Caption: The central part of the optical setup used to demonstrate that even a system which does not allow entanglement exhibits features commonly attributed to this phenomenon.
Credit: IQOQI; Jacqueline Godany 2011
Usage Restrictions: None
Posted on 06/24/2011 1:43:02 PM PDT by decimon
The quantum mechanical entanglement is at the heart of the famous quantum teleportation experiment and was referred to by Albert Einstein as "spooky action at a distance". A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. Their findings were published in the latest issue of the renowned scientific journal Nature.
Asher Peres, a pioneer of quantum information theory once remarked jokingly in a letter to a colleague (Dagmar Bruß): Entanglement is a trick 'quantum magicians' use to produce phenomena that cannot be imitated by 'classical magicians'. When two particles are entangled, measurements performed on one of them immediately affect the other, no matter how far apart the particles are. What if, in an experiment, one considers a system that does not allow for entanglement? Will the quantum magicians still have an advantage over the classical magicians?
Quantum physics beyond magic
This is the question the team of quantum physicists led by Anton Zeilinger from the Faculty of Physics at the University of Vienna and from the IQOQI of the Austrian Academy of Sciences addressed in their experiment. The physicists used a "qutrit" – a quantum system consisting of a single photon that can assume three distinguishable states. "We were able to demonstrate experimentally that quantum mechanical measurements cannot be interpreted in a classical way even when no entanglement is involved," Radek Lapkiewicz explains. The findings relate to the theoretical predictions by John Stewart Bell, Simon B. Kochen, and Ernst Specker.
Quantum world versus everyday life
Quantum physics is in stark contrast with what we perceive and experience in our everyday lives and what we understand as "classical physics". Let us, for example, examine a globe: from a given point of view we can only see one respective hemisphere at any given time. When spinning the globe once around its axis we are able to construct a meaningful and "true" picture of our planet assuming that the shape of the continents stays the same, even when we cannot see them.
Therefore, by means of our experience and the assumptions made in classical physics, we can assign certain properties to a system without actually observing it. This is no longer the case if one pictures a "quantum globe". Contrary to a globe where –due to the assumptions of classical properties– the various pieces fit together as they do in a puzzle, the pictures of the quantum globe do not fit together. Yet the pattern is not random: it is possible to predict by how much the individual parts will differ from each other after an observation.
###
Publication: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system Radek Lapkiewicz, Peizhe Li, Christoph Schaeff, Nathan K. Langford, Sven Ramelow, Marcin Wiesniak and Anton Zeilinger Nature, June 23, 2011 | DOI: 10.1038/nature10119
Caption: The central part of the optical setup used to demonstrate that even a system which does not allow entanglement exhibits features commonly attributed to this phenomenon.
Credit: IQOQI; Jacqueline Godany 2011
Usage Restrictions: None
IQOQI ping.
Someone who appreciates symmetry came up with that name.
Must have been Tobor, radar robot.
You’re like a pal in drome.
Is the result of this experiment suggesting that even when “entanglements” are eliminated, the act of observation still affects the object observed??
Oh, for the book to know, the sight to see.
IOW, it beats me.
Good question - I looked for the same information myself, and came up... unspecified (that's a quantum joke).
But consider - quantum cryptography allows for the absolute determination of whether a message has been previously observed. If a way could be constructed to allow a determination of the message contents (in the article, "globe shape fittings") without technically "observing" it and changing it's quantum state, that would be a... valuable... development.
And not one that would be announced in any way.
Which means this is an odd article - it suggests something that should never be divulged if true (speaking from a security standpoint), and which would never be left vague if false (speaking from a science standpoint).
So as the suggestion has indeed been made here, it seems that someone is sending a message that such abilities are technically possible - if not already developed - and that quantum encryption might not be as safe as presumed.
On the other hand, they might just be fishing for funding, LOL.
bfltr
“On the other hand, they might just be fishing for funding, LOL.”
When are scientists NOT fishing for funding??
The whole point of publishing is not that doing so improves the work already achieved. The point of publishing is to be noticed, to be recognized, and that way maybe some philanthropist or some politician will fund your next grant request - your next year’s bread & butter.
True science and true art require patrons; otherwise those involved would starve.
I love quantum mechanics.
When I collected the pot in a poker game, I exclaimed,
“Now Erasmus’ sums are won!”
I’ve always admired Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign.
“A man, a plan, a canal: Suez.”
Cheers!
Thanks for the ping!
I'm sorry it must be too early for me. So *for now* I'll stick with what Einstein said regarding Quantum Mechanics:
God does not play dice with the Universe.According to the 'Quantum World' none of us are here. (/s)
So... A series of identical constructions in series, unmanipulated by observation, will yield divergent results when an observation is made of a prior construction. Is that possible? How is divergency determined?
"We were able to demonstrate experimentally that quantum mechanical measurements cannot be interpreted in a classical way even when no entanglement is involved," Radek Lapkiewicz explains. The findings relate to the theoretical predictions by John Stewart Bell, Simon B. Kochen, and Ernst Specker.Where are the findings? Where is the experiment described? Is this just an abstract? I followed the link and still can't find "the rest of the story".
You’ll have to pony up for the full report but the abstract is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/nature10119.html
Condor51 quoting Einstein: "God does not play dice with the Universe."
I'd say God is free to do whatever suits His fancy, including "playing dice."
Of course, with God, what game of "chance" is ever truly random?
But the important point here is all that "spooky action at a distance," in Einstein's words.
"Spooky action" obviously necessitates a "Spooky Dude" controlling the action -- by which I mean the original Spooky Dude, not that little squirt mockingly referred to by commentators like Glenn Beck. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.