Beta
×

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!

A Peek Inside D-Wave's Quantum Computing Hardware

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the hamsters-are-neither-alive-nor-dead dept.

Supercomputing 55

JeremyHsu writes: A one-second delay can still seem like an eternity for a quantum computing machine capable of running calculations in mere millionths of a second. That delay represents just one of the challenges D-Wave Systems overcame in building its second-generation quantum computing machine known as D-Wave Two — a system that has been leased to customers such as Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin. D-Wave's rapid-scaling approach to quantum computing has plenty of critics, but the company's experience in building large-scale quantum computing hardware could provide valuable lessons for everyone, regardless of whether the D-Wave machines live up to quantum computing's potential by proving they can outperform classical computers. (D-Wave recently detailed the hardware design changes between its first- and second-generation quantum computing machines in the the June 2014 issue of the journal IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity.)

"We were nervous about going down this path," says Jeremy Hilton, vice president of processor development at D-Wave Systems. "This architecture requires the qubits and the quantum devices to be intermingled with all these big classical objects. The threat you worry about is noise and impact of all this stuff hanging around the qubits. Traditional experiments in quantum computing have qubits in almost perfect isolation. But if you want quantum computing to be scalable, it will have to be immersed in a sea of computing complexity.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It is a random number generator! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47433911)

It will never be able to compete with classical methods in anything but random number generation.

It is a random number generator! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47435165)

Given that a $1^noise diode and a $2ADC can do an excellent job of generating random numbers... well....

Re:It is a random number generator! (0)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47436927)

diodes are quantum you fucking moron.

Wait a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47433953)

Wasn't there an article recently where it wasn't near as superior as they made out?...

Re:Wait a second (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47433993)

Well yeah, but only upon observation.

Re:Wait a second (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434021)

There has also been a couple of articles in Slashdot where the customers didn't even know if it was a real quantum computer or not. This D-Wave's product has been a very weird thing from the beginning.

Re:Wait a second (3, Informative)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 4 months ago | (#47434237)

And rather than just try for first post ... here are the articles in question:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

http://science.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]

Re:Wait a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434347)

Thanks man. Those were indeed the articles that I meant.

Re:Wait a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434737)

it just seems odd that a quantum computer would be nearly identical performance-wise to modern CPUs.

Re:Wait a second (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47436931)

the d-wave quantum "computer" isn't nearly identical to modern CPUs. it is, in fact, far inferior.

Re: Wait a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434053)

Yes.

There is also a NSA program .

Check.

Re:Wait a second (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#47434105)

Here's a fairly complete anti D-Wave article.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/b... [scottaaronson.com]

Re:Wait a second (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434153)

Here's a fairly complete anti D-Wave article.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/b... [scottaaronson.com]

Re:Wait a second (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434173)

Here's a fairly complete anti D-Wave article.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/b... [scottaaronson.com]

Re:Wait a second (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434441)

Here's a fairly complete anti D-Wave article.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/b... [scottaaronson.com]

What is *WRONG* with you people???? (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 4 months ago | (#47434391)

You can't LOOK at it!

Re:What is *WRONG* with you people???? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#47434679)

I don't care if I can look at it. I just want to know if it will run Watch_Dogs on ultra at 60 fps.

Re:What is *WRONG* with you people???? (3, Funny)

aeschinesthesocratic (1359449) | about 4 months ago | (#47436043)

It can, but the problem is you can't look at the screen.

Re:What is *WRONG* with you people???? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#47437337)

How about if I look at it in a mirror? Or out of the corner of my eye? Or I have someone else look at it and describe it to me?

Quantum computing sure is hard.

Complexity Sauce (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434647)

But if you want quantum computing to be scalable, it will have to be immersed in a sea of computing complexity.

Whereas a traditional, scalable computer is immersed in a sea of KFC oil.

I hate quantum computers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47434981)

I'm a smart guy and I don't understand this. What really bothers me is that the elder nerds on this site also don't understand this. People speculate whether this D-Wave thing is really quantum or not. Whatever that means. And supposedly it is no faster than a real computer. What gives?

Re: I hate quantum computers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47435653)

The problem is that things are getting increasingly complex and quantum computing is a topic that only a small subgroup of wizards can truly understand. The rest of us are left to speculate about it at a peasant level.

Re: I hate quantum computers. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47435963)

And supposedly it is no faster than a real computer. What gives?

It's hard to say because it's all "secret sauce" (so everybody just plunks their heels down on some position rather than admit "I don't know") but one thing that's interesting to me is that a handful of blokes out of Canada appear to have built a computer that's about as fast as a Xeon that Intel needed a few billion dollars, thousands of people, and forty years experience to create.

And that was their first commercial version. Maybe somebody will rip one apart and find out it says "Xeon 2650" on the inside, but until that happens I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because they seem to have at least one fairly remarkable accomplishment under their belts.

If the Google guys buy the upgrade, I'd be willing to bet five bucks that it's real, just very early in the development cycle still.

Re: I hate quantum computers. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436255)

"a handful of blokes out of Canada appear to have built a computer that's about as fast as a Xeon "

not really, as theyve leveraged 40++ years of digital/electronic technical development/process/production/knowhow/infrastructure which allows you to assemble the chips you need for a third world produced toy in a matter of weeks

The results so far appear to just be a stepping stone for this new type of technology - a milestone rather than a 'breakthrough'

Re: I hate quantum computers. (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 4 months ago | (#47437873)

The D-Wave machine comes with a software library to solve a specific problem where the vendor claims the machine has much better performance than a conventional PC. They gave the performance numbers of a PC running non-optimized code as a baseline. The thing is experts on the field have created optimized code for solving this same problem which runs faster than the D-Wave machine. On a standard desktop PC. So the D-Wave machine, at least for the problem they claimed they were good at, is many orders of magnitude more expensive than a regular PC with worse performance.

Real quantum computers are supposed to have much better performance than classic computers at solving certain classes of problems but the D-Wave does not seem to have better performance at all.

Re: I hate quantum computers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47438927)

Real quantum computers are supposed to have much better performance than classic computers at solving certain classes of problems

Real quantum computers are supposed to have better scaling than classical computers, not necessarily better absolute performance depending on exact what scale they are limited to and implementation.

WoW! (3, Informative)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 4 months ago | (#47435033)

"A one-second delay can still seem like an eternity for a quantum computing machine capable of running calculations in mere millionths of a second."

Millionths!?!

Um, last time I looked, most microcontroller chips could make calculations in "mere millionths of a second".

Re:WoW! (1)

ortholattice (175065) | about 4 months ago | (#47435835)

Um, last time I looked, most microcontroller chips could make calculations in "mere millionths of a second".

Yes, but they can't do 2^512 (2 to the 512th power) calculations simultaneously in mere millionths of a second.

Of course, this would be for an ideal quantum computer with 512 qubits. There's still some confusion about what the D-Wave "is".

Re:WoW! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#47436195)

It doesnt do 2^512 calculations in under a second. Im pretty sure nothing comes close to that, and if it did it would be an actual game changer.

Re: WoW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436389)

"Someone is writing down the result of the 2^512 answer, right? "

Hehe, they'll make it work and then realize they cannot store the result.

Re:WoW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436571)

It's actually 3^512 since the cubit has three states (vs. the bit which has two).

Re:WoW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47439949)

It's actually 3^512 since the cubit has three states (vs. the bit which has two).

No. This is wrong. A qubit is a linear superposition of TWO states.

Re:WoW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47439939)

Um, last time I looked, most microcontroller chips could make calculations in "mere millionths of a second".

Yes, but they can't do 2^512 (2 to the 512th power) calculations simultaneously in
mere millionths of a second.

Of course, this would be for an ideal quantum computer with 512 qubits. There's still some
confusion about what the D-Wave "is".

You would need 512 qubits in superposition to get exponential scaling. This certainly is not the case in the D-wave machine.

At best, D-wave has 512 isolated qubits. Which gives you 2^1*512=1024 separate calculations. If they take a millionth of a second, we're talking about 1 GHz serial processor equivalent. (Of course, the 1 GHz processor can perform *another* thousand calculations in its second microsecond of operation, the D-wave machine needs to go through a lengthy reconfiguration process to set up each calculation, so really only get one microsecond from a D-wave machine.

Save us, wagnerrp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47435271)

Only you can completely yet authoritatively misunderstand the subject! Please enlighten us! How does it work?

Does it work like the base of a bipolar transistor, using heat to modulate the transistor?

Re:Save us, wagnerrp! (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47435701)

Maybe this photo [snstatic.fi] will help to make the concept more clear. The quantum entanglement pairs are seen on the table, with the operator [wikipedia.org] holding one of them. The little colored spheres represent the current state. Calculations performed by the processor can be seen on the background display. Of course this is just a radically simplified representation of the general idea.

Re:Save us, wagnerrp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47435863)

So the operator grabs his balls and moves them around to perform calculations?

Still trying to figure this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436143)

I still think the non-local entanglement stuff is bullshit --- local entanglement is where multuiple particles are simultaneously subject to the same 'writing' influences to have the same effect on both particles (seems doable) - but non-local is where you do that 'write' to change one qubit over here and 17 miles away the other 'entangled' particle somehow shows the same effect (when eventually read) even though its physically outside of the effecting influences range (usually magnetic fields) of that write mechanism.

I would figure that for these quantum values that the particles are supposed to be able to store (instead of a digital 1 or 0, it is some 'value' state being a ratio of continuous values (- ie -1.0 to +1.0 with tiny discernable steps) there is the ability to consistantly WRITE tiny incremental changes (input values) using some mechanism (for some summation function ) and then be READ out with sufficient accuracy (effectively to a floating point number) to get the output of the operations.

What I havent seen yet is what the accuracy of those (write and read) numbers are (like : is it the equivalent of the mantissa of a standard 80/32/64 bit Floating point value) which would indicate the Quality of the data so as to be useful in calculations which require value accuracy (I suppose multiple qubits could be staged if needed to get larger accuracy, but still what is the Basic Units (single qubit) range of values to store one variable and how small the increments which can be applied to modify the value) ???

Supposedly each qubit is supposed to be a single value (ignore the simultaneous quantum state stuff while in-progress) so that using N of them you can work all at once on problems with N simultaneous variables.

How large then is the machinery require to get sufficient accuracy/quality of individual values for say astronomical observations (something like 15 base 10 digits of accuracy)? Many of the mechanisms use cryogenics, and many of the experiments use mechanisms the size of a small car.

D-Wave does it on integrated chips , but again I havent heard what their USEABLE qubit value ranges are.

Re:Still trying to figure this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436213)

The other 'not heard yet' is how fast the input values can be applied for the WRITE? (I suppose since you are nudging a 'particle', the individual changes are small and take only a small amount of time, but THAT affect has to be translated from some digital data and THAT takes time.)
Similarly how long does the (usualy destructive) READ take to ascertain the output value (and translate it back to a digital value)?
Similarly usually the particles have to be "Zeroed" initially before working values can be loaded - how long does that take?
Of course we can assume that many of these things could be done in parallel for multiple qubits.

Re:Still trying to figure this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436621)

where you do that 'write' to change one qubit over here and 17 miles away the other 'entangled' particle somehow shows the same effect (when eventually read) even though its physically outside of the effecting influences range (usually magnetic fields) of that write mechanism.

Even with quotes, thinking of it as a writing effect will be misleading. If you have an entangled pair, you can't write a known state to one and and have the other end respond. The only changes you can make to one end will have a random component to it so you won't know what the other end will do when you apply your changing effect, but correlation will become evident after you make measurements. If you just try to force one end in to a particular state, it will break the entanglement. There are types of measurements that you can arbitrarily chose at the last second which to do that will effect the other end, but you can't chose what result you get from the measurement and so the far end still looks random until people making measurements on both ends talk to each other. Teleportation can transfer a state from a third particle to the far end of an entangled pair, but there is a random transformation that jumbles it up and can only be unjumbled by measuring the near end of the entangled pair and destroying the entanglement.

What I havent seen yet is what the accuracy of those (write and read) numbers are (like : is it the equivalent of the mantissa of a standard 80/32/64 bit Floating point value) which would indicate the Quality of the data so as to be useful in calculations which require value accuracy (I suppose multiple qubits could be staged if needed to get larger accuracy, but still what is the Basic Units (single qubit) range of values to store one variable and how small the increments which can be applied to modify the value) ???

Algorithms can fail, so it makes quantum computers good for problems that are easily checked for by a classical computer, and then re-ran in the chance it fails. But it can be designed in most cases to have a pretty low failure rate.

Re: Still trying to figure this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436831)

You should learn some basic quantum theory before inserting your foot into your mouth.

Re:Still trying to figure this out (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47436947)

don't bother trying to discuss this here, you won't get anywhere. read Nielsen and Chuang's "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" if you can handle it. suffice it to say, non-locality is an accepted part of quantum theory. i know it seems really exotic and impressive to lay-people, but it's just a part of quantum theory. part of what you need to keep in mind is that, roughly speaking, the entanglement is determined at read-time. you can't simultaneously write to a nearby and far-away qubit at the same time. they need to be together at some point, close enough to be entangled by the write.

would you be impressed by a CPU that was a mile across? well, maybe. but would it be a fundamentally different thing than a CPU than was an inch across? not really, though there would be some engineering impracticalities. it's the same with QC; non-locality is just a feature of the system. it's there, we've shown it's there. it doesn't, in principle, matter if the two qubits are an inch apart, or 17 miles apart.

non-locality is interesting, but for QC you just need to accept that it's there.

Re:Still trying to figure this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47437659)

The 17 miles apart thing was just an example of one of the claims about Quantum physics and particles (the part that is definitely NOT accepted by a large number of the experts)

For the D-Wave they arent doing/using that anyway
The issue of why it may not be performing as they claim may have more to do with the information having to flow in and out under normal physics (be buffered and the process controlled) and not INSIDE the part where the quantum effects are being carried out -- it may be a case of having a super duper computer that you have to feed all the data and program instructions thru a teletype.

EIther they have to figure out how to speed that external segment of the process significantly or somehow create some general purpose *von Neumann" type mechanism to control the quantum functionlity within the quantum segment (however that could work)

Re:Still trying to figure this out (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 4 months ago | (#47437925)

the reason D-wave not performing as they (used to) claim is that they were hucksters and charlatans all along.

now they've admitted that they're doing adiabatic annealing (a huge step down from what they were coyly hinting at) and, guess what?, it's not really that great at that either. it's not the "talking to classical reality" part of their machine that sucks; it's just not doing very much inside either.

Re:Still trying to figure this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47438167)

The 17 miles apart thing was just an example of one of the claims about Quantum physics and particles (the part that is definitely NOT accepted by a large number of the experts)

This is pretty solidly accepted by experts. The closest you will find to disagreement is those arguing for determinism, but the results are still the same. Nonlocal effects have been demonstrated in a large number of situations now, and they closely agree with expectations. To argue they aren't there ultimately comes down to quantum mechanics being fundamentally wrong, which is not something a large number of experts are going to go with currently. At this point, trying out farther and farther distances is more of a demonstration of equipment and in some cases a step towards practically implementing quantum encryption, but isn't needed to make the idea of nonlocality any more convincing. The only place I've seen people trying to disagree with it is on the internet, while at conferences no one is pushing the opposite (and the few suggesting or working on determinism are a very small minority).

This may have already been pointed out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436223)

In a sci-fi world...

The fact that nobody has been able to measure what the frig is going on with D-Wave's quantum computer is probably a requirement for the thing to work.

The moment we are all allowed to look under the hood, it'll collapse into some useless state and all that hardware will be rendered no more valuable than your average cat.

RTFA: real engineering is going on (4, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 4 months ago | (#47436231)

I have no strong opinion about the DWave machine. It might be doing quantum computing or it might be doing classical computing. I don't have the correct background to judge, and there is still a lot of controversy among those who do know this stuff. [wikipedia.org]

However, if you read the article (which I did), they are doing real engineering. They are building very sophisticated superconducting quantum circuits. Their second generation machine has four times the qubits and cycles much more quickly. This is very difficult and advanced work, and they are making it happen.

So why is DWave getting so much flack on Slashdot? Somehow I doubt it's because there are vast number of quantum physics types just waiting to display their deep knowledge whenever the subject comes up. What I see are Slashdot Pundits: hoards of pseudotechnical wanna-be's who pile on with meaningless criticism. The motivation is not to have a useful debate but to pretend to be smart by talking trash. Maybe they impress each other, but from my vantage point it looks like a lot of eight year olds shouting curse words they don't understand and giggling over how cool they are.

Re:RTFA: real engineering is going on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436667)

I have no strong opinion about the DWave machine. It might be doing quantum computing or it might be doing classical computing. I don't have the correct background to judge, and there is still a lot of controversy among those who do know this stuff. [wikipedia.org]

However, if you read the article (which I did), they are doing real engineering. They are building very sophisticated superconducting quantum circuits. Their second generation machine has four times the qubits and cycles much more quickly. This is very difficult and advanced work, and they are making it happen.

So why is DWave getting so much flack on Slashdot? Somehow I doubt it's because there are vast number of quantum physics types just waiting to display their deep knowledge whenever the subject comes up. What I see are Slashdot Pundits: hoards of pseudotechnical wanna-be's who pile on with meaningless criticism. The motivation is not to have a useful debate but to pretend to be smart by talking trash. Maybe they impress each other, but from my vantage point it looks like a lot of eight year olds shouting curse words they don't understand and giggling over how cool they are.

Made me think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ

Re: RTFA: real engineering is going on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47436879)

Hit the nail in the head.

Re:RTFA: real engineering is going on (1)

amaurea (2900163) | about 4 months ago | (#47436909)

There is definitely an unfortunate tendency among slashdotters to be over-cynical towards new technology.

But in the case of D-Wave I think much of the blame lies with the company itself. In the beginning they acted very suspiciously, refusing to let anybody see the insides of their device, and refusing to cooperate with the scientific community, all the while charging millions for devices that that it was unclear whether did anything interesting. During this uncooperative phase, many scientists publically expressed deep skepticism that the D-Wave approach had anything to do with quantum computing, and it was not so strange to think that the whole thing was simply a scam. Especially when it turned out that the results of D-Wave's device could be emulated in faster than real-time using a normal computer.

Since then, D-Wave seems to have turned over a new leaf and become much more cooperative, and I think most people take them seriously now (though there is still much controversy about their approach to quantum computing). But they are still suffering from the bad reputation they earned in the beginning.

Re:RTFA: real engineering is going on (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 4 months ago | (#47437125)

Some real work goes into perfecting the taste of snake oil medicine as well ... doesn't make it any less of a fraud.

Re:RTFA: real engineering is going on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47437693)

I've read the article. I've looked into D-wave quite a bit in the past. I've even had some training on the system for programming it. I've seen a program running on a real dwave (not the new version though).

They are doing some nice mechanical packaging, nothing all that innovative but nobody else as packaged a system up like that.

Here is my problem with D-wave...they just do annealing. It remains to be seen how useful a dedicate annealing system will be but there certainly could be uses, especially as a point solution in a computation chain. But please stop calling the thing a quantum COMPUTER.

Re:RTFA: real engineering is going on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47446575)

please stop calling the thing a quantum COMPUTER"

Why? It computes the global minimum of a field with many local minima. A wide variety of computational problems can be recast as searches for a such field minimum, and classical simulated annealing typically finds an approximate result. Quantum simulated annealing can either find an approximate result more quickly (which can be handy) or alternatively can find an *exact* result in reasonable time (which is sometimes hugely more useful, especially in cases where classical SA probably cannot).

Where QSA does remarkably well is when the local minima are deep and separated by thin higher-valued barriers. This is a common case already, and again a wide variety of problems can be recast as QSA problems that with certain classes of data sets are especially well suited for D-Wave type quantum computers.

An example is here http://www.slideshare.net/shu-... [slideshare.net]

Re:RTFA: real engineering is going on (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#47439791)

Because on Slashdot we believe armchair engineers who think they know everything over those people who actually have a clue. Oh expect when it's peer reviewed. Oh and even then the peer review system is broken and the scientist is clearly fraudulent.

Slashdot is a self sustaining social media platform. Just like real media where alarmist and controversial stories sell papers, alarmist posts seem to attract mod points.

there are claims non-local entanglement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47437615)

There are claims but then there is alot of disagreement whether any such effect can happen

That is 2 particle processed (close) together to have the same state (zeroed and then same influences ''written' to them) and then if one is moved elsewhere quite far away and the first has another influence applied to it that the second distant particle will show an equivalent effect upon it (as if they were 'entangled together' and the effect is reflected on both despite the distance). Some theory claims say that this can even be seen to happen faster than light could travel the distance (and a whole nuther schism says it cannot)

I can understand a quantum particle being moved and retaining the same state as the other and when 'read' showing the same value (preserving it if handled correctly - isolated from external influences).

Again there are claims to this 'THEORY" but others argue it hasnt really been demonstrated (usually the act of moving the second particle disturbs its state one way or another.)

Re:there are claims non-local entanglement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47438981)

There are claims but then there is alot of disagreement whether any such effect can happen

Maybe on the internet, but there is effectively zero disagreement about this among physicists. It is basic enough to show up in undergrad textbooks and be part of qualifiers for grad school.

That is 2 particle processed (close) together to have the same state (zeroed and then same influences ''written' to them)

They don't have the same state each or "zeroed" in that sense, they have participate in a shared state that covers what both are doing, which may be a superposition of several different options for each with certain correlations (e.g. either one may be in two different states, as long as they are not both in the same state).

the first has another influence applied to it that the second distant particle will show an equivalent effect upon it (as if they were 'entangled together' and the effect is reflected on both despite the distance).

The type of influence you can apply is very narrow, such that no possible measurement of the second particle alone can show any influence or interaction. It is only upon comparing measurements of both particles that any influence between the two can be seen.

Some theory claims say that this can even be seen to happen faster than light could travel the distance (and a whole nuther schism says it cannot)

The only schism here is that it either involves simultaneous effects on both, or are actions at both ends were predetermined. The physical results are the same regardless, with just differing philosophical implications.

Again there are claims to this 'THEORY" but others argue it hasnt really been demonstrated (usually the act of moving the second particle disturbs its state one way or another.)

If by others you mean people on the internet, yes, there are plenty of people arguing just about every conceivable notion of how things "should" work. But as far as physicists, there are volumes of experimental work on this at this point, and it has been very thoroughly demonstrated.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?