Tag: Quantum Entanglement

Book Review: ‘The Dent in the Universe’ by E. W. Doc Parris

Last year I published a review of a book entitled ‘Recursion’ by author Blake Crouch. In that review I praised ‘Recursion’ for having a very unusual slant on the old SF theme of time travel. Like ‘Recursion’, the plot of  ‘The Dent in the Universe’ by author E. W. Doc Parris also concerns a very different, and interesting kind of time travel, although as you might guess the results are every bit as chaotic.

Cover Art for “A Dent in the Universe” by E.W. Doc Parris. (Credit: Amazon)
Author of ‘A Dent in the Universe’ E. W. Doc Parris. (Credit: Amazon)

One Corporation is a high-tech company operating out of California’s silicon valley in the near future, the 2030s. The company specializes in developing video games and their chief claim to fame is the sChip, an integrated circuit that uses Quantum Entanglement to achieve Faster Than Light (FTL) communications with other sChips. This property allows gamers all over the world to play One Corporation’s video games together without any nasty time delays because of distance. (Actually there are some theorists who think something like that might be possible.)

Einstein called Quantum Entanglement “Fuzzy action at a Distance.” but could it be faster than light? (Credit: The Quantum Atlas)

About ten years after the sChip is first introduced an accident causes a large portion of the network to crash, a gamer spilled his coke onto his terminal. An investigation by One Corporation’s chief scientist, the guy who invented the sChip in the first place, reveals that the crash originated when the coke spilling gamers sChip sent a conformation signal to his buddy’s sChip BEFORE it was asked for the conformation. It seems sChips are not only capable of FTL they can send messages into the past.

Time Travel is one of the oldest and most often used plot device in Science Fiction. In fact it’s been used so often that you have to be very cleaver to come up with a new approach to the idea! (Credit: Penguin Random House)

That’s the neat part about ‘The Dent in the Universe’. Here time travel is limited to only information being send through time, not material objects. Another constraint on time travel in ‘The Dent in the Universe’ is that time travel is only possible through sChips and therefore the farthest back it is possible to go is ten years, when the first sChip was made.

In ‘A Dent in the Universe’ sending messages back in time is only possible through a special integrated circuit, the ‘S Chip’ and hence you can only go as far back in time as to when the first S Chip was made. (Credit: In Compliance Magazine)

Of course it was a part of Stephan Hawkins’ work over decades that showed that information is still energy so it is a material object. Think about it, in a computer information is stored by flipping magnetic fields, something that requires energy to do. So sending information back in time is still sending a material object, the energy to flip a magnetic field, back in time. Nevertheless the unique take on time travel, and the consequences thereof, is the best part of ‘The Dent in the Universe’.

Stephen Hawking spend much of his career wondering if information is destroyed by entering a black hole. His research did show how information is a kind of energy however. (Credit: Nature)

The worst part is the villain, a serial killer of the Bind Torture Kill or Jeffery Dalmer type. I don’t consider myself to have a weak stomach but there were several sections of ‘The Dent in the Universe’ that were simply unpleasant to read, and that’s being kind. There were a lot of gory details that simply weren’t necessary for the plot as far as I was concerned. By the way the idea of a serial killer getting his hands on a time machine isn’t new. Back in the 1979 there was a movie called ‘Time after Time’ where Jack the Ripper, played by David Warner, got his hand’s on H. G. Wells’ time Machine and traveled to 1980s San Francisco. Wells was played by Malcolm McDowell.

In the 1979 movie ‘Time After Time’ H. G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell left) shows Jack the Ripper (David Warner right) his Time Machine. Jack then uses it to escape to 1980s San Francisco. (Credit: Film-Authority.com)

All of that is quite a shame because much of ‘The Dent in the Universe’ is well plotted out, something very necessary in a time travel story and rather exciting. The story could have worked just as well without so much graphic gore.

I’m not a big fan of Slasher movies, which was a big problem I had with ‘A dent in the Universe’, the villain was just too gory for my taste. (Credit: Medium)

I do have one other complaint as well. Like many SF stories that take place in the near future ‘The Dent in the Universe’ is filled with techno-talk. The computer gamers all say things like “Rashad’s device processed a D-pad signal at the I/O bus”. Meanwhile the detective’s hunting the serial killer all say things like  “That’s inside the feeding zone. Walking distance to the MPWS station, Good eyes Detective Baker, good eyes.” Sometimes I wonder if authors are just trying to impress their readers with how in tune they are with the language spoken by experts in various fields.

Nowadays every profession has its own specialized jargon. Writing an entire novel using only those forms of speech can be a bit tiring after a while however. (Credit: Tech Talk)

And finally it turns out that ‘The Dent in the Universe’ is just the first installment in another series of novels. I haven’t made up my mind as to whether I’ll read the next installment. As I said  ‘The Dent in the Universe’ had some really interesting parts, as well as some very unpleasant ones.

The Nobel Prizes for 2022 are Announced. This year it’s the award for Physiology that’s the most interesting and unusual.

It’s early October and that means it’s Nobel Prize time, the one time of the year when the media pays at least some attention to science.

TV doesn’t completely ignore Science, there are a few good Science programs like PBS’s Nova. However compared to all of the cop and doctor shows finding anything about Science is like looking for a needle in a haystack. (Credit: PBS)

The prize for physiology or medicine came first this year on the 3rd of October and the award went to arguably the most interesting of all of this year’s recipents. The winner was the Swedish geneticist Svante Paabo who was honoured for his work in sequencing the entire genome of our ancient cousins the Neanderthals and comparing it and the DNA of another extinct close relative the Denisovans to that of modern humans. 

Nobel laureate Svante Paabo with one of his research subjects. (Credit: ABC News)

Dr. Paabo spent more than 20 years assembling bits and pieces of Neanderthal DNA from the best preserved teeth and bones of that extinct species. The task was made more difficult because the minute amounts of ancient DNA that are preserved in fossilized samples can easily be swamped by modern DNA from bacteria or even the paleontologists who unearthed it. In order to carry out his work Paabo first had to develop the clean room facilities and policies that would minimize contamination and even then he had to learn how to separate the ancient DNA from whatever modern DNA that still remained.

Finding ancient DNA is no easy task. Much of it is lost and what little remains can be swamped by the DNA of the scientists unearthing it. (Credit: Nobel Prize)

When Dr. Paabo finally succeeded in assembling the entire Neanderthal genome what he discovered was that the Neanderthals haven’t quite gone extinct. In fact around 50,000 years ago there was a good deal of mixing going on between our ancestors and both the Neanderthals and Denisovans so that today most Europeans and Central Asians have as much as 5% of their genes coming from those ancient relatives.

It’s not quite this straightforward but all of us have inside us the remains of our ancient past. (Credit: Goodreads)

The next day the Physics award was announced and this year’s Nobel went to John Clauser for work carried out in the 1970s at the Lawrence Berkeley Labouratories in California, Alain Aspect, who extended Dr. Clauser’s work during the 1980s at the University of Paris along with Anton Zeilinger of Austria who continued the work of Clauser and Aspect. What the three men studied that won them their Nobel was the strange, almost eerie phenomenon called quantum entanglement, a concept that Einstein rejected as ‘spooky action at a distance’.

This year’s winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics. From left to right Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger who all contributed to our knowledge of quantum entanglement. (Credit: Nobel Prize)

Quantum entanglement occurs when two or more particles are placed into a system whose characteristics are measured; let’s say a system of two particles with one spin up and the other spin down. If the two particles are then carefully separated, careful being why Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger received a Nobel prize, the particles remain entangled so that if one is measured to be spin up then the other, no matter how far away it may now be, has to be spin down.

Einstein didn’t like the concept but thanks to the work of Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger we now know that quantum entanglement is a real part of our Universe. (Credit: NASA)

Besides being an interesting phenomenon in its own right quantum entanglement also has practical applications in the fields of quantum information and quantum computing. So the work of Doctors Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger may become even more important in the next few decades.

The next revolution in computers may be quantum computers, which operate on principles related to quantum entanglement. (Credit: DUG Technology)

The Nobel prize for Chemistry came next and was announced on the 5th of October. This year’s award went to Carolyn R. Bertozzi of Stanford University in California, Morten Meldal of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark along with K. Barry Sharpless of the Scripps Research Institute in the USA. The three chemists were awarded the prize for their research into ‘click chemistry’ different techniques that allow molecules to be clicked together like lego blocks in order to build larger molecules.

This year’s winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry are, left to right, Carolyn Bertozzi, Morten Meldal and K. Barry Sharpless. This is Dr. Sharpless’ second Nobel a feat only accomplished by five scientists. (Credit: The Washington Post)

It was Doctor Sharpless who coined the term click chemistry in the year 2000 when he and Doctor Meldal independently discovered a chemical reaction called copper-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition that has allowed a tremendous number of different large molecules to be assembled. Doctor Bertozzi then extended the concept to chemistry performed on biomolecules, often molecules on the outer surface of living cells. These developments have led to new medicines for the treatment of cancer and the sequencing of DNA.

Alkyne-Azide was the original click developed independently by Sharpless and Meldal but in the years since other such techniques have been discovered. (Credit: Research Gate)

The chemistry prize was notable for two other reasons because Dr. Bertozzi is the only woman to be awarded a science Nobel this year, becoming only the eighth woman to do so. Also, Dr. Sharpless’ award makes him the fifth person to receive two Nobels, his first came in 2001 for his work on chirally catalyzed oxidation reactions.

The element Copper is very toxic to living cells so Dr Bertozzi developed a copper free form of click chemistry. (Credit: GeneLink)

Finally on the 10th of October the economics prize given ‘in memory of Alfred Nobel’ was awarded to Ben Bernanke, the former head of the US Federal Reserve along with Douglas Diamond of the University of the University of Chicago and Philip Dybvig of Washington University in St. Louis. The three men were honoured for their work on the role of banks in financial crises.

And the Nobel Prize for economics goes to, left to right, Ben Bernanke, Douglas Diamond and Philip Dybvig for their work on Banks during financial crises. (Credit: Kyodo News)

While the studies carried out by Bernanke, Diamond and Dybvig were conducted back in the 1980s the results became very important during the financial crisis that shook the world’s economy in 2008. Ben Bernanke was of course Federal Reserve Chief at that time and so he had the opportunity to put his own research into action.

Ben Bernanke’s position as Chief of the US Federal Reserve during the financial crisis of 2008 gave him the chance to put his theories to good use. (GAO)

Bernanke’s work demonstrated how bank failures during the great depression of the 1930s were not caused by the initial recession but instead drove the recession into a deep depression. Bernanke showed how the loss of information about lenders that occurred when banks failed made it difficult for the economy to recover, lengthening the time of the depression. Diamond and Dybvig meanwhile investigated the role of banks in linking lenders and borrowers in ways that are mutually beneficial to both.

The man and his prize. Alfred Nobel funded the prizes in his honour in his will. (Credit: Famous Scientists)

Alfred Nobel’s intend in establishing his prizes was to encourage new and innovative discoveries that would be valuable to all humanity. The work of this year’s recipients demonstrate how well he succeeded.  

Physicists use imaginary numbers all of the time to help them describe physical reality, but do they themselves have any physical reality?

We all remember square roots from our high school math classes. You know, since 3 times 3, formally 32 squared, equals 9 that means that the square root of 9 is 3. Some numbers, like 9 have nice round square roots like 3. Other numbers, have square roots that are irrational, that is the number never comes to an end and never repeats itself. The square root of 17 is 4.12310563… for example.

The study of ‘Perfect Squares’ is a branch of number theory in mathematics. (Credit: Socratic)

Negative numbers are a special problem because you’ll remember that a negative number times another negative number gives a positive number. Therefore -3 times -3 is +9, not -9. So what is the square root of -9? Does it even have one?

(By the way, if you’ve always had difficulty imagining why a negative times a negative gives a positive consider this metaphor. Someone films a bathtub while water is draining out of it. That film is then shown running backwards! The water draining out is a negative, running the film backwards is also negative but what you would see is the water rising in the tub. A positive!)

For along time mathematicians simply ignored the possibility of the square root of a negative number. Such things just don’t exist they said. Then a sixteenth century Italian mathematician named Cardan was trying to find two numbers that when added together equal 10 but when multiplied equal 40. The solution he got was:

Cardan himself wrote that his solution was meaningless, fictitious and imaginary. But it worked. It worked so well that mathematicians quickly figured out how to contain the madness as it were.

What they did was to define an imaginary number, i2=-1, not i= √-1, the number i is actually never defined, only its square is. Nevertheless anytime mathematicians came across a √-1 they would replace it with i. So for example √-16=√16*√-1=4*√-1=4i.

If you define the imaginary number i this way mathematicians will consider you poorly educated. (Credit: Wumbo)
This is the proper way to define i. (Credit: Kahn Academy)

Formally the square root of a negative number is called imaginary, like 4i, but a combination of an imaginary number and a real number is called a complex number, 5+4i would be an example where 5 is the real portion and 4 the imaginary part. All complex numbers have a strange counterpart called the complex conjugate where every i has its sign changed, i→-i and -i→i everywhere. Whenever a complex number is multiplied by its complex conjugate the result is always entirely real, for example taking the most basic complex number A+iB where A and B are both real numbers and i2= -1 the complex conjugate would be A-iB and:


The terms in i cancel each other out while the i2 term =-1. Since A and B are both real A2+B2 is totally real. For a time it was thought, or perhaps hoped would be a better word, that imaginary and complex numbers were just mathematical fictions, with no application in the real world. However it was found that the familiar trigonometric functions could be expressed as complex functions.

Physicists meanwhile were starting to use the sin and cos functions to represent waves of varying kinds, light waves, sound waves, alternating current in electrical systems etc. Things got even worse during the development of quantum mechanics when the wave nature of subatomic particles became evident and the solutions ψ(x,t) of the Schrödinger wave equation:

are always complex. It was physicist Max Born who figured a way out of this dilemma when he suggested that ψ itself is not observable, its only when ψ is multiplied by its complex conjugate ψ* giving ψψ*= real that the answer to the Schrödinger equation becomes an observable. Schrödinger himself considered the presence of all those i’s in his equation to be unpleasant writing to a fellow physicist that “ψ is surely a fundamentally real function.” This is where physics has remained now for nearly a century with the solutions to our equations giving complex answers but we only pay attention to the so-called ‘real’ part.

Complex numbers are a bit easier to understand, and are very useful, if you consider them as a 2-dimensional plane. The real part is along the x-axis while the imaginary part becomes the y-axis and the complex number as a whole becomes a vector! (Credit: TeX StackExchange)

Now a group of theoreticians has proposed a thought experiment wherein the reality of imaginary numbers is required and it involves another of quantum mechanics strange properties, quantum entanglement. The basic idea of quantum entanglement is that if you measure the state of two particles those particles are now entangled and even if you separate them the measurement of them as a system must remain the same.

Physicists are currently playing all kinds of games with the particles of light called photons in order to learn more about the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. (Credit: J-Wiki at Wikipedia)

To put it more simply, if you measured a system of two coins and found it to have one head and one tail and then separated them by a great distance. Once separated if you measure one to be a head, then the other must be a tail no matter how far apart they now are. (Mind you the trick is to separate the two particles or coins without breaking the entanglement.) This effect has been both demonstrated and calculated using only the real parts of the wave function ψ.

Einstein considered quantum entanglement to be “spooky action at a distance” but that doesn’t mean it’s not real. (Credit: Quantum Mind)

The new thought experiment starts by making things more complicated. Let’s say I have two entangled particles and send one to a friend in California named Perry and the other to a friend in Florida named Nancy. Another physicist in Illinois also has a pair of entangled particles and sends one to Nancy in Florida and the other to a friend in Massachusetts named Bill. Notice how the second set of particles doesn’t come from me.

Now the question. Are the two particles received by Perry and Bill entangled, keeping in mind that Nancy got one from each of us? Well the only way to get the answer that everyone expects to be correct, remember this experiment hasn’t been performed yet, is by assuming that the imaginary part of the wave function of the entire system has a physical reality.

Euler’s equation, which contains only the five principal constants of mathematics, is often called the most beautiful equation. (Credit: Live Science)

At the moment the paper, which includes physicists Marc-Olivier Renou of the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Spain and Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva, is undergoing peer review so these results are preliminary. Also, if the groups thought experiment does survive scrutiny you can bet someone is going to try to perform the experiment for real.

We all feel this way sometimes when we have to work with imaginary numbers! (Credit: Medium)

Imaginary numbers have befuddled both mathematicians and scientists for going on 500 years now and will undoubtedly continue to do so for even longer. The whole thing seems so simple, yet so weird, and trust me if you don’t pay attention you can screw them up so easily. I guess maybe it’s just a little more evidence of how important our imagination is in understanding reality.