Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday February 04 2018, @03:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the three's-a-generality dept.

In 1993, physicist Lucien Hardy proposed an experiment showing that there is a small probability (around 6-9%) of observing a particle and its antiparticle interacting with each other without annihilating—something that is impossible in classical physics. The way to explain this result is to require quantum theory to be nonlocal: that is, to allow for the existence of long-range quantum correlations, such as entanglement, so that particles can influence each other across long distances.

So far, Hardy's paradox has been experimentally demonstrated with two particles, and a few special cases with more than two particles have been proposed but not experimentally demonstrated. Now in a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists have presented a generalized Hardy's paradox that extends to any number of particles. Further, they show that any version of Hardy's paradox that involves three or more particles conflicts with local (classical) theory even more strongly than any of the previous versions of the paradox do. To illustrate, the physicists proposed an experiment with three particles in which the probability of observing the paradoxical event reaches an estimated 25%.

"In this paper, we show a family of generalized Hardy's paradox to the most degree, in that by adjusting certain parameters they not only include previously known extensions as special cases, but also give sharper conflicts between quantum and classical theories in general," coauthor Jing-Ling Chen at Nankai University and the National University of Singapore told Phys.org. "What's more, based on the paradoxes, we are able to write down novel Bell's inequalities, which enable us to detect more quantum entangled states."

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hardy-paradox-stronger-conflict-quantum.html

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 04 2018, @06:16PM (4 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday February 04 2018, @06:16PM (#632968)

    You only got that because there's no "-1 Stupid" moderation available, which is what you deserve.

    Got any LED lights? There's your proof that quantum physics is real, moron.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Offtopic=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 04 2018, @06:22PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday February 04 2018, @06:22PM (#632973) Homepage

    Requesting for next April Fool's day - a "-1, Stupid" moderation option.

  • (Score: -1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @07:35PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @07:35PM (#633000)

    Bullshit! They just make that shit up because they don't how it works! I swear!You people believe in the stupidest shit. All that tuition money.. gone to waste! The "Stupid" mod goes to you! I get the "truth" mod from anybody who knows the actual truth... Christ! No wonder Trump won the election!

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @08:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @08:54PM (#633019)

      Trump won the election because Bernie got shafted from the Hellary owned DNC.

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by jimtheowl on Sunday February 04 2018, @09:47PM

      by jimtheowl (5929) on Sunday February 04 2018, @09:47PM (#633032)
      He won because of too many -5 Stupid people like you voting.

      They don't know how it works, yet they can make it in the first place.. brilliant.