Do we have any ideas on how to create macroscopic instances of quantum coupling (entanglement)?

Question

In this article from Contempoary Physics, the authors discuss how quantum entanglement would work with two particles.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/55902.PDF

It would be nice to be able to achieve this with more than two particles!

Answer 1

They've already entangled gas clouds of several trillion atoms.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1346

I know I've read newer articles on it too.

Answer 2

Despite the fact that we can experimentally confirm many, if not all, predictions of quantum mechanics, I continue to think quantum mechanics is mathematical legerdemain. I continue to think, once the methematicians rise to the task with new mathematics we will discover more realistic, intuitive solutions to things like quantum entanglement, Heisenberg Uncertainty, and such that do not describe the real world we can observe.

One of the reasons I believe this is because of the biases of physics and physicists. String theory was born because quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics could not agree at the extreme ends of the size spectrum. At the cosmos level, we do not see the jumping about of the planets and galaxies in some sort of macro jitters. At the quantum level, Einsteins predictions of a singularity fail to materialize.

One of the reasons I dislike physicists is because they seek out mathematics that describe physical effects without explaining the "why" behind those effects. Yeah, F = ma, but why? Or E = mc^2 but why? And the granddaddy of them all delta x ~ 1/delta p but why? This last one is the Heisenberg thing where delta x is the positional distribution and delta p is the momentum distribution.

No, I doubt we will ever see teleportation, for example, which is one of the WAGs for a use of quantum entanglement (See "The Fabric of the Cosmos," by Brian Greene on how this "theoretically" might be done.) When we reach the macro level, where we can actually see and measure what's going on, quantum effects simply do not exist.

Answer 3

No--if I did, and could back it up with experimental evidence or a mathematical proof, I would have solved the greatest puzzle in the history science. The whole business of looking for a unified theory is that the explanations that work best for the quantum world do a terrible job of explaining what we know about the macro world we inhabit. Which is why movies like "What the Bleep Do We Know" are such crap. It borrows theories from one world and extrapolates to another where the theories don't work, but fails to mention that little glitch.

Answer 4

Thanks for that article. I am new to QM and am particularly interested in quantum computing. I didn't know much about entanglement, but I do know that if you split the entangled particles, they will ALWAYS spin in opposite directions...even millions of miles away! Somehow they communicate with each other. QM is certainly bizarro world.

Answer 5

Yeah, I'd like a threesome myself!

Seriously, and I reviewed your link, which is quite an advanced treatise, that you do some fundamental research into plasma state physics at the quantum mechanical level of energy transformation.

Answer 6

It is critical that the particle's sexual organs are matched for concave and convex shapes and that they have their organs pointed to each other before they collide.

Answer 7

Yes we do have ideas, but containment is uncertain.

Answer 8

I don't think we do yet, but we will soon.

Answer 9

I don't know. . . but I do know you have no idea on how to get laid huh?

Answer 10

i have no idea, sorry