Spooky actions @ a distance in threes

Call it crawling towards our quantum computer but we are getting there.

Article can be found here.

As if it weren’t hard enough already to imagine it in twos, physicists have entangled three photons with each other. Entanglement is a counterintuitive quantum physics phenomenon, in which a particle influences all the others with which it’s entangled – even if the particles are far apart. If one particle is in one state, for example, the others might be in the same state. In this case, however, each photon, which is a particle of light, had the same polarization – either horizontal or vertical.

Usually, it’s easier to entangle only two photons at once. A few research labs, including this team, have entangled three or more photons before. This new effort created triplets that were more stable than previous entanglements, however. That stability means the entangled photons are one step closer to practical use (although they’re still a long way from that). Researchers are hoping that in the future, entangled photons might work in quantum computers, or in communications technologies.

To make the entangled triplets, researchers from Canada, the U.S. and Sweden started with a single blue photon that was polarized both horizontally and vertically. Being able to hold two states at once is another property of quantum particles, and it’s why computer scientists are interested in quantum physics. Particles that are able to hold two states at once potentially can hold more information than classical computers with machinery that can only hold one state at a time.

photo of a photon-detecting chip
Photon Detector
The physicists used chips like this one to detect single photons of light.

The research team sent this quantum blue photon through a crystal that turned it into two less energetic, red, entangled photons with matching polarizations – either horizontal or vertical. Next, they sent one of those red photons through another crystal that transformed it into two less energetic, infrared, entangled photons. The infrared photons happened to still be entangled with the remaining red photon, and voilà: three entangled photons.

Further tests demonstrated the triplets were truly entangled, and getting that to work correctly is rare. There’s only a one-in-1 billion chance that the first step of the process creates two entangled photons. Then, there’s a one-in-1 million chance that the second step of the process will create the entangled triplet.

The international team published a paper about their work this week in the journal Nature Photonics.

1 Like

Eh…doesn’t sound possible, surely only a pair can be entangled? At first glance I’d have thought the final 2 photons would be entangled with each other and only one of them entangled with the intermediate one- the inference would be that a chain of entangled photons would be possible…bollocks, now I’ve got to read all the papers.
Edit:…ah…hit a $32 pay wall…damn. Oh well probably would have been too scholarly for me anyway.

Something I hope to see gone very soon. :smiley:


I so can’t wait for Davids solution

Beside the pay wall, you have to fill out a lot of details, Americans only address scheme and you can only pay with a credit cards. I’m so tired of these old world ways of doing things and the scientific publication industry is so ripe for disruption.


At least some good news too:

1 Like

2 more spooky articles:

Maybe it wasn’t spooky at all. Apologies to the Feynman fans, but this might be a small embarrassment for your man. Feynman Bohr & von Neumann v Broglie Bohm and Einsten.

Who would you bet on? :stuck_out_tongue:

Looks like it could be possible to model quantum effects using classical mechanics after all, from wave particle duality to entanglement, it just might all be particles and pilot waves.


Delighted Mark, Now I can forge on with my debate about speed of light being a constant. I believe it’s not. Great article, Feynman still rocks though :smiley:


Of course, and he’s human as well ;-).

I think you’ve thrown that one in somewhere before. How long are you going to keep us in suspense?!

Needs to be till testnet3 and beyond is out otherwise its lynching time for me :smiley: (all I will say is if it keeps accelerating then its hardly suprising far planets are apparently more massive than we think). Anyway I am back to attack analysis now :wink:



Reading this changed my life. three years ago.

It prompted me to drop everything that I was doing at the time.

Yes lots of this about, it challenges everything and its brilliant that it does. So much for us to learn.

Wasn’t it followed up and shown to be flawed? I can’t remember the explanation, but pretty sure. I had been excited by it too. :frowning:

1 Like

Yes, though the report of the flaw could be flawed (this is why I removed the article about the flaw);

Though after this I pursued a whole new paradigm, I chose science over finance. And during the new path I met, and encountered so much genius, and learned how many times the speed of light is possible with a steady acceleration.

There are more as muons travel faster than light from the atmosphere to underground detectors, they arrive before light from supernovas etc. Plus more ! it’s intriguing and fascinating to know what we know is flawed. Theories taught as laws are bad (quantum, relativity etc.) So much fun in life to analyse and discover new things. If we had time and peace then amazing things would happen.

1 Like

Superconductor spaceship design from A. Bolonkin - he spelled out each technology that would need to be built to make a spaceship that absorbs energy from every band of electrospectrum + even its own kinetic energy. Pushing this ship off of a cliff would make it capable to fly anywhere forever, in any direction, and into any speed.


chapter 1.

Lol… yes I was watching the experiment videos somewhere the other day too…weird. I’ve read it twice but not sure what I think about it yet really.
I know nothing of pilot wave theory though, only Copenhagen Interpretation but I will learn more about it though definitely.
Feynman would only be wrong in saying double slit experiment couldn’t be explained classically though wouldn’t he, not anything else?
My current understanding is nothing with mass can travel faster than light (not sure about massless particles debate - I need to learn more), I thought it was mainly down to the E=MCsquared - ie the nearer the speed of light attained, then mass increases etc - therefore not possible - things become heavier rather than faster in a way…open to having mind changed though…Hey what do I know , I’m a decorator? lol
I’m pretty sure Neutrino thing was measuring equipment problem though and anything going faster than speed of light would be massive news…any links? This would also contravene Kafir’s Unified Field Theory too, so unlikely…lol

1 Like

Quantum Computing update - interesting breakthrough. I found this comment funny:

“Hopefully this technology won’t be in the peoples hands for at least say, 15 or 20 more years. The reason? I am a computer programmer and I want to retire before I have to get into all this crap. People thought the emergence of C++ and Net Centric computing were complicated lol wait until you have to learn to write a program in a world where boolean isn’t boolean anymore…”

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-first-ever-quantum-device-errors.html#jCp

1 Like

Finally some sense to this quantum mumbo jumbo many worlds parallell universes brainwashing.

al_kafir: quantum computing is an equally silly idea. It is all smoke and mirrors, with either fraud or theory so deep the scientists don’t even know what they are supposed to be doing. All current quantum computing experiments that were purportedly successful have in later analysis turned out to be classical computing.

I believe the whole quantum branch of physics is just an elaborate scheme to distract scientists from doing actual science. Or a case of science devolved into a religion.

If even one entanglement had actually been done, then we would have superluminal information transmission capability. But we don’t and the excuses just keep on piling on.

Did you ever take Math?