (hitherto undisturbed) entangled property will always lead to the same result from both entities.

Information tranmission requires a priori knowledge. That is not available with entanglement.
http://en.wikiped...ortation
Isaacsname
4 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2011
The way I heard the puzzling " speed of entanglement " explained, was that at a minimum lower bound of 10k*c, and an upper ~ 100k*c, there was simply no time for two photons to " communicate. " Strange indeed.

----

Does anybody know of any research/studies of hydrate lattices for application in growing/designing photonic crystals ? What little I've read about hydrates, they seem to have fascinating properties.
extremity
4.8 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2011
Quantum Entanglement would be instant.

Because the concept you're missing is that quantum entanglement isn't "transmitted" so the actual effect of being entangled is not bound by the speed of light. It is bound by Quantum Mechanics... Entanglement quite literally bypasses conventional physics theories... Which is why Quantum Mechanics branch was formed.

Being entangled means that as, at the exact moment, something happens to one of the entangled objects, an effect is occurring that can be observed in both entangled object

If the objects are entangled. You can very easily test this method. Obviously they tested each diamond individually to determine what the typical response they had to the laser pulses. And then by testing both crystals at once, the actual effects to physical properties in the crystals due to entanglement can be observed.

Which is what this experiment showed.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (96) Dec 02, 2011
If the two electrons are entangled through their spins -- up or down -- and a scientist measures the spin of one, the spin of the other will react even if one is on a lab table in Oxford and the other were on a planet near the star Antares, 1,000 light years away. Instantly.


WRONG -- not instantly -- in the time it would take the speed of light ( or a nuetrino , verdict is still out ) to get there in a vaccuum... information cannot not travel faster than c.

As the next paragraph points out but never corrects explicitly.

Slightly sloppy ...


Actually what you quoted IS correct. Two entangled particles are to be considered as ONE object, as their QM description is one wave function prior to observation.

To confirm the entanglement effect or To use entanglement for communicating information would require an additional classical communication line, say light,.. so that entanglement cannot be used to transmit information faster than light.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (91) Dec 02, 2011
This would mean that the information about the change traveled faster than the speed of light -- which Einstein said was impossible -- or that long distances are some kind of illusion.


Here, by "information", I think the writer means the underlying physical effect or causation,.. and not information as in regular communication,.. which if the former the writer is correct otherwise not.

The non-intuitive nature of QM is due purely to limits of a-priori conceptual structure of the mind. This epistemological issue was address in 1690's by Immanual Kant.
sigfpe
5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2011
"Entanglement quite literally bypasses conventional physics theories..."

I missed have missed the news that the well tested century old theory of quantum mechanics is no longer conventional.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (90) Dec 02, 2011
"Entanglement quite literally bypasses conventional physics theories..."

I missed have missed the news that the well tested century old theory of quantum mechanics is no longer conventional.


Indeed. The writer should have said "classical" instead of conventional.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2011
I'm not a scientist, but I'm interested if both diamonds were of the same size, weight, presumably the same cut and faceting, and as much of a "twin" as is possible with each other. The distance at which the second diamond was placed from the first (6 inches) was close enough that, IF both were exact duplicates of each other, couldn't it be possible that stray molecules from the pulsing of photons at the first diamond could also strike the second diamond (a photon wind?) and cause that one to also display vibration? Have they done this type of test on 2 diamonds of very different size, weight, color, and faceting? If there is "entanglement" in both situations, then it is real and, therefore could be a universal phenomenon involving light striking all manner of matter, Am I wrong on this? Could that mean entanglement occurs everywhere there is light? .
Just curious.
rawa1
2 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2011
These diamonds still resonate mutually via surface charge, dynamic Casimir force or synchronised photon radiation. Were these possible sources of coupling excluded?
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2011
extremity said:
""Being entangled means that as, at the exact moment, something happens to one of the entangled objects, an effect is occurring that can be observed in both entangled object""

That is REALLY interesting. But was the beginning of both vibrations accurately timed for simultaneous occurrence? If it was simultaneous, rather than an aftereffect on the second diamond, could that possibly indicate a "messaging" of sorts from one to the other? Messaging, besides being eerie and between 2 inanimate objects, might indicate an electromagnetic crossover, as though in neuronal activity.
Since Antares is hard to reach for now, what is the longest distance between 2 objects on Earth were tested in this way? To what degree of accuracy was the timing in a longer distance than 6 inches?
Intensero
2 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2011
I think entanglement will someday allow us to form wormholes using this "weird" symmetry. Just need to learn why entangled objects become entangled. Might not happen until we improve optics though.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (89) Dec 02, 2011
Hello Pirouette, verifications of entanglement rule out electromagnetic messaging from one to the other, on account of the distances and timing of the measurements.

Both entangled entities are considered as one object, despite being separated to arbitrary distances,.. so a measurement of one "collapses the wave function" (describing them), so both are immediately effected.

From the perspective of a photon (if that means anything) emitted from a star from a distant galaxy , the distance to earth is zero and it takes zero time to arrive (SR). I don't know if that has anything to do with entanglement though.
Fu Rod
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2011
just found "entangled swapping" which may suggest the BIGBANG resulted in all being entagled?
Assuming a neutrino [mass] can outrun a photon[massless] then the accelerating entropial edge of the universe would disappear cause the mass is outrunning the massless light which needs to be reflected to see the mass? atom1 & atom2 are entangled but a2 has exceeded C whereas a1 gets hit with a photon so their entangled interaction suggests a1 photonic shell jump a2 no photon, & the average= 1/2 exactly & thats exactly where the shell has to be?
tpb
5 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2011
So, how were the two diamonds entangled in the first place?
If two non-identical macro-sized objects are entangled, then wouldn't you expect all objects in the universe to be be entangled
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2011
Quantum Entanglement would be instant.

How it work, physically?
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (89) Dec 02, 2011
No one knows.

[i should have said 1790 above]
holoman
5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2011
Einstein stayed away from quantum entanglement because it
was an instantaneous concept, i.e., faster than the speed of
light, possibly meaning multi-dimensional communication.

http://www.coloss...gled.htm

go 2/3 down the web page of this url.(1999)
stealthc
2 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2011
There was an article on here about the distance limitations of entanglement. As well there was an article on here about the speed of light being broken by neutrinos. Bad article, good discovery.
MonkeyHill
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2011
i find the statement: "The German physicist Erwin Schrodinger used the term "entanglement" in a letter to Einstein. He didn't believe in quantum mechanics either." to be factually inaccurate. he is widely credited as one of the founders of QM. he wrote the equation of the quantum state and described the wave/particle duality that underpins our understanding.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (88) Dec 02, 2011
i find the statement: "The German physicist Erwin Schrodinger used the term "entanglement" in a letter to Einstein. He didn't believe in quantum mechanics either." to be factually inaccurate. he is widely credited as one of the founders of QM. he wrote the equation of the quantum state and described the wave/particle duality that underpins our understanding.


Actually, it's an accurate assessment of Schrodingers feelings at least early on. His wave equation evolution is deterministic, but the problem comes in during a measurement. With respect to quantum theory he said "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.", especially after Borns probability interpretation.

Einstein and Schrodinger felt that there must be some underlying reality not understood, because it was incomprehensible (intuitively), ...but reality cares not a lick if it can be conformed within our a-priori conceptual scheme. Bohr and Heisenburg had the correct attitude early on.
yogurtforthesoul
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
I believe the farthest test done with Quantum Entanglement is presently 18km; for those wondering.
kornus
3 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
I respect what ~Noumenon~ wrote about communication, but still believe that we can learn to generate entangled mechanism which will allow us instant communication with let`s say our probes etc. If particles can exchange their polarization at indefinite distance than it is all we need.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2011
How it work, physically? No one knows.
Such questions are prohibited in contemporary physics, which is asking only, how the things are working mathematically. So it even cannot study such things. R. Feynman: "Shut up and calculate!" http://www.youtub...Pe-DwULM

Anyway, the dense aether model explains it rather illustratively with concept of elastic foam, which is forming the space-time and particles. This foam transfers the vibrations from one body to another and it becomes more dense during this, in similar way like the soap foam. So it locks both resonating objects in quantized modes of vibrations. Here you can find some other mechanical analogies.

http://aetherwave...-of.html

Because the double slit experiment has been already emulated with the droplets jumping at the water surface, I do predict, the same experimental arrangement can be used even for demonstration of quantum entanglement.
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2011
will always lead to the same result from both entities.
- antialias_physorg

Are you sure? If I remember correctly its a statistical outcome, not a certainty. Authoritative reference please.

Callippo
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2011
The dense aether model doesn't suffer with conceptual problem of Mr. Feynman with "WHY" question, because it considers, the most general state of Universe is not zero, but random inertial system driven with wave equation as the most atemporal state of observable reality. From random environment follows the duality of space and time and two kinds of waves which are mediating energy and "information" in it.

http://www.youtub...6U3ybbeM

At the case of quantum entanglement the information is mediated with longitudinal waves, which are (nearly) invisible for us, because we are using transverse waves for observation of phenomena. At the case of bats this perspective is somewhat reversed, so that the bat wouldn't have problem with understanding of entanglement, but with understanding of time concept, i.e. with the fact, the entangled objects don't represent a single body.
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2011
will always lead to the same result from both entities. antialias_physorg Are you sure?
These objects are at the same state only when so-called non-commutative quantities are taken into account, like the frequency. At the case of states, which are described with commuting quantities the states of entangled objects are complementary (like the polarization or spin).
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2011
The presence of complementary states is an important indication, that the both diamonds aren't just in mutual resonance through various fields, like the electromagnetic waves of charged surface, pressure of photon radiation and/or vacuum fluctuations. The fact, both diamonds are vibrating with the same frequency can serve as an indication of mechanical resonance, but it still isn't the conclusive evidence of quantum entanglement. In addition, at the case of true entanglement the observation of single object will broke the complementary state of the second object automatically, i.e. both objects will become entangled with the observer and this collapse of entangled state will occur at the superluminal speed.
typicalguy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
I will collapse the entanglement state when I'm ready to go to lunch with you. With a prior explanation of what the collapse means, that collapse can indeed represent instant communication. If this is true then there are likely other ways it can be used.
bluehigh
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 03, 2011
With a prior explanation of what the collapse means, that collapse can indeed represent instant communication.


Indeed and I have also attempted to illustrate this with explanations but there seems to be a psychological need for many to hang onto the unjustified idea of FTL info transfer being unobtainable. Extrapolation as a predictive tool seems to be relegated to 'philosophy' and dismissed as some arcane black art, when if fact it can clearly demonstrate FTL information transfer.

typicalguy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
With a prior explanation of what the collapse means, that collapse can indeed represent instant communication.


Indeed and I have also attempted to illustrate this with explanations but there seems to be a psychological need for many to hang onto the unjustified idea of FTL info transfer being unobtainable. Extrapolation as a predictive tool seems to be relegated to 'philosophy' and dismissed as some arcane black art, when if fact it can clearly demonstrate FTL information transfer.



I believe entanglement will be used for communication at some point in the future but probably not in our lifetimes. All communication is the result of a prior agreement on what certain things mean. An example would be light transmitting data throug the Internet. There are standards that define this. One can even describe language as an agreement on what certain sounds mean.
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 03, 2011
FTL information acquisition is an everyday occurrence, without which we could not exist and the process is not 'light/photon' related. Information does not require light as a carrier and can provably be transferred FTL.

bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (20) Dec 03, 2011
All communication is the result of a prior agreement on what certain things mean.


Once such an understanding of the meaning is agreed. Then FTL is not just possible, its practical and realistic. We do it everyday. However, for empirical physics its not easily mathematically explained and relies on logical analysis with a linguistically orientated assessment. That upsets the 'hard' scientists.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (93) Dec 03, 2011
Emtanglement cannot be used for FTL communication.

Nothing actually travels through space from point A to point B.

It is meaningless to have a prior agreement on what state means what, because you can't SET the state of the particles as you desire, you can only make a measurement.

Once each observer completes his series of measurements of their respective sets of entangled particles, they must then compare their logs to determine any entangled correlations. In order to compare results they must communicate them using traditional light speed or slower means.

Guy_Underbridge
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
Once each observer completes his series of measurements of their respective sets of entangled particles, they must then compare their logs to determine any entangled correlations..
please explain...because it seems what you're saying is that the system only functions as long as you're testing it.
Once you've got a statistical correlation, you can pretty much take it for granted it works (at least until it doesn't)
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (92) Dec 03, 2011
Once each observer completes his series of measurements of their respective sets of entangled particles, they must then compare their logs to determine any entangled correlations..
please explain...because it seems what you're saying is that the system only functions as long as you're testing it.
Once you've got a statistical correlation, you can pretty much take it for granted it works (at least until it doesn't)


I'm not sure what you mean by "system only functions".

Each observer begins with a set of particles, each of which is known to be entangled with one of the other observers particles lcated far away say. Neither observer can Set the state of any particle, because to do so equates to a measurement and this breaks the entanglement.

As each observer performs measurements, to them individually, it appears as merely a random stream of results with a given probability, say 50%. They record the results anyway.

,....
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (92) Dec 03, 2011
,...Only upon bringing the results together for comparison (@ <= c), do the observers see that the statistics fail if it is assumed that each set of particles were independent objects, with say 50% probability of a given result.
Pirouette
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2011
I don't wish to try the patience of those I admire here, but the 2 diamonds used in the test described in the article have not been identified as being exact copies of each other - twins, in effect. And the distance between the 2 was quite short, which leads me to wonder if stray photons had caused the simultaneous vibrating of the second with the first diamond. The article also does not mention whether or not other objects in the room were also tested for simultaneous vibration, such as a glass beaker across the room. Even if 18K distance was involved in another test, the timing accuracy could be compromised by the perception of the observer, as well as more physical obstacles.
I ask because if entanglement involves only similar objects, then perhaps an invisible force caused by the pulsing has traveled into the heart of the second diamond to cause it to vibrate. But, if there were other objects vibrating in the room simultaneously, a possible dimensional connection might be at work.
Pirouette
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2011
What I'm trying to say, is that IF there were another dimension in which ALL of the objects in the lab - diamonds, instruments, glass beaker, etc. existed simultaneously with our own dimension, would it be possible for the pulsing to affect the diamond in the other dimension also, therefore doubling the effects and resulting in ALL the diamonds vibrating simultaneously - in both dimensions? And wouldn't that possibly mean that the force of the photons from the laser could have crossed the distance into another dimension (that may be the opposite of our own dimension - i.e., left is right and right is left) and that at the same time as the laser hit the first diamond (on the left), the exact same laser, in the other dimension, also hit the diamond in the other dimension (on the right).
An 18K distance ( provided in an earlier comment) between 2 objects tested is too long a way for stray photons to travel to make the second object vibrate.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
This would mean that the information about the change traveled faster than the speed of light -- which Einstein said was impossible -- or that long distances are some kind of illusion


...or higher dimensional reality.

If the two objects are adjacent, i.e. have zero distance between them in some higher dimension on which entanglement operates, then the travel time between them is zero at any speed...thus making relativity AND the speed of light irrelevant.

It's a matter of dimension and topology. Take a piece of paper, roll it up a bit into half. What's the distance between two opposite edges? Well, if you follow the surface it's probably 11 inches for standard paper size. But if you simple take a straight line in the 3rd dimension, it's almost zero.

Same principle applies to entanglement.
Nanobanano
1.5 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2011
Essentially, QM operates on a more fundamental level of reality than does relativity.

It's as if QM is the Constitution, and Relativity, along with all of classical physics, is just some "bill" or minor by-law for a specific sub-set of circumstances.

So entanglement can theoretically be used for FTL computing and FTL communications.

It might also one day even be possible to use entanglement to tranmit energy, effectively serving as an off-board engine for starships, robots, or space colonies; which would, of course, be capable of operating over an arbitarily infinite distance.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
So back on the offboard engine theory.

A vibration is energy, right?

So then your ship has no onboard fuel,a nd no onboard engine. Just some crystals and some flashlights, seriously.

1, You aim a photon at a crystal on earth.

2, the entangled crystal on the ship vibrates.

3, a mechanism on the ship converts the vibration to a photon, and directs it out the back of the ship as THRUST.

4, any waste heat can also be radiated out the back of the ship, providing additional thrust.

We don't need to push the mass of the fuel or the engine, and thus, a space ship with an "nearly infinite" life support system and "nearly infinite" range could be constructed.

Of course, you'd need maybe trillions or quadrillions of such crystals precisely alligned to make it work, but...
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
This also sets up a bit of a merger of quantum computing technology with classical computing technology, because the classical computers engineers are researching diamond for processors anyway.

People think of classical and quantum computers wrongly, I think.

I believe they are but two sub-sets of a greater whole.

The "computer" of the future will have BOTH classical and quantum components in a form of "symbiosis" to get the best results for the primary mission of that device as well as it's practical, secondary uses. After all, all of our computers today are general purpose, so why would we expect to limit ourselves in the future to over-specialization?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
Diamonds are exceptional by strength of chemical bonds and the stability of excited states of nitrogen vacancies. It manifests with reddish fluorescence of natural diamond specimens, which lasts for seconds. The high energetic barrier of chemical bonds prohibits their spontaneous decoherence with thermal vibrations. These vacancies can be observed as glowing spots under the microscope, which is exceptional if we realize, they're represented with single atom domains.

http://www.aether...ight.jpg
http://www.aether...glow.jpg
http://www.aether...ancy.gif

Only cooled atoms within Bose-Einstein's condensate are behaving in such way, which means, the diamonds enable to replicate some expensive experiments made with fragile boson condensates at room temperature comfortably. The quantum entanglement is one of such experiments.
Pirouette
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2011
Sorry. . . .I'm withdrawing the question. . .I understand that there is no evidence of other dimensions besides that in which we live. I only thought that there might be a possibility that a passage could be created by photonic action of the laser on a crystal. Obviously I was mistaken.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
El Nose dribbled,
WRONG -- not instantly -- in the time it would take the speed of light ( or a nuetrino , verdict is still out ) to get there in a vaccuum... information cannot not travel faster than c.

Dude don't let your ignorance outweigh your ability to do basic research. THE REASON IT BLOWS OUR MINDS IS !YES! IT INSTANTLY AFFECTS THE ENTANGLED TWIN NO MATTER HOW FAR APART THEY ARE.

But I was wondering if the person doing the article didn't understand the distinction themselves. The key here is that the "information" IS NOT "travelling" between the entangled twins. It doesn't seem to go from one to the other so it doesn't really violate physics anymore than space-time (not objects IN space-time) expanding faster than the speed of light violates the same rules.

El Nose, among others, completely misunderstands why quantum entanglement is so interesting.
MorituriMax
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
Callippo, rawa, whatever you're using today, please spare us the aether-spam. It was old the 1st time I saw it.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2011
Emtanglement cannot be used for FTL communication.

What I find most interesting though is that there does not seem to be an ironclad law that prevents SOME things from happening faster than light. Expanding space-time, and entanglement are two of the things I am reading more and more about in physics.

So even though it doesn't look like the traditional way of communicating can be scaled past the C limit, there may be some other way of putting information at an arbitrary point A, and having it appear at an arbitrary point B.

Looking forward to new insights down the road.
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
Whoever wrote comments 5,6,8,13,17,21,34,36 and 37, starting from the first comment, owns this thread and commentary.

Perhaps one day there will be as good an answer to what FTL encompasses, as the answers that came from QM,SR,GM was - from questions arising from classical physics.

You look forward to this. We all do.
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
Different QM states can represent/express the same physical state.
Whether different physical states can represent identical QM states I do not know.
I do know that different physical states can represent/express the same information content of different physical states.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2011
Emtanglement cannot be used for FTL communication.
It was used for it already http://www.nature...038.html
anand_mallaya
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2011
If the two electrons are entangled through their spins -- up or down -- and a scientist measures the spin of one, the spin of the other will react even if one is on a lab table in Oxford and the other were on a planet near the star Antares, 1,000 light years away. Instantly.


To confirm the entanglement effect or To use entanglement for communicating information would require an additional classical communication line, say light,.. so that entanglement cannot be used to transmit information faster than light.


An interesting experiment will be to separate two entangled photons at a distance along with observers and observation results are also transmitted through another set of entangled particles. If the experiment results give a correlation, then we can assume that information travels faster than l light.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2011
Callippo, rawa, whatever you're using today, please spare us the aether-spam. It was old the 1st time I saw it.
Dense aether theory was proposed 1904 with Oliver Lodge, but it was never reviewed. It was ignored with mainstream physics in the same way, like the cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel. So it cannot be obsolete or even wrong in the same way, like the cold fusion.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2011
Another publication has a better explanation:
The electric component of an electromagnetic matter wave (a proton, an electron, or a photon) is its irrotational or potential component:

"From Maxwell equations (6.20) it follows that the electric field is potential: E(r) = grad phi(r)." Soviet Physics, Uspekhi v. 40, issues 16, American Institute of Physics, 1997, p. 39

When the intensity of an electric field's angular momentum reaches the Planck constant, the field ceases to be electric (irrotational, nonlocal) and becomes magnetic (rotational, local). That is why QM does not readily scale up to the macroscopic level.
brant
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2011
Its amazing how little original thought there is when an article like this comes out. There is enough information out there to blow a hole in regular physics. Instead "Its WRONG because of" some regurgitated science snippet.
bluehigh
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 04, 2011
What "entanglement" between two photons actually means is that the phase parameters of their respective undulation processes are put into correlation, by direct, local interaction and in full causality. And even when they are (carefully, coherently) separated after that (by any distance preserving coherence), the correlations will naturally persist. So when one finally measures the properties of those separated photons and finds those correlations there where they should be, why should it be so "mysterious" and involving any information transmission between separated photons? All the necessary information has already been transmitted between them during their interactive, local "entanglement" and naturally preserved after their separation due to their always maintained coherence. - Andrei Kirilyuk

bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 04, 2011
The most "unusual" part here is the growing technical ability to perform entanglement between and transmit single photons at ever larger distances without losing their coherence. It may be an impressive technology development, but without any mysteries, which are artificially added, it seems, as a "free supplement", in order to justify it as "fundamental science" rather than mere advanced technology. And there is also a subjective "love of mystery" clearly felt behind it and still dominating, unfortunately, in fundamental science development, after its artificial insertion during the "new physics" revolution of the 20th century. - - Andrei Kirilyuk
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2011
There is enough information out there to blow a hole in regular physics.
Why it should be? Quantum mechanics predicts it.
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 04, 2011
Can one hope that the great masters of knowledge will finally return to basic, elementary, human logic or will they continue to favour a perverted substitute for fading canonical religions under the label of "objective science" in all major temples of knowledge? - Andrei Kirilyuk
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (90) Dec 04, 2011
Whoever wrote comments 5,6,8,13,17,21,34,36 and 37, starting from the first comment, owns this thread and commentary.


Apparently, member FrankHerbert doesn't agree, as he uses the multiple screen names listed below to rate me all 1's,... yet makes no counter comments or corrections. Pathetically, he uses these same screen names to rate himself 5's. I suspect he is 16.

Libtard | ryggesogn3 | gregor2 | CManhole82 | DenseAetherTheory | Pirouline
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (89) Dec 04, 2011
An interesting experiment will be to separate two entangled photons at a distance along with observers and observation results are also transmitted through another set of entangled particles. If the experiment results give a correlation, then we can assume that information travels faster than l light.


Stil won't work, because you would still need to compare the 2nd set of entangled particles, etc, etc.
Fu Rod
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2011
wonder if this has a relationship with the psychic entanglement biological twins seem to have vs non-twins.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2011
wonder if this has a relationship with the psychic entanglement biological twins seem to have vs non-twins
These long distance entanglement experiments with macroscopic objects really indicate, that the various telepathy theories could have some physical merit. After all, what is entangled at the case of diamonds aren't diamonds itself, but their excited vacancies (nitrogen ions) distributed in their lattice randomly and the human brain is full of distributed moving charged particles (ions) as well.

Now we cannot say, this physical mechanism is impossible so easily - after all, many physicists claimed, the cold fusion is impossible too.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (90) Dec 04, 2011
Penrose seems to think consciousness makes use of qm in some way.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2011
Sorry, , I have just 1 more question to ask. Since (I assume) both twin diamonds were used in subsequent tests after the initial 6 inch spacing that caused both diamonds to vibrate, could it be possible that the second diamond in the initial 6 inch experiment developed a "MEMORY" of sorts that was embedded into the crystal itself, so that each time the first diamond is zapped with laser light, the second diamond will also react no matter how far apart they are from each other? Especially if both diamonds had been cut from the same stone and both might have the same exact percentage of minerals. Callippo mentions possibility of telepathy.
Might it be possible that telepathy also can be observed in crystals and would therefore rule out something to do with the "speed of light"? Just asking.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2011
Penrose seems to think consciousness makes use of qm in some way.
IMO the brain avoids QM instead, as the QM would bring fuziness into our decisions. It just emulates some aspects of QM with classical macroscopic solitons. http://aetherwave...ess.html
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (88) Dec 04, 2011
Sorry. . . .I'm withdrawing the question. . .I understand that there is no evidence of other dimensions besides that in which we live. I only thought that there might be a possibility that a passage could be created by photonic action of the laser on a crystal. Obviously I was mistaken.


One could explain anything just by invoking more and more degrees of freedom. It has to be motivated by physical requirements rather than an aesthetic desire that reality conform to our intuitive conceptual sensibilities.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2011
I understand that there is no evidence of other dimensions besides that in which we live
We are living in hundreds of dimensions already, there is no need to consider another ones.

http://aetherwave...ons.html

It just requires the consequential thinking to understand it. For example, in just 3D space all forces will undergo the inverse square law and they're of infinite range - but in real life many forces follow different dependence at distance. The solely 3D space would be completely flat and empty and it would deflect light - but actually it's full of fluctuations, particles and massive objects refracting the light.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (89) Dec 04, 2011
@ Pirouette, entanglement can be demonstrated using single particle pairs.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2011
For example, everyone knows, how strangely the massive bodies appear. They're composed of "isolated" particles, which are moving together in collective way. Now, try to imagine, how the projection of hyperdimensional object into 3D space would appear. Try to project the shadow of compact grid to the solid line - the shadow will become composed of 1D "particles", which are moving collectively. The fact, physicists are using a number of mutually inconsistent theories is the consequence of situation, when they're using low-dimensional approach for description of hyperdimensional reality.

entanglement can be demonstrated using single particle pairs
At the case of diamond the collective entanglement of many excitations has been studied. Actually, I'm not aware of the experimental evidence of entanglement with single pair of particles. Can you point us to some?
anand_mallaya
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2011
An interesting experiment will be to separate two entangled photons at a distance along with observers and observation results are also transmitted through another set of entangled particles. If the experiment results give a correlation, then we can assume that information travels faster than l light.


Still won't work, because you would still need to compare the 2nd set of entangled particles, etc, etc.

I couldn't see why it won't work.
If both sets are entangled separately, the time for a transmission will be half the delay between measured state change and actual state change.I just have no clue how the measurement is done. I'm looking at it.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (87) Dec 04, 2011
entanglement can be demonstrated using single particle pairs

At the case of diamond the collective entanglement of many excitations has been studied. Actually, I'm not aware of the experimental evidence of entanglement with single pair of particles. Can you point us to some?

No, I just assumed so, in principal.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (87) Dec 04, 2011
Commie Kockevnik wrote,.. Another publication has a better explanation:
The electric component of an electromagnetic matter wave (a proton, an electron, or a photon) is its irrotational or potential component:

"From Maxwell equations (6.20) it follows that the electric field is potential: E(r) = grad phi(r)." Soviet Physics, Uspekhi v. 40, issues 16, American Institute of Physics, 1997, p. 39

When the intensity of an electric field's angular momentum reaches the Planck constant, the field ceases to be electric (irrotational, nonlocal) and becomes magnetic (rotational, local). That is why QM does not readily scale up to the macroscopic level.


I'm not understanding this. What's a "electromagnetic matter wave"? Electromagnitism is massless and is quantized as photons, not massive particles like the proton and electron. A "wave" description of an electron would not be electromagnetism (?!).
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2011
I agree with BlueHigh, entanglement is not that special. Two objects are 'entangled' in close proximity and some of their properties correlate. This correlation persists over their lifetime. I mean whats the big deal?
Its like if I had two boxes, and put the 'yin' half of a yin/yang in one and the yang in the other, sealed the boxes and then posted one to a colleague who did not know which half was in which box. When she opens the box and finds either half, she can infer that the opposite half is in my box, but nothing special has happened. I just dont get what the big deal is.
Pirouette
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2011
So far, what I've gotten out of this is that:
1) there is no electromagnetic force between 2 identically entangled diamonds
2) there is no possible other dimension involved in the vibration of the second diamond
3) entanglement is not special
4) no form of memory or telepathy has caused the vibration in the second diamond
5) distance doesn't affect the simultaneous vibration in both diamonds
6) accuracy of timing of simultaneous vibration is not affected by minerals within diamonds
7) a single pair of particles can also be entangled and resonate simultaneously
8) measuring 1 of the pair causes the other to vibrate.

LOL. . .I'm starting to wonder if this isn't junk science. First, a laser beam must be used to zap one of the diamonds, which causes the second one to vibrate, but nobody seems to know just WHY the second one also vibrates without having been "touched" also by the laser beam. And there appears to be no connective "tissue" between the two to transmit a force or whatever.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (56) Dec 04, 2011
1)Why would you expect there to be?
2)Why would you expect there to be?
3)What?
4)Why would you expect there to be?/What?
5-8 Are reasonable I suppose.

You'll just deflect any criticism as "I'm not a scientist but I'm trying to learn" coupled with some insults I'm sure.

I don't really know much more about entanglement than you do. I'm also not a scientist.

HOWEVER, the difference is I'm not going to ask every inane question that comes to my mind and mask it as "I'm trying to learn," then get offended when someone tells me how out of left field (i.e. ignorant) the question is.

Here is an example of a question that makes about as much sense as the ones you asked.

"If I say bloody mary three times infront of a pair of entangled diamonds will it open a portal to Jesus?"

Here's another:

"Will putting entangled diamonds under my pillow relieve my neck pain?"

Or how about:

"If I accelerate a pair of entangled diamonds to 88 MPH will some 'serious shit' happen?"
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (85) Dec 04, 2011
LOL

@StarGazer,

In the situation you described, (and like analogies with a split coin separating heads and tails), each state is pre-programmed in ahead of time, and then the objects are separated.

The quantum realm does not work this way. There is no fixed value until a measurement is made. There is a range of probabilities, say, for the colour of ying and a range of probabilities for the colour of yang. There is no set colour until a measurement is made.

The observers independently choosing, can only test 'is it blue', or 'is it red', or 'is it green' etc. If one observer gets a yes for green, then the other observer gets a predicable and definite 'counter' colour to green.

Once the results are compared there is no way to account for the statistical outcomes through any type of a classical analogy.
holoman
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2011
I also gave up on anyone understanding entanglement but I
believe Noumenon is closest. Congrats !
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (55) Dec 04, 2011
Noumenon is right about entanglement as far as I know.

Also, Pirouette, look at the rating for my previous post directed at you. Noumenon, your enlightened teacher, gave it a five. Noumenon and I do not see eye to eye at all as I'm sure you're aware. This should be a hint to you that maybe you should be a tad more humble and not so eager to pontificate on topics you are woefully inadequate to pontificate on.

By pontificate I mean pulling random 'possibilities' (using the term lightly) out of your ass and posing them as questions.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
holoman says:
I also gave up on anyone understanding entanglement but I
believe Noumenon is closest. Congrats !

Ditto here. . . .I'm in complete agreement.
zsingerb
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
Sorry all, I agree with Einstein. The object has a color/state whether we are there to observe it or not. It is sheer arrogance to think that an object has only a statistical value unless humanity is there to measure it. Our KNOWLEDGE of the state is statistical, we only KNOW it might be blue or green. But it IS already blue or green. The cat is NOT dead and alive, it is either one or the other, and our knowledge of the state is what is statistical.
bluehigh
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2011
I just assumed so, in principal
- Noumenon

.. and some people assume your comments are factual. In the absence of an attributable reference you should retract your statement that 'entanglement can be demonstrated using single particle pairs'.

"If I accelerate a pair of entangled diamonds to 88 MPH will some 'serious shit' happen?"
- FrankH

.. and I believed you had started to become a valuable contributor in this place. Shame on you. Quite clearly if you could avoid decoherence from the environmental noise at such velocity you would get a Nobel prize. Now that would be 'serious shit'.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
Don't you want something to happened no matter how remote?
Like finding a statistical state between birth and death?
bluehigh
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 05, 2011
@FrankH - can a Flux capacitor entangle two DeLoreans? Would the time circuits auto-sync FTL? What would Jesus say anyway to us in the 21st century?
Echoes of 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.

Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
blue. . .you've got me laughing now. . . .I can almost see it. . .FrankHerb$hit scrambling around Wikipedia trying to find the answers on how to entangle DeLoreans. ROFLOL
Pirouette
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
I guess he'll have to go back to the future to get the answers. . . LOL
Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
Sorry all, I agree with Einstein. The object has a color/state whether we are there to observe it or not. It is sheer arrogance to think that an object has only a statistical value unless humanity is there to measure it. Our KNOWLEDGE of the state is statistical, we only KNOW it might be blue or green. But it IS already blue or green. The cat is NOT dead and alive, it is either one or the other, and our knowledge of the state is what is statistical.


A bit similar to, "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does the tree make a noise?"
:)
I do wish that FrankHerbert would stop sending me PMs from 6 of his other user names.
I am not interested in reading them and will forward them to Physorg
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (83) Dec 05, 2011
I just assumed so, in principal - Noumenon


.. and some people assume your comments are factual. In the absence of an attributable reference you should retract your statement that 'entanglement can be demonstrated using single particle pairs'.


Entanglement HAS been demonstrated, while FTL communication has NOT. Therefore I could make the same argument that YOU retract your FTL posts, except that 'people won't assume your comments are factual', ... so i won't bother,

I'm not aware of a particular experiment which used single particle pairs, but this is quit irrelevant to the above discussions.

Whether an actual experimental apparatus used single particles or not, is incidental, unless you have reason to suppose that the effect cannot be extrapolated to that case in principal.

:)
bluehigh
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 05, 2011
The Sun will rise at 5:48AM here tomorrow and I can know that before the light arrives. Even weeks, months or years ahead of the event. I have therefore acquired information through deduction and/or extrapolation FTL.

Likewise with entanglement. If the statistical outcome of an experiment is known before you do the test, then the observation simply confirms what was already known.

If you say the entangled property that will tested cannot be set or known beforehand then you have no basis for any statistical comparison in the results. You don't know what bias is already inherent.

Einstein was correct in his initial reaction to entanglement but was coerced into agreement so as not to be seen as a heretic and tarnish his growing reputation.

Entanglement is a misunderstanding and not a physical phenomena.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (54) Dec 05, 2011
Your misunderstanding of entanglement is not a physical phenomenon. Entanglement most certainly is.
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 06, 2011
Entanglement is a misinterpretation of physical effects.

Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (83) Dec 06, 2011
Entanglement is a misinterpretation of physical effects.


If you can explain it using classical notions, you will become a famous wo(man).

Einstein was correct in his initial reaction to entanglement but was coerced into agreement so as not to be seen as a heretic and tarnish his growing reputation.


False. Einstein had way too much integrity to be merely coerced into agreement on the basis of personal reputation. He never came up with an explanation based on intuitive reasoning, so he failed to counter the revolution he started.
Thadieus
3 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
I guess this would explain all the UFOs
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2011
The physical significance that science needs and wants for correlation coerces science to delivery that significance.

The 'instantaneous' is embedded in a geometry without time.
So Einstein revolted and rejected the revolution called QM.
Unsuccessfully.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2011
If you can explain it using classical notions, you will become a famous wo(man)
I'm explaining it so here and nothing really happened with my fame.

http://aetherwave...-of.html

IMO the most faithful entanglement analogy can be achieved with tiny oil droplets jumping at the water surface collectively. http://www.aether...all2.avi
corymp
not rated yet Dec 18, 2011
I think entanglement will someday allow us to form wormholes using this "weird" symmetry. Just need to learn why entangled objects become entangled. Might not happen until we improve optics though.

make 2 rings of diamonds, zap one and walk through

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.