Wall Street Journal on Entanglement

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of quantum entanglement, particularly in light of a Wall Street Journal article that explores its implications in science and philosophy. Participants share insights on recent research, the portrayal of entanglement in popular media, and its potential impact on fields like quantum computation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Wall Street Journal article discusses entanglement and includes a quote from Nicolas Gisin, while also critiquing the article's accuracy regarding the role of PDC crystals in photon entanglement.
  • Another participant mentions Professor Eberley's discovery that quantum entanglement can suddenly die, linking to an external article for further reading.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the implications of the Wall Street Journal article, particularly regarding its suggestion of faster-than-light (FTL) communication, which they argue should not be possible even in entangled states.
  • A participant raises concerns that Eberly's findings could impose limitations on quantum computation and challenge certain philosophical definitions of free will, depending on the prevalence of sudden entanglement death in nature.
  • There is a shared sentiment about the oddity of the Wall Street Journal's readership and its coverage of scientific topics, with some participants reflecting on the intersection of science and popular culture.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the implications of the Wall Street Journal article and Eberley's findings. There is no consensus on the accuracy of the article's claims or the broader implications of sudden entanglement death.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of popular science articles in accurately conveying complex scientific concepts, particularly regarding quantum mechanics and entanglement. There is also an acknowledgment that the preprints mentioned are not peer-reviewed, which may affect their reliability.

DrChinese
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
8,498
Reaction score
2,131
Yes, entanglement has gone mainstream (if it wasn't already) with an article in the 5/6/2009 Wall Street Journal on the subject:

Science, Spirituality, and Some Mismatched Socks : Researchers Turn Up Evidence of 'Spooky' Quantum Behavior and Put It to Work in Encryption and Philosophy

The article includes a quote from Nicolas Gisin, a reference to Einstein, and a not-so-accurate chart explaining how photons are entangled (leaving out the PDC crystal's role).

Meanwhile, I thought I would post a link for those who are interested in recent articles in on EPR, Bell and/or entanglement. The link below yields anything with those keywords submitted in 2009 to Cornell's preprint archives. There were 356 such articles as of this morning. :smile:

ArXiv Articles (Pre-print) with EPR, Bell or Entanglement in the Abstract or Title, 2009

This gives you a pretty good idea of the wide variety of work being done in this area. There were over a 1000 articles last year, so there is a lot out there! Please keep in mind that the preprints themselves are NOT peer-reviewed, although they are widely read - and occasionally commented on in the archives themselves.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought entanglement was weird.
Finding out people still read WSJ after Murdoch bought it is weirder though.
 
alxm said:
I thought entanglement was weird.
Finding out people still read WSJ after Murdoch bought it is weirder though.

:smile:

Guess I am guilty. Please don't hold it against me. I read Dilbert too, and sometimes it seems like real life.
 
Dear Group, since I always try to speak honestly, I feel that I should mention that Professor Eberly's discovery of the sudden death of quantum entanglement could place an important restraint not just upon quantum computation but also upon Conway and Kochen's recent mathematical physics definition of free will as the opposite of both determinism and randomness.

Of course, this will depend upon how prevalent the sudden death of quantum entanglement is in Nature.
 
cstromeyer said:
Hi, you might also be interested to know that Professor Eberley recently discovered that quantum entanglement can suddenly die:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/quantumloss/

When the journal says this:

"The relationship persists independently of distance, making possible the near-instantaneous transmission of binary information."

It sounds like it's saying FTL communication of information is possible, but that shouldn't be the case, even in Entangled states.
 
Matterwave said:
When the journal says this:

"The relationship persists independently of distance, making possible the near-instantaneous transmission of binary information."

It sounds like it's saying FTL communication of information is possible, but that shouldn't be the case, even in Entangled states.

Of course, being a popular account, it manages to get a few things wrong in the process. But maybe it will increase interest or awareness a bit. Never hurts.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K