Didn't Alice pass bye?
Or was it Roger :)

It's the first time I've read about entanglement using separate sources which is rather quite interesting and impressive. I'm guessing it may represent a disruption in the development of quantum optical computing and interferometry.

Well... theoretically, if all matter in the universe was created at exactly the same time and location, all matter should be entangled. So does the very act of our observing it disentangle it, collapse all those wave functions of potential locations, and solidify our observable universe? That said, how can we theorize on the parts of the universe we have yet to observe??

This is a rather deep rabbit hole, yes...

So observing is entangling?

Nay, observing is disentangling

So how did they they get them entangled then?
Those 'separate' pairs.

Hi all,
Hi again, Yor_on. I'm reading through that article for the second time know. It seems to have serious implications in quantum computing (which I know little of), but I would like to understand how it compares to standard Quantum Entanglement. I look forward to trying to understand it more and give you my opinion later.
Peace All,
Ron

I would enjoy that :)

And now, down in the wabbithole again :)

I've read that ''they'', you know, those ''scientist guys & gals'', have been entangling photon-pairs by forcing photons to interfere, which statiscally speaking is no small feat due to their bosonic nature. From what I gather, the quantum states of photons must be exactly identical in order to get them to interfere, which statistically does not oft occur in nature. I would think if we forced two beams through a nanocoax, we would get all kinds of interesting-like self-interference, which may or may not be so useful. What I have learned is observing affects the quantum state of photons, but I don't think observing necessarily destroys the entanglement, however, the ''experiment'' collapses catastrophically. I think the way it all compares is (I'm guessing here) ''usually'' the second beam is used for measuring ''differences''. Not sure this helps much, but that is what my quantum brain has thus far been able to synthesize. Due to the ''Heisenberg Uncertainty Pricinciple'', the problem remains somewhat elusive. I would keep my ''eye(s)'' on the developments in the entangling of atomic states between atoms, virtual atoms, photons, virtual photons, atomic cluster states, slowed light, the study of light and matter waves, along with ''bleeding edge'' metrology, which all provide copious amounts of delicious and yummy mind candy for those fixated on the speed, time and distance equations. At this point, I don't think we need despair Bose Einstein Condensates require cooling, however I do think we need to build massive arrays of ''relatively larger'' qubits which has proven to not be so simple. BTW, ''42'' is the index of refraction for rainbows, and whether the chicken or the egg came first, matters not.

QUANTUM
http://www.physorg.com/search/search.php?s...um&arrange=date

BOSE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose

EINSTEIN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein

CONDENSATE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93...tein_condensate

HEISENBERG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

EPR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Oops.

I made a mistake concerning BOSONS.

Anywho, it's one way or the other...

Seems I'll need to further understand the differences between the bosons and the fermions.

Oh no! Thinks are quickly getting a bit more complicated!!!
PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE

I just read QE using 2 sources was done 10 years ago, circa 1997.