Colorado Physicist Receives Acclaim (and NSF Funding) For Quantum Entanglement Research

Photo of Optical clock in Jun Ye's lab, and depiction of a quantum engineering application.


The news that Jun Ye of the University of Colorado has received a $25 million NSF (National Science Foundation) grant to fund a new center to study quantum systems  is welcomed by the whole CU system and all Coloradans.  It reinforces the fact that our state is at the forefront of modern science and technology.

Prof. Ye is based at JILA,  https://jila.colorado.edu/about/about-jila

Originally standing for the 'Joint Institute for Astrophysics',  but which has now subsumed other physical sciences'  as  the center's  Research Topics page describes  (Though the acronym has been retained.)   As the summary in the above link describes it, the work explores:

"scientific questions about the limits of quantum measurements and technologies, the design of precision optical and X-ray lasers, the fundamental principles underlying the interaction of light and matter, the role of quantum physics in chemistry and biology, and the processes that have governed the evolution of the Universe for nearly 14 billion years."

As for Prof. Ye, he is a fellow at JILA and will now be conducting intensive investigations into quantum systems, how they interact and how they can be applied to the real world.  A special area of focus will be quantum entanglement.  This is a phenomenon in which two or more quantum particles become so fundamentally connected that anything done to one impacts the others.

Physicist Morgan Miller, quoted in Science News in 2011, affirmed that: "entanglement should be present in pretty much any situation with a lot of particles interacting with each other."    Most physics' arguments, however, take the view that quantum level entanglement is a bad thing for quantum computing. After all, if the quantum particles that are the basis for one's Q-computer become "entangled" with quantum particles outside then it is possible for information leakage and lost security.

At the heart of quantum entanglement is quantum nonlocality, one of the primary properties of entanglement.  It was physicist Alain Aspect who first conducted the experiment to show quantum nonlocality in a convincing way.  

Alain Aspect and his colleagues at the University of Paris, set up an arrangement as sketched below.  In these experiments, the detection of the polarizations of photons was the key. These were observed with the photons emanating from a Krypton-Dye laser and arriving at two different analyzers, e.g.

(P1) A1 ¯| <------D------> |­ A2 (P2)

                                              

Here, the laser device is D, and the analyzers (polarization detectors) are A1 and A2 along with two representative polarizations given at each, for two photons P1 and P2. The results of these remarkable experiments disclosed apparent and instantaneous connections between the photons at A1 and A2. In the case shown, a photon (P1) in the minimum (0) intensity polarization mode, is anti-correlated with one in the maximum intensity (1) mode.  

Assume twenty successive detections are made and we obtain at the respective analyzers (where a ‘1’ denotes spin  +1/2 detection and ‘0’ spin  (-1/ 2):

A1:   1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

A2:   0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

On inspection, there is a 100% anti-correlation (i.e. 100% negative correlation) between the two and an apparent nonlocal connection. In practice, the experiment was set out so that four (not two - as shown) different orientation 'sets' were obtained for the analyzers. These might be denoted: (A1,A2)I, (A1,A2)II, (A1,A2,)III, and (A1,A2)IV.

 Each result is expressed as a mathematical (statistical) quantity known as a 'correlation coefficient'.  The results from each orientation were then added to yield a sum S:

S = (A1,A2)I + (A1,A2)II + (A1,A2,)III + (A1,A2)IV

 In his (1982) experiments, Aspect determined the sum with its attendant indeterminacy to be:   S = 2.70 ±  0.05 and in so doing experimentally validated Bell’s Inequality.  In so doing quantum nonlocality was demonstrated.  Below,  Alain Aspect gives a one minute description of quantum entanglement and nonlocality for a lay person:

PREVIEW

2:41

Prof. Alain Aspect Explains Quantum Entaglement

As for physicist Jun Ye, the challenge for him and his team is to "harness quantum mechanical waves and ascertain what engineering and other applications are forthcoming." While the funding lasts, the program will operate under the tag: 'Quantum Systems Through Entangled Science and Engineering  - or Q-SEnSE - for short.  It will also bring together experts from Los Alamos, Sandia Laboratories and the National Bureau of Standards & Technology.

Beyond applying quantum physics to other disciplines such as engineering, the center will train students to do the same work.  In the words of Cindy Regal - a CU Professor and JILA researcher - a primary goal will be to "create a quantum -ready work force".

I have no doubt she, the Q-SEnSE team and professor Jun Ye will succeed.

Chinese Experiment Dramatically Demonstrates Quantum Entanglement

Artist's conception of Chinese ground station 'teleporting' photons to its Micius satellite

Nearly one year ago I cited work by Morgan  Mitchell and a team from the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Barcelona,  in Physical Review Letters . Their work described a specially prepared light beam that enabled the observation of individual photons in addition to charting the quantum links between them. Basically then, the Mitchell team confirmed the theoretical prediction that all the photons involved  exhibit some degree of entanglement and that the most strongly "entangled" would be pairs of photons striking the detectors at the same time.

According to Mitchell, quoted in Science News, "entanglement should be present in pretty much any situation with a lot of particles interacting with each other."    Most physics' arguments, however, take the view that quantum level entanglement is a bad thing for quantum computing. After all, if the quantum particles that are the basis for one's quantum computer become "entangled" (with quantum particles outside) then it is possible for information leakage and lost security.  However, the flip side of that is the view that entanglement can actually lead to an instantaneous, ultra-secure internet. This would be feasible if information encoded in one set of photons pops up instantaneously (and hence unhackably) in the corresponding set.

Now, Chinese quantum physicists have putatively demonstrated this feasibility in a recent experiment. The team from the University of Science and Technology of China announced barely 7 weeks ago that it had succeeded in splitting pairs of photons.  One of each split pair remained in the lab on Earth while the other member was beamed to China's Micius satellite, orbiting  300 miles above the Earth.  Most importantly, each photon "teleported" to the satellite remained entangled with its partner on Earth. An invisible connection hundreds of miles apart, if you will. (The accompanying diagram portrays this experiment).

A month earlier, in fact, the Chinese physicists showed that the teleportation worked in the opposite direction as they originated the splitting of photons on the Micius before sending them to separate receiving stations on Earth some 745 miles apart.  The word "incredible" doesn't even begin to describe the result.

Let's back up a bit: Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (E-P-R) originally  imagined a quantum system (atom) which could be 'ruptured' such that two electrons were dispatched to two differing measurement devices. Each electron would carry a property called 'spin'. Since the atom had zero spin, this meant one would have spin (+ 1/2), the other (-1/2). The diagram below illustrates this, the atom being disrupted inside the box, with its opposing spin electrons sent to the left and right.

A1 (+ ½ ) <----------->(- ½ )A2

Orthodox quantum mechanics forbade the simultaneous measurement of a property (say different spin states) for the same system. If you got one, you could not obtain the other. This was a direct outcome of the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle which stated that simultaneous quantum measurements could not be made to the same precision.

The first ever hints of entanglement (and tests of Bell's theorem) actually emerged in experiments carried out in the early 1980s, for example by Alain Aspect and his colleagues at the University of Paris.  In these experiments, the detection of the polarizations of photons was the key. These were observed with the photons emanating from a Krypton-Dye laser and arriving at two different analyzers, e.g.

(P1) A1 ¯|< ------D------> |­ A2 (P2)

Here, the laser device is D, and the analyzers (polarization detectors) are A1 and A2 along with two representative polarizations given at each, for two photons P1 and P2. The results of these remarkable experiments disclosed apparent and instantaneous connections between the photons at A1 and A2. In the case shown, a photon (P1) in the minimum (0) intensity polarization mode, is anti-correlated with one in the maximum intensity (1) mode.

Aside:  Polarization refers to that property whereby EM-radiation as it propagates can be confined say to one plane, or one rotation plane. If we say "circularly polarized" then the E-vector rotates through a full 360 degrees. If we say "linearly polarized" then it vibrates in one plane, e.g.

(A)
^
!
!
!
!

Or:

(B) < --------------------------------->----------------------------

Here, one might take (A) as the maximum intensity polarization mode and (B) as the minimum. 

Aspect et al on inspection of their data found there was a 100% anti-correlation (i.e. 100% negative correlation) between the two and an apparent nonlocal connection. In practice, the experiment was set out so that four (not two - as shown) different orientation 'sets' were obtained for the analyzers. These might be denoted: (A1,A2)I, (A1,A2)II, (A1,A2,)III, and (A1,A2)IV.

Essentially, the basis for our modern conception of entanglement was laid. It thereby became theoretically possible for two particles to become connected in such a way that even if placed on opposite sides of the universe whatever happened to one of the particles would instantly be reflected in the behavior of the other. 

The photons split by the Chinese weren't on opposite sides of the universe, but they were hundreds of miles apart which is impressive enough. 

Historically, let's note that not all physicists have accepted the notion of "superluminal transport" which is what the instantaneous connections suggest. According to special relativity nothing moves faster than light, at c = 300,000 km/ second. Thus, if a pair of split photons instantaneously displays connections 300 or more miles apart it indicates faster than light transport.  That is, in the "teleportation" scenario,  the split photon leaving - say its twin on Earth- had to arrive at the Micius satellite at the same instant. This would have meant v >  c.

To get away from that inference, physicist David Bohm,  in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, proposed that the seemingly instantaneously connected particles - whether photons, atoms or electrons - are actually always connected at a higher dimensionality.  However, after the Chinese experiments, when physicist Alan Steinhardt was asked if such particles could be connected via another dimension, responded:  "Extra dimensions do potentially solve certain quantum quandaries, but I don't believe entanglement is one of them."

He might well be correct, and Bohm died before he was able to complete the experiment he designed (outlined in one of his papers) to test his stochastic theory of QM.

Universal Salvation Belief a One Way Trip to “Hell”? HELL NO!

Sign from a Fundie's blog warning any who accept universal salvation to watch out! Their final destination is HELL!

According to Wikipedia, Universal Reconciliation or Salvation is:


“the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God.

Universal salvation may be related to the perception of a problem of Hell,, standing opposed to ideas such as endless conscious torment in Hell, but may also include a period of finite punishment similar to a state of purgatory.Believers in universal reconciliation may support the view that while there may be a real "Hell" of some kind, it is neither a place of endless suffering nor a place where the spirits of human beings are ultimately 'annihilated' after enduring the just amount of divine retribution”

I first became acquainted with universal salvation while debating an Anglican Priest in Barbados in 1982. At one point I mocked the concept of “Hell” as infantile, and basically “apartheid theology” based on gloating over the suffering of those unlike you, who don’t subscribe to your special beliefs- but whom you condemn to everlasting perdition. I also mocked the notion that the presumption of Hell meant every sect or Christian denomination could, in effect, pass judgment on every other sect or denomination. Fundies could hell bind Catholics, Catholics could hell bind Fundies, both could also consign Jews and Muslims to the everlasting pits as the Muslims could return the favor to Christians! It was an afterlife MUTUAL ANNIHILATION PACT!


The priest laughed and conceded the point, and I won the debate – scored by objective observers – based on that line of attack. After the debate, however, the priest confided to me that in the upper echelons of the Anglican hierarchy (recall here that King James, of King James Bible fame was an Anglican too) no one took Hell seriously and there was no doctrine of Hell or of exceptional salvation for the few. Instead all Anglican seminaries taught Universal Reconciliation – Salvation. The priest told me he didn’t teach it himself nor did any other Anglican padres he knew. They had to instead teach Heaven or Hell because that is what their parishioners expected. He told me that if they attempted to teach the actual doctrine of universal salvation most of the faithful would leave that Church because their skewed sense of moral right and wrong dictated the “evil” receive the ultimate punishment. But he said this dichotomy troubled him no end!


Well, no wonder! It had to be mentally pathological to know what your religion’s actual doctrine is on the one hand but not be able to openly teach it on the other. Schizoid personality disorder anyone?

But he has a point. Because most believers function at the level of children, and need a cosmic daddy to “take the rod” to the bad boys or girls, they cannot accept the conceptual notion of an afterlife wherein everyone is brought together. Even many Christian leaders who ought to know better buy into this codswallop. In a memorable final Phil Donahue show on MSNBC in 2002(still have it on videotape), he included people from five major religions, including the head of the Southern Baptists, and a leading Rabbi. When Donahue brought up the thorny issue (which most evangelicals prefer to sweep under the rug) of what happens to the Jews when ”Armageddon” is all over and the "Antichrist" (sic) is defeated, the Southern Baptist fundie didn’t mince words:

“Most will be bound for the fires of Hell, because it is appointed that only 144,000  Jews shall be saved. “

Donahue’s eyes rolled twice over then nearly popped out, as did the Rabbi’s who then entered into a furious exchange with this bigot, prefaced by the words:

“How DARE you! How dare you decide to dispatch Jews into afterlife fires when over six million have already been roasted in Hitler’s crematoria!”

The Southern Baptist didn’t blink, merely responding mechanically:

“I don’t decide that. It’s the word of the bible, not mine. Unless a man be born again and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ he cannot enter the gates of Heaven. Since nearly all Jews reject Jesus as Savior, they can’t enter the heavenly kingdom”.

This pompous display of assholinity prompted Phil D. to quip:

“Yeah, but it’s all fine and dandy that Israel be used as the setting for Armageddon in the Valley of Megiddo. Once Israel fulfills its biblical prophecies, then I guess it’s perfectly okay to send all the Jews to Hell…..oh, except for the special 144,000. And by the way, what’s so special about them? Why do they get a heavenly pass and not the others?”


The Southern Baptist  (Albert Mohler) was speechless. Or rather, perhaps so dumbfounded he wasn’t able to respond. Just as well, as the Rabbi was about to lacerate him verbally!

Now, just so we are clear, as an atheist I lean toward the probability that when you’re dead, you’re dead. I am not dogmatic or absolutist about it, but that's my take. (And no, I've seen no convincing evidence for 'near death experiences' which in any case, have nada to do with actual death!) That’s it! Finito! However, in previous blogs I have left a minuscule probability that human consciousness can survive death but in a nonlocal form, embodied in quantum wave energy. See, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/has-stuart-hameroff-explicated-way-out.html

However, for the sake of this blog, let’s argue from the believers’ perspective that there is a conscious personal afterlife and a putative deity to preside over it. We assume the form of this deity is in line with the attribute most often declared by deity worshippers, i.e. "infinite".

IF God as infinite is taken literally, this can only mean there is no place where he isn't. Either he is infinite or not infinite. If he is infinite, and HELL also exists, then Hell must be part of the same infinity. It cannot be isolated from it or else we have a condition where Hell is apart from God's being. If this be so, then there exists a domain ("Hell") where God isn't, so he can't be infinite! In other words, God is actually a limited being.

Another way to put this is that something (Hell)  exists in addition to God's being  hence that being must be de facto delimited. If delimited it can't be infinite.

So, we have these ineffable logical conclusions:

1) EITHER - Hell exists but GOD is not infinite.

OR

2) GOD is infinite, and Hell must exist WITHIN God. (But Heaven does also)


Up to now, no fundie or evangelical  has been clever enough to resolve the Hell-God=infinite paradox. There could be two reasons: 1) none of them is smart enough to do it, or 2) they know deep down in their little atavistic pea -brains that the paradox is logically insoluble because their assumptions are in error. (Or, just as bad, they allow the blatherings in an ancient book to trump the importance of examining the assumptions.)

Thus, if they want to preserve their "Hell" they will have to admit their God isn't infinite. If they demand God to be infinite, they will have to jettison their "Hell'.

Beyond this, if modern quantum mechanics is taken seriously, then reality is one universal whole (called “nonlocal” in QM terminology) and there are no separates or localities – say wherein something can occur that doesn’t affect the rest of reality. Hence, concepts such as David Bohm’s Holomovement come front and center and these impersonal concepts can supersede that of an angry old white man in the skies that hurls unbelievers and do-badders into perdition.

In effect, it appears those sects and denominations that accept the Universalist perspective are more likely to be au fait with at least the basic underlying theme of the wholeness and unity of reality, as demonstrated for example in the Aspect experiment (1982). That set up is depicted below:

A1 ( ) <--------->( )A2


The idea being that twin photons appear interconnected (via their polarization detection) at the analyzers A1 and A2. Some have misconstrued this as violating Einsteinian relativity (e.g. fast than light signal propagation) but the superior interpretation by physicist David Bohm holds that the two photons were always connected in a higher dimensional reality, which he has called the “implicate order”.

If there is an implicate order, which is also holographic, then it very well means the Universalists have been right all along ….assuming there is a God inhabiting this implicate order, of course! Maybe the fundies and their ilk need to take more seriously the words of Philosopher Alan Watts ('Behold the Spirit', p. 244):

"Taken literally as a doctrine of everlasting torture, 'Hell' amounts to blasphemy itself- for if it were in the power of human freedom-choice to produce a consequence of this kind there must be something radically diabolical in the order created by God, and in God himself. Such an interpretation may vindicate human freedom but at the cost of demonizing God."