Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

Follow dabacon on Twitter

Profile

davidog.pngDave 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

Recent Posts

Other Information

The use of Occam's razor on this website is strickly prohibited.

Cows are well approximated by a sphere.
rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

Follow dabacon on Twitter

« Earth to Republicans: Curing STDs Would Probably Be a Good Thing | Main | NEC Quantum Internships »

Nine Days, Four Qubits

Category: Off The Deep EndQuantum Computing
Posted on: March 2, 2009 2:17 PM, by Dave Bacon

Share:

Stephen sent me a fun google query, discovered by one of his students:
ninedays.pngThose are some pretty impressive four entangled qubits: sticking around for nine days without decohering :)!

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/101037

Comments

1

i read this as: "it takes 9 days to entangle 4 qubits" or something.

Posted by: boris | March 2, 2009 3:18 PM

2

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

3

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

4

Very low temperature?

Posted by: David | March 3, 2009 10:47 AM

5

Congrats Neil B, you are entangled in even more ways than four qubits!

Posted by: Dave Bacon | March 3, 2009 11:23 AM

6

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

7

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

8

:)

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

9

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

Comments have been closed as this blog has moved to http://dabacon.org/pontiff.
Click here to search for this post on the new blog.

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.