12 ms·
Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade
- Sporktacular 5y agoWas downvoted before for asking, but was serious: why was this conducted? What's the scientific value? Have reread it since and just can't see it, or see the joke if it's meant as one.
- lawrenceyan 5y agoThe dream of a quantum bear has been realized.
- selimthegrim 5y agoAs Jeff Kimble used to say, it’s the dreams stuff is made of.
- mikewarot 5y agoI'm not sure what the practical outcome of this will be, but the quantum woo community is going to have a field day with it. Ugh!
- colordrops 5y agoWhat does that even mean? The term "woo" is so condescending and useless.
- dkersten 5y agoThe way I’ve always heard it used, it basically means “scientific sounding words/sentences that are actually gibberish, used to make something with little or no evidence sound more credible to laypeople“. If you’re in the business of selling laypeople on fancy terms to mislead them, then sure, it’s condescending, but I think condescension is warranted in that case.
- dr_dshiv 5y agoDemand operationalization of “woo”! Otherwise, it’s just another form of self satisfied group think
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- colordrops 5y agoThank you, at least one person here gets what I'm saying. When the definition of "woo" is so vague, it gets applied to things it shouldn't and becomes recursively self-referential itself
- dogma1138 5y agoI guess they mean the “What the bleep do we know?” and CCC (not chaos computer club) crowd
- zwkrt 5y agoWell what’s condescending and useless is the crowd of people that, in absence of any understanding or genuine interest in the subject, use words and phrases from quantum mechanics to enforce their beliefs or sell snake oil to others. I can see the books and blog posts and motivational videos now: “Entangle yourself to your successful universe” “Science proves life is quantum” “What entanglement to life proves about our spiritual path” “
- colordrops 5y agoAll ideas have more or less merit. Address them individually based on their grounding in facts and evidence rather than a priori bucketing an arbitrary subset of ideas with a label. It's no different than calling people "libtards". You mention "woo" with annoyance before anyone even said anything, indicating a strong bias.
- zwkrt 5y agoLook, it’s just a convenient term for working scientists to use to categorize a group of people who are not worth listening to at all (in the scientific realm). Quantum physics gets a lot of this because it’s spooky but all fields experience some amount of quackery. Think people who send P=NP proofs to universities, “alternate” historians, flat earthers, and the like. Imagine if there were coding boot camps that were entirely based on developing a good vibe with the computer, and didn’t involve learning about how to write code at all. People go in, “learn” something, but then they try to get a coding job and fall flat on their face because they don’t actually know anything. This is exactly the state of quantum physics re: the general public. I would guess as a scientist it would get demoralizing.
- viscanti 5y ago> Imagine if there were coding boot camps that were entirely based on developing a good vibe with the computer From my experience the industry is sorely lacking people who have developed a good vibe with the computer and we can probably trace the root cause of a lot of the major systemic issues we see to that. This boot camp sounds great.
- lisper 5y agoYou pretty much nailed it: "woo" is something that is so useless as to be worthy of condescension when it is presented otherwise (which woo invariably is).
- fourtrees 5y agoPeople with (often) new age mystical beliefs justify them with unconventional, incompletely understood, or naïve views of QM. Like the belief in the healing effects of crystals due to some quantum effect or that consciousness is generated by quantum effects in neurons. I seriously doubt any quantum mysticism is true, and I'm happy to defer to the physicists to get my woo from QM as in this experiment.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoMaybe don't tar Penrose with the same brush ?
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoMaybe be more specific in what you're referring to?
- BlueTemplar 5y ago> consciousness is generated by quantum effects in neurons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reducti...
- astrange 5y agoI can and I will. “Quantum effects” doesn’t mean magic - things like paint color come from “quantum effects” - but he is using it to mean brains are magic.
- fourtrees 5y agoPenrose, who's probably my favorite living physicist, is far from the only person who's attempted to connect QM to everything mental from consciousness, free will, qualia to telepathy or the efficacy of prayer. QM is a god-of-the-gaps for mental things we don't understand or don't really exist. And it plays that role in plenty of other places. One good reason for not lumping ORR in with crystal healing (beyond the rigor and erudition applied to the theories) is that ORR addresses what most would consider a real mystery in our understanding of the mind (however you define that), while crystal healing addresses something demonstrably false. I'll still contend there's some quantum woo to ORR, but for that reason it's been a brave attempt to further scientific knowledge.
- tomrod 5y ago> The term "woo" is so condescending and useless. This is what makes it so effective of a term, as it accurately describes the activities, behaviors, and ideologies to which it is applied!
- colordrops 5y agoYour post is exactly what is wrong here - we haven't even discussed any particular ideology. This is no different from McCarthyism. "They" are out there, and we must not allow them to continue, even though we aren't even talking about a particular person or ideology.
- tomrod 5y agoI categorically reject your slippery slope claim that we can't speak openly and negatively about socially maladaptive group behaviors regarding new age-ism philosophies and ideologies identified as "woo", especially when they use terms of science they misattribute and do not understand. > This is no different from McCarthyism What US Government official are blacklisting actors, politicians, and public officials for practicing new age-ism analogously to what McCarthy did for real and alleged communist sympathizers? None of note. And if there is legislation introduced that bans non-harming practices of belief, let us join arms and fight it together. In case you've read more into my comment or this chain, here is a recap: Here is what you said: >>>> The term "woo" is so condescending and useless. Here is what I said: >>> This is what makes it so effective of a term, as it accurately describes the activities, behaviors, and ideologies to which it is applied! Note: - No "they" - No calls for persecution What you read in my comment is simply an identification that the term "woo" accurately describes people who misapply attributes of quantum behavior to new age claims (and those who accept such attribution), as it is apt as one that describes the uselessness and base superstitiousness of such behavior, activities, and supporting ideologies.
- jkhdigital 5y ago> The animal is then observed to return to its active form after 420 hours at sub 10 mK temperatures and pressure of 6×10^-6 mbar, setting a new record for the conditions that a complex form of life can survive. !!!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- quadcore 5y agoI think we should throw a tardigrade at a black hole
- codezero 5y agoDon't you remember? That's how we got into this mess in the first place!
- dogma1138 5y agoDo you want cthulhu?
- varelse 5y agoI want cthulhu. Don't let the pandemic ruin your sense of fun.
- kingcharles 5y agoṕ̷̡̧̧̦̥̳̣̺̱̫͕̝͕͖̰̼̻̞̣́͐̓̊̾̿̒̿̌́̀̔̈́̅̚͝h̶̡̡̢̗̘̼̹̬̎̀̿͋̋̄͐̋̑̽͊͜͠ͅͅ'̴̛̟̯̞̍̈́͐̀̇͋͌̃̐́͊͊̓̈́́͒͋̒̈́͋̚͝n̸̡̢̢̬̣͚͙̪̻̟̘̼̪̘̖̝̭̲͊͗g̴̡̮̦̮̹̣̭̑̊́̓͛̋̆̇̿̾͝ͅl̵̡̹͈̱̖͕̼̽̀͗̂̀̀̿͑̔̊́̈́̇͠ͅu̸̧̨͓͙͇̪̤̤͇͚̫̮̬̦̤̣̙̜̺̰̘̭̭̩̥̱̱̍̅͑͊́̀̅̏̄̈́͌̒̽̀͘̕ĩ̴̢̨̠̙̫̖̹̙̬̪͇̣̜̹͕̼͇͍͎͓̰̮͖̭̐͜͜ ̸̨̥̇͆̑m̶̢͎̜͍̦̻͚͉̪̙͉̱͇̹͔̺̲͇̥̙̮̮̦̙̱̠̠̱͆̊̂́̉͂̀̓̋̆͋̈́͘̚ͅġ̵̛̬͙̠̼̘͎̻͈̳̖̦͓̯̩̪̩̆̕̚ͅl̶̨̗͍̻̫̩̺̠̲͔͍̻̭̘̼͖͈̙̻͎͉̖̟̟͖͈͓̞͔̉̿̄́w̵̡̨̧̡̛͕̹̭͓̰̱̜̲͎͉̠̤̟̟̺̲͎͓̬̤͔͇͇̟̯͋͌̏̀̈́̂̋͐͌͛͂́̂͆̈́̔͋́̎̄̈́̔̌̎̎͘̕͝'̴̳̗̪̘̬͕̙̻̗̈̈̃͋̂̽̀͆̏͘͝͝͠ͅṅ̴̛̺̺̦̼̖̦̪̣̖͙̠̜͙̭̞͍̭͎͖̉̍͑̐̓̀̓̐͑̋̓̈́̍̽̀̆̂̀̈̈́͊̀̃͠͝͠͝a̴̳̦̝̝̤̟̹̜̾̋̈́́̓̉̎̽̎̏̌̑̓͑̎̍̇̕ḟ̵̡̨͈̳̙̙͕͉̖̪̘͚̱̗͕͉̪͇̯̮̫͇͎̙͙̯̈́͒̆̂̎͂̉̆̍̄̆̐̄͜͝ḩ̷̢̨̧̧͖̮̜̥̲̲͓̦͓͉͕̪̻̩̻̝̩̻̝͋̓̈́̑́̍͐͊̈̓̓̽̊́̀̆̔̃̐̐͘͝͝͠ͅ ̴̨̢̛̭͍̱̠̲̺͔͍͖̬͚̥͈̲̺̣̫̳̻̥̘̮͙̅̒̿̐̍̀́͌̍̓̆͛̏̂͂̏̇̅̽̿͒̍͌͝C̸̢̢̖͎͈͉͖̟̹͉̮̳͎͎̭̣̱͍̳͍̾̆̒̒͒̕̕t̷̨̢̮͕̟̺̯̲͖̦̺͍̩̭̝͎͎̬̳̲̩͉̹̝̱͆̽̎̍̏̍̔͝͠ḩ̷̢̯͇̝̜͖̪̙͒̓͗̃͋̂̕͝͝͝ū̸̢̖͙̳̟̳̩̥̣̦͎̠͖̣̹̦͎̰̹͙̃̅̉̿̚ͅļ̴̢̠̝̟̦͉͚̹͍̥͇̟̥̞̐̒͌͛̀͛́̍̎̏̑̾̿͗̿́͋̔̅̀͌̒͘̕͘͝͝ͅḫ̶̺̩̖͚̝̱͔̤̮̒̏̄͌̊̋͒̎̂́́͛́̀͊̃͘̚͜͝ú̴̡̨̨͕̼̦͓̼͎̞̪̰̬̦̹̺̭̜̹̜̳͈̩̋̎̓͋͛̍͗̓̀͒̐͐̈̓̎͌͆̚̕̕ͅ ̵̡̡̛̦̰̤͔̩̱̙̠͍̞̹̮̳̫̱̳̹͕̳̲̻̪̺͉̲͑͐̂̌́͗̔ͅR̵̢̢̛̭̫͔̦̞̖̼͕͇̜̞̻̲̥̮͍̲̞̗͚̬̙͈̗̖̊̾̊̍́̉̈́̀̈́͑̑͋̽̾̀́̒̃̚͠͝͠͝͝͝͝͝'̴̳̮̭̺̥̌̃͊̃̅͐͋̔͘ͅl̷͕̤̱̩̟̯͚̺̤̲̯̙͙͎̮̠̻̗͇̫̏́͗̄͋ͅȳ̷̧̡̩̤͚̹̟͔̯͈̠̪̭̖̺̙͎͓̬̞̈́͊̇̅̔́̒͐̿̓̓͋̔̾͜ę̷̱̙̎ḩ̶̖̳̖̲̤̘͗̍̇̾̈́̀̌̄͋͗̈́̋͌̽̾̇͂͂̓̈͆̚͜͝͠͠ͅ ̸̡̮̗̖̩͔͇͍͉̣̤̣͇̲͚͔̪̬̩̥͕͔̥̥̣̽̓̊̈́̿͌̌̂̾̿͘w̶̧͇̠̝̝͇͖̥͉̤̼̰̻̜͕̙̫̘̋ͅĝ̸̢̬̭̙͈̖̘͒̎̀̌ậ̶͇̱̻͚͍͔̳͈̭̞͕͖̰̣̝͌̓͐h̶̨̜͇̭̖͔͍̘͍͎͉̰̹͕̝͂̔̅̃̽̊̍͒͑̃̆̒͆̈́́̄̐̚͜͜͠ͅ'̵̨̧̡̛̺͖̞͇͓̠̟͈̫̼̗͚́͊̔̄̇͆̇͝ͅn̷̢̧͈̼̞̩͍͙̘̰̗͔̗̦̻͔͖͔͇͔̻̠͉̣̹̞̼͆͂̈́̍̐̇́͋͆̕͝͝ͅa̴͌̈́͛̈́̉͌̿͛̎̾̉̈́̌̀͒̇̐̔̓̈́̾̕͝͝͠͠ͅg̶̨̨̜͇̱̫̮͍̙̞̮̠̭̖̓̀̓̌́̈ͅͅĺ̸̢̬͕̱͎̝͉̙̫̜̝̱͇̯̟̺̯͐̆͛̇̋̓̎͐͒̊͂ͅ ̶̛͎̐̄͌͂̄̋̈́̄̐͘͠f̷̧̜͔̳̱̭̖̥̱͚̣̹̠͉͖̜͉̟̙̰̏̔͂͑͑͌̑̇͂͛̒̀̇͂̈́̆̅̓̌̚͘͘͘͜h̷͍̜͍̰̫͈̲̙̀̏̓͊̒͊̔̋ͅẗ̸̡̧̗̬̮̙͖͍͔̺̳̤̞͈͔͈̼̥̳̳̻͓̳̮̖͎̻̲̍̏̈́͆̊̋͒̔̔̚ͅa̶̡̡̧̡̹̝̪̹̹̼̯̮̮̙̤̿͊̔̌̔̏͆͝ģ̵̡̧̢̛̹͓͚̦̞͍͙̹͍͖͙͕͖̜͇͇̘͔̪̔̒ņ̴̡̧̪̠̫͈̘̠̗̗̫͇͔̗͉̼̫͚͙̖̬̐̈́͐̂͝ͅ
- jhgb 5y ago"Consider a spherical tardigrade in vacuum..."
- akomtu 5y agoThe future of quantum computers: scientists watch how a few tardigrades navigate a labyrinth, make notes in complete silence and with a straight face expression update the chalkboard filled with GR/QM equations.
- 29athrowaway 5y agoBlaze it
- onemoresoop 5y agoDo you expect any life form to survive fire?
- BobbyJo 5y agoI survive fire every day at 4:20.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- otikik 5y agoThey should have put Paul Stamets in the references at least.
- zepto 5y agoObviously quantum entanglement is how the tardigrade remains connected to the subspace mycelial network. I’m surprised they don’t mention this.
- ggfgg 5y agoPlease don’t give me flashbacks to that horse crap.
- tomrod 5y agoHorse crap grows the best mushrooms, I hear. And modern Star Trek rocks. Definitely a different groove but a fun one regardless.
- mpalmer 5y agoThe first season was fun. The second and third seasons were a fantasy soap opera almost totally divorced from what makes Star Trek great.
- p2t2p 5y agoThe third season was where we saw the TNG level of writing for the first time since TNG. The admiral speeches and negotiations with the chain are magnificent. edit: my poor spelling.
- pezezin 5y agoThe admiral was great; Michael and other characters crying/shouting almost constantly were not. They are supposed to be the best of the best, yet they behaved like whiny teenagers.
- p2t2p 5y agoI believe that they were interns fresh out of the academy so they _are_ teenagers that were thrown into war. No excuse for Michael though, she really put me off. To their credit they did joke about get behaviour in season 3.
- dash2 5y agoIs it like Schrödinger's Tardigrade?
- ajb 5y agoNot unless they kill it conditionally on the value of a qubit. But in fact they 'merely' affected some charges on the tardigrade. Its living/dead status was not entangled.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoAlthough with tardigrades, it's not as if anyone can tell. I hope this is not the beginning of quantum tardigrade computing. (Because that has Netflix Original all over it.)
- anotheraccount9 5y agoNo. It's more like alive versus Schrödinger's Tardigrade.
- thehappypm 5y agoIs this parody?
- dang 5y agoI have the same question. It seems https://www.vlatkovedral.com/entangled-tardigrades/ https://www.vlatkovedral.com/entangled-tardigrades/ is serious? and it's by an Oxford prof.
- thehappypm 5y agoIt seems like a social experiment or something..
- daltonlp 5y agoYes. My favorite laugh line from the paper: "Maximum likelihood estimation was then employed to prevent the resulting density matrix from having nonphysical properties." In other words, "We made up some numbers that looked impressive"
- dang 5y agoOk, maybe we'd better downweight this submission. Thanks.
- _joel 5y agoDoes this mean the spore drive is on it's way :)
- account-5 5y agoThere's a joke here somewhere about entangling an NTF to the thing it's meant to convey ownership of, and thereby negating all criticism of NFTs... Maybe not
- dkersten 5y agoAn NFT halting problem? The NFT points to a thing that only exists if the NFT doesn’t point to it, or something.
- billiam 5y agoDon't know what to say, I'm speechless. We all love us some tardigrades, but this is quite a statement about the resilience of life. If anything from here can colonize the universe, it's these guys.
- hkt 5y agoTardigrades are amazing and so is this. But I fully expect the next experiment will end with facehugger sized tardigrades tearing through some Black Mesa-esque lab.
- Sporktacular 5y agoWhy
- ghostly_s 5y agoTorturing Tardigrades For Fun and Profit^X^X^X^X^X^X^X Citations.
- 6177c40f 5y agoI'm not really sure what they're trying to accomplish here, but I never thought I'd read a quantum physics-related paper with the sentences: "We place a tardigrade tun on a superconducting transmon qubit and observe coupling between the qubit and the tardigrade tun via a shift in the resonance frequency of the new qubit-tardigrade system. This joint qubit-tardigrade system is then entangled with a second superconducting qubit."
- roughly 5y agoSame - it’s technically impressive, but I just have no idea what one can Do with this, it’s so incredibly weird.
- colechristensen 5y agoIt might be quite the stretch, but possibly one day real beam-me-up-scotty quantum teleportation of a living thing.
- anigbrowl 5y agoPresumably, changes in the quantum state of the tardigrade's atoms could be inferred from the state of the qubits, thus potentially allowing chemical activity inside cells to be monitored without dissections.
- dang 5y agoAll: could you please not post dumb, obvious comments about this? Either the story is interesting and significant [1] or it shouldn't be on HN's front page. Either way, the thread shouldn't fill up with shallow internet reflux. I get that the novelty of this story is activating, but we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] which does seem to be the case? I can't really tell. But this alone is significant: "setting a new record for the conditions that a complex form of life can survive" Edit: I'm downweighting this as some sort of parody, barring more information.
- thisrod 5y agoSo this is me. A decade ago, I would have been a plausible choice of referee for a paper like this. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=C6BzRwwAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=C6BzRwwAAAAJ You'll have to take my word for it, as I don't currently have a university job. For some reason, Google doesn't let you authenticate your Scholar account with your ORCID account, even though they trust ORCID to verify that you wrote the papers. This paper sounds legitimate to me. If it was made up, it would be a fraud, not a spoof. That's unlikely, because the authors come from the most legitimate institutions there are (The University of Oxford, The National University of Singapore). ArXiv verifies institutional affiliation. Even if it is made up, the experiment is plausible. I can get how it sounds like a spoof. I laughed out loud at: > We simulate the electric fields and capacitance shifts using ANSYS Maxwell where the tardigrade is modelled as a cube of length 100μm I.e, they literally assume a cubical tardigrade in a vacuum! Actually, I did present this experiment as a spoof, at a physics department O-week camp 20 years ago. I think we used a monkey instead of a tardigrade. It was as lame as it sounds. > My favorite laugh line from the paper: "Maximum likelihood estimation was then employed to prevent the resulting density matrix from having nonphysical properties." What they did is totally legitimate. Reconstructing density matrices is numerically unstable, a bit like any computerized tomography. This is similar to constraining a noisy CAT scan, to avoid the "nonphysical property" that the air at some point in your lungs has density less than zero. Engtangling a live animal is a hell of a party trick. No doubt about that. So how much does this matter scientifically? Here we're getting into subjective territory, and what follows is my opinion. The surprising aspect is biological, not physical. I might have guessed that, if you cooled a tardigrade to the temperature that quantum electronics operate at, you could use it as a quantum electronic component. I wouldn't have guessed that the tardigrade would get up and walk away afterwards! The philosophical significance? It depends, of course. For materialists like me, who make sense of quantum wierdness the Everettian way, it makes no difference. Of course electrons can get entangled, and the electrons in a tardigrade—or a physicist—are still electrons. (The price we pay is a very, very, odd sense of personal identity.) For idealists, this is quite a big deal. If you insist that you are a definite state of consciousness, then you need to draw a line somewhere, between the part of the universe that is you, and the other parts that can be quantum superpositions. Twenty years ago, that was easy: you're an animal, not an atom, duh. This makes it a bit harder: you're a ... big animal? How big, exactly? You could be some non-electronic degree of freedom, but surely that's a stretch neurologically. It's a lot easier to draw a categorical distinction of animal vs mineral than of human-like observers vs other animals. If they can entangle a tardigrade, then in principle they could entangle your pet dog. Is it much comfort that they can't, yet, entangle you?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago“ Here we not only go beyond Bohr’s complementarity by entangling a living system to two superconducting quantum bits, but we also expose an additional twist in areas where quantum physics, chemistry and biology all overlap. Namely, the living system we study is a tardigrade which is capable of suspending its living functions for an indefinite amount of time if the external conditions are deemed to be adverse enough for survival [2]. In that sense, and this is a point that Bohr certainly missed, it is possible to do a quantum and hence a chemical study of a system, without destroying its ability to function biologically.” I would argue that it isn’t living when it’s at mK temperatures, but that it is frozen/dead but revivable (like the children who have fallen recently off of bridges in to frozen rivers and been revived hours later). Life is amazing.
- karlicoss 5y agoSort of a big philosophical question in quantum physics is what would be the experience of an entangled consciousness being (say, a human). However if you have to freeze the human to a complete metabolic halt (to achieve coherence), then it seems that it wouldn't be able to experience anything at all? And if you don't freeze the human, then it would be impossible to entangle it with an external system? Then, I guess one could argue that you could build a more thermally efficient system (say an AGI) that can experience and tell us about what it feels like to be entangled. But in order for it to experience/think, it would need to do some computation, so is subject to the Landauer's limit, and would need to release heat, which will also break the coherence? Has anyone done this kind of calculation?
- wyager 5y ago> what would be the experience of an entangled consciousness being Is there any reason to suspect it wouldn't feel completely normal? Obviously whether we're entangled all the time varies depending on which model of QM you're working with (any linear model like MW would say we are), but I can't think of an interpretation that would predict a difference in subjective experience of a quantum system that's entangled from the POV of some observer outside the system.
- sideshowb 5y ago> Is there any reason to suspect it wouldn't feel completely normal? Exactly > an interpretation that would predict a difference in subjective experience Chaos makes this effectively impossible to achieve, but: what if you (embedded in the experiment) could achieve the exact same end state via multiple different intermediate states, ie in one case you observed the qubit on, and in the other you observed it off. Now what would you remember?
- wyager 5y agoIf you achieved the exact same end state, then by definition all of those paths would have the same subjective memory. The only way to achieve the exact same end state is if you actually didn't observe the qubit in two different states, or if you forgot about it. Your brain would be the same at the end.
- aleks224 5y agosame authors and their previous paper about magnetized cockroaches https://www.quantumlah.org/about/highlight/2019-09-cockroaches-win-award https://www.quantumlah.org/about/highlight/2019-09-cockroach... >The award was presented for the paper “In-vivo biomagnetic characterisation of the American cockroach", published in Scientific Reports in March 2018 by Rainer and five collaborators
- fractallyte 5y agoWhat's most intriguing is that it lends support to Roger Penrose's theories of the role of quantum mechanics in the brain. Here's a nice article: https://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute https://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-wh... And if that's true, then our notions of AI are seriously underestimated. (Which is what biologist Brian J Ford has been saying for a long time...) Quantum mechanics rocked the physics world a century ago, perhaps now it will do the same to biology and computer science...?