Macroscopic quantum entanglement?

[Sciencelad2798]

TL;DR

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/%3Fsh%3D7447ccdf74ab&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

 

[StevieTNZ]

[Mentors’ note; this post has been edited to keep it on point]

So what's your question?

 

[Sciencelad2798]

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

 

[Nugatory]

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.

 

[vanhees71]

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.

 

[physika]

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"

.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

.

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

 

[phinds]

Macroscopic quantum​

an interesting juxtaposition of words

 

[physika]

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.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

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

 

[f95toli]

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

 

[Sciencelad2798]

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

 

[StevieTNZ]

You also have this experiment, reported nearly ten years ago -- https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2011.9532

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1211914