How does it look exactly like the Yin Yang symbol ☯️? That's a human construct as far as I'm aware.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
224 points (92.7% liked)
Technology
58150 readers
4576 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a garbage article. They are claiming this is an image of two entangled photons. That's absolute nonsense. I don't WTF this experiment is, but it certainly isn't a photo of photons.
did you read it?
this is a collection of a lot of images
Yes, I read it, then I read the article they sourced, and then I read the paper itself.
This is also the basics of quantum communications.
Not really. In order to find the wave function you need to measure both particles and compare both sets of superposition info to know that the particles were entangled. The information sharing between Alice and Bob would still have to be through standard means.
It would be, except it's apparently been calculated that quantum entanglement doesn't work that way.
No spooky action at a distance
More like "no measurement without action" and "action = modification" but I get the reference, yes.
Sadly, IIRC, measuring an entangled particle on one end changes the result on that end, despite the other end trying to be the one that changes it.
I guess "quantum ying-yang" sounds sexier than "applying biphoton digital holography to characterize high-dimensional quantum states".
I don’t think there’s really any “changing” going on. The state of both entangled particles are unknown until one is measured, but I highly doubt that the act of measuring one suddenly determines the other’s state. They were already in those states, but before measurement it was an unknown variable which could be treated as a superposition. Once one is measured, then you know the state of the other entangled particle. Not because the act of measuring one affects the other (see: spooky action), but simply because the nature of entangled particles means the other would have to have to be the opposite of what you measured.
There’s no remote interaction, it’s simply mutual information
At least, that’s my take
Edit: this is why we can’t use entanglement for FTL communication. It just doesn’t work like that
Meh, it's a losing battle try to establish what's actually going on mechanically. It's best to just stick to the rules we can prove and leave the underlying "how" as an implementation detail.
What we know is that it is possible for distant particles to become entangled without respect for relativistic limits. There's effectively no difference between saying that the entanglement propagates regardless of distance (simultaneously FTL) or that the entanglement propagates regardless of time (sub-FTL regardless of simultaneity).
The issue is that an observer must at some point have observed both particles to know that they've become entangled. This is already a problem at any scale, but it gets much worse at relativistic distances because you can no longer even be certain when the two tangles are entangled, including and up to whether or not the particle you are locally observing is currently entangled. You're stuck playing relativistic Two Generals' Problem in such a way that if there was an FTL transmission, any useful information from it is rendered inaccessible without first receiving additional sub-FTL information.
This is the fundamentally frustrating thing about quantum mechanics. As far as we currently understand physics, any experiment which would reveal the actual underlying physical nature of the quantum world would itself be physically impossible (e.g.: FTL travel, time travel, violating the uncertainty principle).
This is a common misunderstanding due to trying to think of things classically. I'd recommend "the road to reality" by Penrose if you want a better understanding.
Also it is not why we cannot use entanglement for FTL info, but you'll understand that more once you understand entanglement better.