Macroscopic quantum entanglement?

In summary: However, modern computers can make calculations in the time it takes light to go 6 cm. This means that the speed of light is not actually the fastest thing in the universe.""There are a few theories as to why the speed of light is so slow. One theory is that the speed of light is actually the slowest thing in the universe. Another theory is that the speed of light is the same for all objects, but it's just really slow in comparison to the speeds of other things."
  • #1
Sciencelad2798
46
2
Very confused about this article and the experiment it's based on. I'm not very knowledgeable on this, but I'm very confused on what's happening here. It seems extremely weird to me
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
[Mentors’ note; this post has been edited to keep it on point]

So what's your question?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
StevieTNZ said:
So what's your question? And if this is going to head down the same track as your previously threads, well...
I was just confused about what was happening in layman's terms
 
  • #4
Sciencelad2798 said:
I was just confused about what was happening in layman's terms
It’s OK to be confused here.

That Forbes article is so short on detail (no link to the publication, not even the authors’ names, ….) and so long on speculation (hmmm, wouldn’t it be nice to entangle the LIGO mirrors…) that it is pretty much impossible to tell whether there’s anything uniquely new and important here.

This experiment seems to be a contribution to research in techniques for isolating systems from the environment and suppressing decoherence so that quantum effects become apparent at a macroscopic scale. But do note that although a billion is a big number, a billion cesium atoms is not a lot of cesium; we’re probably still a long ways from any practical application.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #5
It's an example for failed popularization of science :-(. Here is an example of a similar experiment (two micrometer-sized drums) with entangled vibration states:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01223-4

I don't know, whether this is better understandable for the layman, but it's at least well explained, as far as this is possible at all without the only adequate language, which is the mathematics of Hilbert spaces.
 
  • #6
Sciencelad2798 said:
Summary:: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/10/08/two-different-macroscopic-objects-have-been-put-in-quantum-entanglement/?sh=7447ccdf74ab&ved=2ahUKEwi9jqy8yaj0AhWIrHIEHQzZDg8QFnoECDoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NwKQmXGh_CaEqxRPb7DwF

Very confused about this article and the experiment it's based on. I'm not very knowledgeable on this, but I'm very confused on what's happening here. It seems extremely weird to me
.

I recommend to you this one, much more rigorous and academic.

Testing the foundation of quantum physics in space via Interferometric and non-interferometric experiments with mesoscopic nanoparticles
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00656-7.pdf?origin=ppub

"we survey the field of mesoscopic superpositions of nanoparticles and the potential of interferometric and non-interferometric experiments in space for the investigation of the superposition principle of quantum mechanics and the quantum-to-classical transition."

"While models beyond quantum mechanics, challenging some of its interpretational issues, have been formulated in their early days, testing the predictions of the theory when applied to the macroscopic world has proven to be a tall order. The main reason for this is the intrinsic difficulty in isolating large systems from their environment. Space offers a potentially attractive arena for such an endeavor, promising the possibility to create and verify the quantum properties of macroscopic superpositions far beyond current Earth-based capabilities"

.
 
  • #7
physika said:
.

I recommend to you this one, much more rigorous and academic.

Testing the foundation of quantum physics in space via Interferometric and non-interferometric experiments with mesoscopic nanoparticles
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00656-7.pdf?origin=ppub

"we survey the field of mesoscopic superpositions of nanoparticles and the potential of interferometric and non-interferometric experiments in space for the investigation of the superposition principle of quantum mechanics and the quantum-to-classical transition."

"While models beyond quantum mechanics, challenging some of its interpretational issues, have been formulated in their early days, testing the predictions of the theory when applied to the macroscopic world has proven to be a tall order. The main reason for this is the intrinsic difficulty in isolating large systems from their environment. Space offers a potentially attractive arena for such an endeavor, promising the possibility to create and verify the quantum properties of macroscopic superpositions far beyond current Earth-based capabilities"

.
See that makes more sense from a technical standpoint, but the overall idea of it still seems weird and abnormal to me
 
  • #8

Macroscopic quantum​

an interesting juxtaposition of words
 
  • #9
Sciencelad2798 said:
See that makes more sense from a technical standpoint, but the overall idea of it still seems weird and abnormal to me

clears weirdness instead.
 
  • #10
physika said:
clears weirdness instead.
Ah ok thank you. I have another question that's not directly related to this subject, but it's something that's been bothering me ever since I read it:Answer to Why is the speed of light so slow? by Dimitris Ilias https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-sp...share=6d5aeecf&srid=uOqD3A&target_type=answer

I know it's kinda a hypothetical, but it's kinda freaking me out and I was wondering if there was a more scientific explanation. For example, on one of the top answers to the question above, someone talks about how modern computers can make calculations in the time it takes light to go 6 cms. The whole kinda feels weird to me

Edit: this fits on the scientific aspect https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sc...ve-the-speed-of-light-is-torturously-slow/amp
 
Last edited:
  • #11
There are a bunch of problems with this.
Firstly, most of modern science and technology is "weird"., The human brain hasn't changed much in the past 300 000 years or so and evolved to successfully survive on a savanna in Africa, not to think about quantum mechanics or what happens when we travel close to the speed of light. It is no wonder our brains struggle to grasp some of these concepts.
Secondly, you can only talk about things being "slow" if you compare it to something (even if only implicitly). Since nothing can travel faster than c it does not make sense to say that it is "slow" in absolute terms; it might be "inconveniently" slow when used for e.g. interplanetary communication but that does not mean that it is weird.

Thirdly, yes modern computers are very fast. It might help if you realize that modern computers are based on sending/receiving electromagnetic signals (i.e. light) between transistor. Modern CPUs are much smaller than 6cm so it is not THAT surprising that you can perform calculations faster than the time it takes light to travel length (which is about 0,2 ns or 5 GHz). In fact, there are circuits that operate MUCH faster than that; there are simple electronic circuits that can operate at hundreds of GHz

Lastly, this question should have gone into a new thread and not in the "Quantum Physics" forum
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #12
f95toli said:
There are a bunch of problems with this.
Firstly, most of modern science and technology is "weird"., The human brain hasn't changed much in the past 300 000 years or so and evolved to successfully survive on a savanna in Africa, not to think about quantum mechanics or what happens when we travel close to the speed of light. It is no wonder our brains struggle to grasp some of these concepts.
Secondly, you can only talk about things being "slow" if you compare it to something (even if only implicitly). Since nothing can travel faster than c it does not make sense to say that it is "slow" in absolute terms; it might be "inconveniently" slow when used for e.g. interplanetary communication but that does not mean that it is weird.

Thirdly, yes modern computers are very fast. It might help if you realize that modern computers are based on sending/receiving electromagnetic signals (i.e. light) between transistor. Modern CPUs are much smaller than 6cm so it is not THAT surprising that you can perform calculations faster than the time it takes light to travel length (which is about 0,2 ns or 5 GHz). In fact, there are circuits that operate MUCH faster than that; there are simple electronic circuits that can operate at hundreds of GHz

Lastly, this question should have gone into a new thread and not in the "Quantum Physics" forum
Ok that does help, but I can't help but notice the weird similarities between the two
 

Related to Macroscopic quantum entanglement?

What is macroscopic quantum entanglement?

Macroscopic quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which a large number of particles, typically at the macroscopic scale, become entangled and exhibit quantum properties such as superposition and non-locality.

How is macroscopic quantum entanglement different from regular entanglement?

Regular entanglement involves a small number of particles, typically at the microscopic scale, while macroscopic quantum entanglement involves a large number of particles at the macroscopic scale. Additionally, macroscopic quantum entanglement is more difficult to observe and control due to the many variables involved.

What are the potential applications of macroscopic quantum entanglement?

Some potential applications of macroscopic quantum entanglement include quantum computing, quantum sensing, and quantum communication. It could also potentially be used for precise measurements and in the development of new technologies.

How is macroscopic quantum entanglement studied?

Macroscopic quantum entanglement is studied in a variety of ways, including through experiments with large numbers of entangled particles, theoretical models and simulations, and observations of natural phenomena such as superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensates.

What are the challenges in understanding macroscopic quantum entanglement?

One of the main challenges in understanding macroscopic quantum entanglement is the complexity of the systems involved, which makes it difficult to control and observe. There are also many unanswered questions about the nature of entanglement at the macroscopic scale and how it relates to our current understanding of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
342
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
948
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
844
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
868
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
392
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
815
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top