Stephen sent me a fun google query, discovered by one of his students:
Those are some pretty impressive four entangled qubits: sticking around for nine days without decohering :)!
The Quantum Pontiff
Theoretical Musings
Search

Profile
Dave Bacon is a theoretical ski bum who is also a pseudo professor. His research is on quantum computing, his scientific passions extend to everything in physics, mathematics, computer science and beyond, and his personal pleasures include making wine, playing poker, skiing, camping, and daydreaming (although not all of those at the same time.)
Nothing he says on this blog should be construed as having anything to do with his employer or his dog.
Recent Comments
- Neil B on So Long and Thanks For All the Fish!
- Si-Hui Tan on Ecto and LaTeXiT
- evden eve nakliyat on Google Hella Cool
- Peter Lund on Google Hella Cool
- wolfgang on So Long and Thanks For All the Fish!
- Rod on So Long and Thanks For All the Fish!
- Art on So Long and Thanks For All the Fish!
- John Sidles on Dead Spins And The Dirty Ground
- Jonathan Vos Post on Dead Spins And The Dirty Ground
- John Sidles on Dead Spins And The Dirty Ground
Recent Posts
- So Long and Thanks For All the Fish!
- Dead Spins And The Dirty Ground
- Bacon Camp
- Best Paper at STOC
- Pr(Future Dave Bacons|Library Cuts) is Small
- De Took Er DataBs Jrbs!
- Google Hella Cool
- Portrait of a Reviewer as a Young Man
- Theory Matters Vision Nuggets
- What To Do With Scirate?
Other Information
Cows are well approximated by a sphere.

« Earth to Republicans: Curing STDs Would Probably Be a Good Thing | Main | NEC Quantum Internships »
Nine Days, Four Qubits
Category: Off The Deep End • Quantum Computing
Posted on: March 2, 2009 2:17 PM, by Dave Bacon
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/101037
Click here to search for this post on the new blog.


Comments
i read this as: "it takes 9 days to entangle 4 qubits" or something.
Posted by: boris | March 2, 2009 3:18 PM
you are now the #1 hit for "four qubits can be entangled in 9 days". Congrats!
Posted by: rob | March 2, 2009 9:16 PM
Google is funny but the standard explanation of the effects and implications of decoherence is teh unsatisfactory IMHO. It's widespread use as a pretense for solving collapse is a circular argument with many flaws. Decoherence involves e.g. pretending that the mixture definable for a set of multiple cases (like, various runs of an experiment with varying phases each time) can be bastardized onto a given single event - "A coherent superposition becomes an incoherent mixture."
And, another nostrum is "they don't interfere with each other anymore." Well, "interference" is a global way of talking about patterns created by the superposition principle. The SP is supposed to apply in any case, even if it makes nice patterns one time and messy combinations another time - and in any case, both wave contributions continue to at least exist. So what does decoherence say happens to the other, "lost" state that used to be in combination with the first? No good answer is given.
Posted by: Neil B | March 3, 2009 10:35 AM
Very low temperature?
Posted by: David | March 3, 2009 10:47 AM
Congrats Neil B, you are entangled in even more ways than four qubits!
Posted by: Dave Bacon | March 3, 2009 11:23 AM
The Heisenberg internet commentary principle: one cannot comment on google search results without invariable changing said search results.
Posted by: Jonathan McKay | March 3, 2009 12:36 PM
Dave, that's cute but do you have a good nugget to offer in reply on the subject? Really, even Penrose has made similar criticisms...
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | March 3, 2009 9:57 PM
:)
I do not believe the decoherence solves the measurement problem, no.
Ack, my ride just showed up so I have to run.
Posted by: Dave Bacon | March 3, 2009 10:03 PM
I thought that four qubits were entangled in 6 days, and it was good, and on the 7th day the Principal Investigator rested.
But that's Theophysics as applied to Quantum Cosmology.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | March 5, 2009 1:58 PM