×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Let Quantum Physics Officiate Your Wedding

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the physics-of-love dept.

Idle 70

disco_tracy writes "Conceptual artist Jonathon Keats has come up with the ultimate in a nondenominational wedding ceremony: quantum entanglement. From the article: 'Keats has designed an entangling apparatus, which, when situated in a sunny window and exposed to the full spectrum of solar radiation, divides pairs of entangled photons and translates them to the bodies of a nearby couple.' As unusual as it seems, the ceremony is serious business to Keats, who says, 'The quantum marriage will literally be broken up by skepticism about it.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

70 comments

Non-monogamous discrimination! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36104452)

Even in quantum physics! :(

Re:Non-monogamous discrimination! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36116362)

It's perfectly possible to entangle n particles even when n>2.

A different way (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104462)

My version of the quantum entanglement wedding ceremony employs lasers with nice coherent, monochromatic light.

And sharks, of course,

Re:A different way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36104524)

And sharks, of course,

Calling your in-laws "sharks" might not be the best way to start your marriage.

Re:A different way (1)

flnhst (2008724) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104536)

And sharks, of course,

With friggin' lasers on their head.

Re:A different way (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104570)

You spotted a joke!

Good for you.

Re:A different way (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104674)

You spotted a joke!

Good for you.

I spotted someone who spotted someone who spotted a joke!

Good for me.

Re:A different way (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104814)

I spotted a joke, which started the whole world crying

Re:A different way (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#36105654)

Chuck Norris doesn't spot jokes. He just looks grim, and the joke stops being funny.

Re:A different way (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#36108332)

Chuck Norris doesn't spot jokes. He just looks grim, and the joke stops being funny.

A Chuck Norris joke about Chuck Norris making jokes unfunny. That's such an excellent comment on the meme that it's almost back around to funny again.

Re:A different way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36105314)

I spot those who don't spot jokes. Do I spot myself?

And your vows will be... (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 2 years ago | (#36109342)

"If you're going to be That Way about it, I'll use stronger lasers, next time!"

Or perhaps...

"A cutting laser, Igor? I vow I'll make you pay for this, if it's the last thing I do!"

Yes, go ahead and use a laser for your ceremony. It'll make for a brief, but shining moment in the life of your bride, one she'll remember for the rest of her life.

Oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36104588)

'The quantum marriage will literally be broken up by skepticism about it.'

Well, there go the divorce lawyers jobs.

Re:Oops (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#36135752)

Well, it will give interesting new legal problems, given that in a quantum wedding, you can say "yes" and "no" at the same time.

one method to prove that... (5, Funny)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104744)

Many marriages do exist, but when you look closer....don't.

Re:one method to prove that... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36110590)

I think if you use the entanglement device with someone other than your spouse it can end the marriage too.

Skepticism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36104750)

A cute idea and all, and I hate to be the one to shoot big logical holes in a romantic concept, but 'The quantum marriage will literally be broken up by skepticism about it' seems more than a bit shaky to me. I suppose, technically, you might be carrying around a bunch of entangled particles for a while, and theoretically, you might at some point decide to isolate one of those particles (umm.. how, exactly?) and study it and in doing so collapse its waveform but... seriously?

Still, if I was getting married, I might consider something like this. Like I say, it's a cute, romantic notion derived from real science. Why not?

Re:Skepticism? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104800)

Pop-quantum physics is, alas, absolutely fucking rife with nonsense derived from the interpretation that the "observer" in ye olde Schrödinger's cat thought experiment means "conscious, in the way I imagine myself to be, observer" rather than "virtually any outside interaction that disrupts the closed system". From that fount much bullshit flows...

Re:Skepticism? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36105724)

It would have helped if whomever came up with that analogy hadn't said "observer", and instead been more precise.

It's an example of science needing more people who know how to communicate ideas with the common people.

Re:Skepticism? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#36106204)

Pop-quantum physics is, alas, absolutely fucking rife with nonsense derived from the interpretation that the "observer" in ye olde Schrödinger's cat thought experiment means "conscious, in the way I imagine myself to be, observer" rather than "virtually any outside interaction that disrupts the closed system". From that fount much bullshit flows...

There have been serious arguments among academic philosophers based on that misconception.

Re:Skepticism? (2)

radtea (464814) | more than 2 years ago | (#36107332)

Pop-quantum physics is, alas, absolutely fucking rife with nonsense

The word that comes to mind is "incoherent"...

Eh... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104808)

Why do we need all this fancy optical apparatus when good old-fashioned two-body superposition can easily be achieved at home, without additional hardware(unless desired, of course)?

Schrödinger's Wife (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36104848)

So does this mean you can be married and single at the same time, so long as no one is observing you?

Re:Schrödinger's Wife (4, Funny)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#36105726)

It means you can be entangled with many different partners at the same time, as long as no one is observing you...

Re:Schrödinger's Wife (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#36135786)

It means you can be entangled with many different partners at the same time, as long as no one is observing you...

No, at least not completely, due to the monogamy of entanglement.
(And no, I'm not making this up.) [google.com]

Re:Schrödinger's Wife (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36106674)

Yeah, the hidden states, the ones no one ever observed, those were some nice states. It's the ones my wife saw that didn't work out so well.

Re:Schrödinger's Wife (1)

jIyajbe (662197) | more than 2 years ago | (#36109456)

Almost; you'd actually be (1/sqrt(2))*married + ((1/sqrt(2))*single. But, imagine the superpositions!

Re:Schrödinger's Wife (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#36135886)

Actually, the single part can also be imaginary:
(1/sqrt(2)) (|married> + i |single>)

Of course you can make the married state imaginary instead:
(1/sqrt(2)) (i |married> + |single>)

Note that both states are orthogonal to each other.

Combine this (2)

WizardMarnok (2032762) | more than 2 years ago | (#36104862)

Combine this with weddings for animals. I want a pair of cats in sealed boxes to get wed. THEN we can have a serious scientific discussion.

Re:Combine this (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36105062)

Schrödinger's cat does not exist in two states until the opening of the box. The cat entered the box in one state, and will exit it in only one state. The equations must be manipulated as if the cat were in multiple states in order to contain either outcome in a single expression, but in fact the cat will be in only one state: An undead zombie cat, both living and not.

Hold on... you said WED? (1)

new death barbie (240326) | more than 2 years ago | (#36105710)

I thought you said, WET.

I'm... ummmm... I'm not telling the cats, just yet. But there's no doubt in my mind, they're alive in there.

Why photons? (1)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 2 years ago | (#36105150)

Seems to me that divided pairs of entangled electrons are much easier absorbed by the bodies of the couple to be wed.

That, and the prospect of getting a nice shock, which should make people think a bit harder about whether they really want to get married...

"Nondenominational"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36105284)

subatomic particles become entangled, they behave as one

I'm not an expert on the world's other religions (denominations), but the phrasing of "two becoming one" regarding weddings seems to be a Christian notion to me.

Small quantum mechanics error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36105452)

Fixed: "The quantum marriage will non-literally be broken up within microseconds of its formation as the new partners exchange photons as a consequence of standing in the same room."

I thought it would be a Schroedinger's wedding (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36105494)

So you can be married and not married at the same time

A cheater's dream! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36105620)

Think of it! You can be married, and no married at the same time!!!

Is this for real? Who would do this? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#36106496)

It's just some scamming weirdo gabbling nonsense words and peddling invisible snake oil.

If he wants to do that, he should do it the proper way: put on a silly outfit, give himself a self aggrandizing title, and pretend to cast spells to compel a Beardy Invisible Sky Giant to approve of the union. That's the way it's done dammit.

Re:Is this for real? Who would do this? (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36107344)

Uh, wouldn't the act of interacting with the photons that encounter the face destroy the entanglement?

Re:Is this for real? Who would do this? (1)

ToiletDuk (6366) | more than 2 years ago | (#36108794)

My thoughts exactly. Being absorbed by the skin is an observation effect as far as the universe is concerned and would collapse the wave function.

It's a wedding.... (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#36116404)

"It's just some scamming weirdo gabbling nonsense words and peddling invisible snake oil."

Sounds like most religious ceremony to me.

At the end of the day a wedding is nothing more than a legal contract. All of the other stuff is just ceremony. I think this is a great way to do a ceremony that at least has some grounding in reality.

Facebook status (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36107172)

Great, now I have to choose single, married, it's complicated, or quantum entangled?

Hmm... (1)

countach44 (790998) | more than 2 years ago | (#36107218)

Regarding the line from the article: "gently entangling their flesh by the photoelectric effect" Part of this just sounds fishy to me - I might be wrong, but the emitted electrons won't be entangled... The only things that might be entangled are the photons, before they hit the bodies, right?

Quantum Divorce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36108470)

The cure for the Quantum Wedding is the Quantum Divorce:

http://struthersneil.blogspot.com/2009/08/quantum-divorce-and-end-to-this-darned.html

Many Worlds interpretation (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#36109322)

I just hope that you don't subscribe to the Many Worlds Interpretation, otherwise, immediately after your quantum wedding, you will be served with quantum divorce papers because:

1. In some possible universe you will have screwed the head bridesmaid on your wedding night

2. In some possible universe you will have won the lottery and become a multi-millionaire, and your soon-to-be-ex-partner wants half!

3. Your beloved really didn't appreciate you continually playing "My Beloved Monster" by Eels at the reception...

Skepticism - the marriage killer (1)

TomRC (231027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36111714)

'The quantum marriage will literally be broken up by skepticism about it.'

I just want to say that I doubt the legitimacy of all weddings performed by quantum entanglement.

Grayscale (1)

Barncs (1746258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36114760)

What happens when I'm white and she's black?

Re:Grayscale (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#36135824)

Your photon will not unlikely to be reflected instead of absorbed, so you might not get entangled with her. She will most likely absorb her photon, and thus get entangled, but possibly not with you but with whoever or whatever absorbs that photon. :-)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...