5 ms·

Photonic Bell states creation around rotating black holes

52 points by ovidiu69 10y ago

joshumax 10y ago
Something to note: More times than not, asking a liberal arts major about how quantum mechanics works is usually more valid and reputable than the preprint arXiv
- vowelless 10y ago
  /s?
- posterboy 10y ago
  You better had substantiate that claim.
evanb 10y ago
Oh man. Can we change this to https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06822 https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06822 ? This "write up" is very bad, and clearly comes from somebody who doesn't really grasp quantum mechanics, and the connection to QUESS is... not good, although this paper and that idea share certain buzzwords.
messel 10y ago
The stretch is that in the future blackhole state can be changed and send information back in time? Not seeing it.
- PakG1 10y ago
  Sorta worked in Interstellar, though perhaps not in the way you're describing. ;)
pseud0r 10y ago
Are they suggesting black holes can be used as quantum computers?
- ovidiu69 10y ago
  Something like that
- Y_Y 10y ago
  Absolutely not. You could (if it's true, at a glance it's not terribly convincing) use this as a probe of curved-space QED (a very difficult field) or as a method to measure of the spin of black holes (currently done by different dark magic which isn't very reliable).
bencollier49 10y ago
Good idea for a science fiction story.
- Nursie 10y ago
  My thoughts too. Perhaps they are talking to each other.. . Edit -- You and I really are quite alike in thought sometimes. You must come and visit Southampton sometime now the house is a bit more sorted.
  - unixhero 10y ago
    My thoughts too. No, really! :) This was ragingly interesting, but outside papers like these I wondered what the application of this at this stage might be; Great sci-fi could be had, was my conclusion.
  - bencollier49 10y ago
    !! I only just spotted this!
fnord123 10y ago
Someone managed to run the "messages" of RA 7891 through a spectrometer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ I don't know if there's a valuable message here, but it's fascinating that this is stuff that has come from beyond the event horizon and has escaped.
- ovidiu69 10y ago
  I should look at that
- 1propionyl 10y ago
  Wow. It has an austere and distant beauty, like whale calls. I wonder what it means.
acqq 10y ago
It seems the very author of the paper on the arxiv posted the link here (ovidiu69 here, Ovidiu Racorean of the paper), and maybe he is willing to answer some specific questions? Ovidiu, being a researcher, can you please tell what your scientific CV is, especially related to the topics of the paper? I see you've submitted different papers to arxiv: https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Racorean_Ovidiu/0/1/0/all/0/1 https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Racorean_Ovidiu/0/1/0/all/0... Have you had any interactions and/or reactions from the other researchers in the fields? Have you published somewhere else?
Steuard 10y ago
I haven't read the paper yet (too much to do). But I wonder why it's posted in the "General Physics (physics.gen-ph)" category rather than under "General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)" where most papers with similar topics are traditionally submitted. The physics.gen-ph category on arXiv is a little odd, a little uncomfortable, and hard to describe. Here are a couple of quotes from discusions of arXiv moderation commenting on it: "There is one middle option between acceptance and rejection: Dubious papers can be shunted to a category called “general physics,” or “gen-ph.” At best, gen-ph is a home for papers that don’t fit neatly into any other category; at worst, it is a crackpot dumping ground. Either way, it allows moderators to dodge the drama that comes with out-and-out rejections. For many authors, though, being relegated to gen-ph is just as galling as being rejected outright: As one such researcher told Reyes-Galindo, having his paper reclassified to gen-ph felt like a deliberate attempt to diminish the paper’s impact." -- http://oren365.tech/news/What-Counts-as-Science http://oren365.tech/news/What-Counts-as-Science? (via Google cache) "Personally, I have never had a problem with the arXiv moderation. I had a paper reclassified from gen-ph to gr-qc once by a well-meaning moderator, which is how I learned that gen-ph is the dump for borderline crackpottery. (How would I have known? I don’t read gen-ph. I was just assuming someone reads it.)" -- http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-holy-grail-of-crackpot-filtering.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-holy-grail-of-c... EDIT: I don't mean this as direct criticism of this paper, which might potentially be fantastic and just fit better in the general category for one reason or another than in gr-qc. (Or, some moderator might have been too harsh: entirely possible!) But I wanted to share some of the unspoken background information that many physicists would think about when seeing this link.
- ovidiu69 10y ago
  After you read the paper, will you share us your thoughts on it, please?!!
n4r9 10y ago
I studied quantum information/foundations to research level, so may be able to give some input and obviate some of the wilder interpretations. This paper isn't directly in my field of interest (don't know much about relativity), so I'm happy to be corrected if I say something stupid. You've probably heard that quantum information processing uses the "qubit" as an information primitive. A qubit is not itself a particle, but a "degree of freedom" which can be in one of a range of states. This degree of freedom could be spin, polarization, energy, and so on and so on. Unlike bits, a pair of qubits can be entangled, which means that their joint state is not decomposable into a statistical mixture of independent pairs of states. The paper considers two degrees of freedom associated with photons emitted from the accretion disks of spinning black holes: polarization and orbital angular momentum (OAM). Essentially, there are two qubits per photon. After some reasonable assumptions and calculations we find that the two qubits are highly entangled; in fact, as entangled as it's possible for two qubits to be. The author speculates that may be able to detect this by measuring such photons with modern equipment. I suppose the motivation is that we might be able to use them for actual information processing tasks (although as far as I can see there's no benefit to this over preparing entangled qubits ourselves). That's about it, I think. No time-travel, no communication, but a small point of interest.

52 points by ovidiu69 10y ago

Something to note: More times than not, asking a liberal arts major about how quantum mechanics works is usually more valid and reputable than the preprint arXiv

vowelless 10y ago
/s?
posterboy 10y ago
You better had substantiate that claim.

evanb 10y ago

Oh man. Can we change this to https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06822 https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06822 ? This "write up" is very bad, and clearly comes from somebody who doesn't really grasp quantum mechanics, and the connection to QUESS is... not good, although this paper and that idea share certain buzzwords.

messel 10y ago

The stretch is that in the future blackhole state can be changed and send information back in time? Not seeing it.

PakG1 10y ago
Sorta worked in Interstellar, though perhaps not in the way you're describing. ;)

pseud0r 10y ago

Are they suggesting black holes can be used as quantum computers?

ovidiu69 10y ago
Something like that
Y_Y 10y ago
Absolutely not. You could (if it's true, at a glance it's not terribly convincing) use this as a probe of curved-space QED (a very difficult field) or as a method to measure of the spin of black holes (currently done by different dark magic which isn't very reliable).

bencollier49 10y ago

Good idea for a science fiction story.

Nursie 10y ago
My thoughts too. Perhaps they are talking to each other.. . Edit -- You and I really are quite alike in thought sometimes. You must come and visit Southampton sometime now the house is a bit more sorted.
- unixhero 10y ago
  My thoughts too. No, really! :) This was ragingly interesting, but outside papers like these I wondered what the application of this at this stage might be; Great sci-fi could be had, was my conclusion.
- bencollier49 10y ago
  !! I only just spotted this!

fnord123 10y ago

Someone managed to run the "messages" of RA 7891 through a spectrometer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ I don't know if there's a valuable message here, but it's fascinating that this is stuff that has come from beyond the event horizon and has escaped.

ovidiu69 10y ago
I should look at that
1propionyl 10y ago
Wow. It has an austere and distant beauty, like whale calls. I wonder what it means.

acqq 10y ago

It seems the very author of the paper on the arxiv posted the link here (ovidiu69 here, Ovidiu Racorean of the paper), and maybe he is willing to answer some specific questions? Ovidiu, being a researcher, can you please tell what your scientific CV is, especially related to the topics of the paper? I see you've submitted different papers to arxiv: https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Racorean_Ovidiu/0/1/0/all/0/1 https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Racorean_Ovidiu/0/1/0/all/0... Have you had any interactions and/or reactions from the other researchers in the fields? Have you published somewhere else?

Steuard 10y ago

I haven't read the paper yet (too much to do). But I wonder why it's posted in the "General Physics (physics.gen-ph)" category rather than under "General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)" where most papers with similar topics are traditionally submitted. The physics.gen-ph category on arXiv is a little odd, a little uncomfortable, and hard to describe. Here are a couple of quotes from discusions of arXiv moderation commenting on it: "There is one middle option between acceptance and rejection: Dubious papers can be shunted to a category called “general physics,” or “gen-ph.” At best, gen-ph is a home for papers that don’t fit neatly into any other category; at worst, it is a crackpot dumping ground. Either way, it allows moderators to dodge the drama that comes with out-and-out rejections. For many authors, though, being relegated to gen-ph is just as galling as being rejected outright: As one such researcher told Reyes-Galindo, having his paper reclassified to gen-ph felt like a deliberate attempt to diminish the paper’s impact." -- http://oren365.tech/news/What-Counts-as-Science http://oren365.tech/news/What-Counts-as-Science? (via Google cache) "Personally, I have never had a problem with the arXiv moderation. I had a paper reclassified from gen-ph to gr-qc once by a well-meaning moderator, which is how I learned that gen-ph is the dump for borderline crackpottery. (How would I have known? I don’t read gen-ph. I was just assuming someone reads it.)" -- http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-holy-grail-of-crackpot-filtering.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-holy-grail-of-c... EDIT: I don't mean this as direct criticism of this paper, which might potentially be fantastic and just fit better in the general category for one reason or another than in gr-qc. (Or, some moderator might have been too harsh: entirely possible!) But I wanted to share some of the unspoken background information that many physicists would think about when seeing this link.

ovidiu69 10y ago
After you read the paper, will you share us your thoughts on it, please?!!

n4r9 10y ago

I studied quantum information/foundations to research level, so may be able to give some input and obviate some of the wilder interpretations. This paper isn't directly in my field of interest (don't know much about relativity), so I'm happy to be corrected if I say something stupid. You've probably heard that quantum information processing uses the "qubit" as an information primitive. A qubit is not itself a particle, but a "degree of freedom" which can be in one of a range of states. This degree of freedom could be spin, polarization, energy, and so on and so on. Unlike bits, a pair of qubits can be entangled, which means that their joint state is not decomposable into a statistical mixture of independent pairs of states. The paper considers two degrees of freedom associated with photons emitted from the accretion disks of spinning black holes: polarization and orbital angular momentum (OAM). Essentially, there are two qubits per photon. After some reasonable assumptions and calculations we find that the two qubits are highly entangled; in fact, as entangled as it's possible for two qubits to be. The author speculates that may be able to detect this by measuring such photons with modern equipment. I suppose the motivation is that we might be able to use them for actual information processing tasks (although as far as I can see there's no benefit to this over preparing entangled qubits ourselves). That's about it, I think. No time-travel, no communication, but a small point of interest.