New Micro-Ring Resonator Creates Quantum Entanglement On a Silicon Chip

Zothecula writes: The quantum entanglement of particles, such as photons, is a prerequisite for the new and future technologies of quantum computing, telecommunications, and cyber security. Real-world applications that take advantage of this technology, however, will not be fully realized until devices that produce such quantum states leave the realms of the laboratory and are made both small and energy efficient enough to be embedded in electronic equipment. In this vein, European scientists (abstract) have created and installed a tiny "ring-resonator" on a microchip that is claimed to produce copious numbers of entangled photons while using very little power to do so.

Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

With which I will do ... what, exactly?

"Our device is capable of emitting light with striking quantum mechanical properties never observed in an integrated source," said Bajoni. "The rate at which the entangled photons are generated is unprecedented for a silicon integrated source, and comparable with that available from bulk crystals that must be pumped by very strong lasers."

As usual, every story to do with quantum anything is pretty much gibberish to the layperson.

Sounds like a quantum mood ring, but I h

Re:

[gstoddart]

f all the stories and thing said about quantum computers, especially with the amount of poorly written stuff out there, that is the sentence you highlight when talking about gibberish?

LOL ... honestly, it's as good as any as far as I'm concerned.

It sounds like something out of a mission statement generator ... we've created light with minty and peaty overtones, which exemplify the highest moral standard.

I simply have no idea of WTF it's telling me.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? That sentence is just of the form, "The rate we made foo is much faster than before when using a silicon circuit, when previously you could only make them that fast using [some large setup]". There is no special quantum mechanics knowledge needed to understand that sentence, and it is on part with a bunch of other advances over the last several decades of moving things to integrated circuits: "The accuracy of the gyroscope is much better than previous silicon versions, and we can now do on a c

Re:

[Darinbob]

Entangled photons are used to create quantum macrame.

so quantum entanglement is like a beard?

[Virtucon]

Sometimes I have to use my beard like a food filter. I guess you could consider it a quantum entanglement device in large scale.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

BAH.
This is nothing new.
Tesla built a cock ring resonator in 1919 that almost shook his apartment building to pieces before he smashed it.
This quantum entanglement angle is blatant buzzword bingoism.

removing the speed of light barrier

[WamBamBoozle]

Entanglement communicates state by some mechanism that has no measurable latency. Making a computing device based on entanglement would be amazing.

Re:

[Przemo-c]

but the information must be corelated with the first mesured to transfer information. So the whole communication proces has a latency just like any other. It might be able to make communication tamper proof but definetly won tspeed it up.

Re:

[DogDude]

No, there's no correlation. It's the same object.

Re:

[blue trane]

Once you measure your particle, you know what the other side will see. That is information. You can predict their reaction, and prepare your own actions accordingly. You know more, instantaneously, about something happening far away (potentially). Information entropy has been reduced, faster than the speed of light would otherwise allow.

Re:

[blue trane]

If you write a program, you have certain expectations about the hardware that executes it. Isn't that information? You write a program, you can predict what it will do when run. If that doesn't fit the physics definition of information, then the physics definition is not very expressive.

Alice has a particle entangled with Bob's. Alice measures hers. She now knows, immediately, what Bob will see when he measures his. She can prepare accordingly.

If Alice knows Bob will launch a missile, say, when he measures

Re: removing the speed of light barrier

[Michael MacDonald]

Yep, now imagine that combined with entangled nanobots connecting themselves to neurons. The possibilities really become endless, and space travel becomes simple, and death loses it's sting. If it works :/.

Re:

[sg_oneill]

Yep, now imagine that combined with entangled nanobots connecting themselves to neurons. The possibilities really become endless, and space travel becomes simple, and death loses it's sting. If it works :/.

wut? "Entangled nanobots connecting themselves to neurons"

What the fuck is an "entangled nanobot". Where talking about photons here, not goddamn miniature optimus primes.

Re:

[IAMBatman]

No, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q... [wikipedia.org] that doesn't work.

Re:

[AvitarX]

Essentially, you cannot control the outcome of how the entanglement works. You just know it's the same on both sides.

Basically, a random event happens simultaneously on both sides, but it's still random. the example of Alice and Bob both pressing simulteneiously buttons, and always pressing the same one is illustrating this principal as I read it.

Note, how I read it as a layman, so not really answering from the authority you want.

Re:

[Anon-Admin]

Entanglement communicates state by some mechanism that has no measurable latency.

The two wave forms are entangled below the plank layer, thus being outside of standard space time you see no measurable latency.

Maybe we need to coin a phrase for this area blow the plank layer and outside space time. I say we call it subspace, seems to fit. :P

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why this got modded insightful. Maybe funny would be appropriate, but otherwise it is just word salad. I don't normally like calling one out on spelling, but spelling it plank instead of Planck tends to be a subtle hint too...

But entanglement has nothing to do with Planck scale in quantum mechanics, and "below the Planck layer" is meaningless. Unless you literally mean "below the plank layer" and are talking about an experiment setup below the floorboards.

Re:

[Anon-Admin]

I wrote it to be funny and I am aware that it is Planck.

I am just as surprised as you that it is rated "insightful." I expected it to be rated Funny.

Re:

[Princeofcups]

Entanglement communicates state by some mechanism that has no measurable latency. Making a computing device based on entanglement would be amazing.

Sorry, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light based on physics as we know it.

Re:

[DogDude]

Sorry, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light based on physics as we know it.

Maybe as YOU know it, but you don't understand quantum physics.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Entanglement communicates state by some mechanism that has no measurable latency. Making a computing device based on entanglement would be amazing.

Sorry, that doesn't happen because information doesn't transfer faster than the speed of light.

What happens Is you have two entangled particles. If you measure the state of one, the other one flips to the opposite state instantaneously.

However, you cannot control what you measure. Perhaps you were measuring if the particle was up spin or down spin. Well, you meas

Re:

[nichogenius]

You still can't beat the speed of light barrier. Entanglement is disrupted as soon as soon as you observe it. This means that just by reading your 1 bit inter-galactic text message, the link between the two breaks. All you know for sure is that the bit you got is the opposite of the bit the other end got. As you can't manipulate the outcome of either entangled particle without disrupting the entanglement, you can't pass any non-random information.

This is a rough example of how it would work. Before you

Re:

[Bonobo_Unknown]

It's like a coin after being tossed; when you see what's face up you know what's face down, there is no communication between the two sides. It's just that in the QM case the two sides might be light years apart.

Re:

[topology]

That is the best analogy I've come across for the situation. Well Done!

Re:

[nichogenius]

At the risk of igniting the classic spooky-action-at-a-distance debate, communication in some sense may be taking place between the two particles, even separated by light years. Einstein's view is that both particles' states were pre-determined, you just had no way of knowing which one was which until you looked at one of them.

The modern quantum mechanics theory is that neither state is determined (think Schrodinger's cat). If you observe one particle, you force it to settle to a state and also force its

Re:

[Bonobo_Unknown]

My personal theory is that once you observe one particle, the universe splits into two separate realities.

I love this idea, thanks for replying, I'll be thinking about that all day :)

Not an Ansible

[Guy From V]

I thought that quantum entanglement couldn't transfer coherent communication since it is basically randomized and useful information transfer between particles was impossible.

Re:

[topology]

Thanks for pointing that out.

Re:

[DogDude]

No, once you have two entangled photons, they're in perfect sync because they're the same particle. Not at all random.

Re:

[Guy From V]

By random I actually meant unintelligible or unknowable since the result would have no possible way to interpret it.

Re:

[DogDude]

Oh, then I need to do some more reading. I thought they were the same particle, just in different place at the same time.

What are scientists thinking of?

[colordotmatrix]

copious, entangled......
What exactly is on these scientists minds when they come up with their descriptions?

Do their mothers know?
:-)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Quick summary

[DogDude]

Quantum physics has proven (over a century) that photons can be entangled, meaning that two completely different photons, in different places, can instantly influence each other. Instant is a whole lot faster than electrons can move.

Also, re encryption. When photons are entangled, it can also be looked at as the same photon at two different places at one time, so there is no transfer of information at all because the data is being transmitted to and from the same photon.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

(over a century)

It was only 80 years ago that the EPR paradox was put forward, and not much more was done until Bell's theory work in the 60s and experiments in the 70s where it was experimentally demonstrated.

Instant is a whole lot faster than electrons can move.

You can entangle electrons too... but the limitations of what is actually done instantly is already pointed out by other comments, and probably will many time more with further comments (as happens with every single story involving entanglement on /., since a large number of comments still get it wrong, so the same c

Thats so spooky

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait for my "spooky modem" with secure point to point 0 latency communication to anywhere in the 'verse.

Exciting

[zipz0p]

This is actually pretty cool, mostly because it's an efficient source of photon pairs. The time-energy entanglement means that photons with particular energies always come out at particular relative times (that is, pairs of photons are produced by splitting one higher energy photon into two lower energy photons, which are emitted at the same time). Photon pairs like this can be used to do quantum key distribution [wikipedia.org], a secure method of distributing encryption keys, or, with a memory [doi.org] and some clever entanglemen [aps.org]

Not enough information

[ITRambo]

The linked article states "As photons exited the resonator, the researchers were able to observe that a remarkably high percentage of them exhibited the telltale characteristics of entanglement. ". What number constitutes "remarkably high"? There is no value in the article as there is nothing to be learned other then the researchers are likely looking for more grant money to continue their quest to a "really remarkably high" percentage of something that has "characteristics of entanglement". What are the sp

Good for Quantum Cryptography not Computing

[quax]

A better source for entangled photon pairs will come in handy for Quantum Cryptography, but Quantum Computing requires many entangled qubits [wikipedia.org].

There is no indication how these resonators could produce more than pair-wise entanglement, after all this is very different from the Josephson junction loops that D-Wave and the future Google chip are build on. These allow an arbitrary coupling via the magnetic flux (only restricted by the chip's geometry).

Regrettably, this just yet another poorly written pop-science