A photograph of the Large Hadron Collider in the Science Museum. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Entangled in photons: the spooky behaviour of light particles

If you’re after science that makes you question your place in the universe, focus on that phrase “light years”, one that astronomers use so casually.

We are constantly making discoveries that reveal new wonders of the universe. Research presented in June, for instance, shows that some of its most spectacular features, such as the vast towers of gas and dust known as “the Pillars of Creation”, are a result of the way massive stars emit radiation that sculpts nearby gas clouds.

Those pillars are roughly four light years high and 7,000 light years away – which is close, compared to another discovery made recently. Scientists have found three black holes orbiting each other just over four billion light years away.

It’s an extraordinary thing to see things that distant, but in many ways this is just cosmic stamp collecting. These discoveries are informative – breathtaking, even – but they don’t cause you to question your place in the universe.

If that’s what you’re after, focus on that phrase “light years”, one that astronomers use so casually. Herein lies a truly discomfiting mystery.

Light years are a measure of the distance a photon – a packet of light energy – travels in a year. It’s a useful measure because light is the fastest thing in the universe. Yet we are still getting to grips with the properties of photons and it seems that they don’t experience distance in the same way as we do.

Fifty years ago, a Cern physicist called John Bell outlined the weirdness of photons. In a 1964 paper that built on some of Einstein’s work, Bell showed that they defy all ordinary notions of time and space. The phenomenon Bell explored is popularly known as “quantum entanglement”. It involves what Einstein once termed “spooky action at a distance” occurring between two particles. The spookiness begins when we make two photons interact in a way that leaves them entangled – the information about one is partly held in the other. The particles are “complete” only as a pair. Then we keep one on earth while sending the other to, say, the Pillars of Creation. It turns out that we can instantaneously influence the distant photon’s measured properties, such as its direction of spin.

That influence occurs because the spins of an entangled pair of photons are random but linked. You can think of it rather like knocking over two coins that are spinning on their edges. If we poke the one on earth, it might come up heads (entirely at random). If it does, we find, weirdly, that an immediate knock to the other one out there at the Pillars of Creation will give us a tail.

This cosmic connection can’t involve any signals passing between them: it would have to be quicker than light. The only explanation is that photons inhabit a reality beyond the space and time in which we live out our existence.

Entanglement’s delicate nature makes it a kind of tamper-proof seal. In the emerging science of quantum cryptography, entangled photons provide security guaranteed by the laws of physics. Financial institutions already use such measures and we are about to extend the network into space. A team of Italian researchers announced last month that they had bounced photons between satellites and earth without disturbing their quantum properties, laying the groundwork for “quantum communications on a planetary scale”. Here’s the wondrous fact: we are engineering a cosmic network that we may never fully understand. 

Michael Brooks’s “At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise” is published by Profile (£12.99)

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 02 July 2014 issue of the New Statesman, After God Again

Getty
Show Hide image

Fark.com’s censorship story is a striking insight into Google’s unchecked power

The founder of the community-driven website claims its advertising revenue was cut off for five weeks.

When Microsoft launched its new search engine Bing in 2009, it wasted no time in trying to get the word out. By striking a deal with the producers of the American teen drama Gossip Girl, it made a range of beautiful characters utter the words “Bing it!” in a way that fell clumsily on the audience’s ears. By the early Noughties, “search it” had already been universally replaced by the words “Google it”, a phrase that had become so ubiquitous that anything else sounded odd.

A screenshot from Gossip Girl, via ildarabbit.wordpress.com

Like Hoover and Tupperware before it, Google’s brand name has now become a generic term.

Yet only recently have concerns about Google’s pervasiveness received mainstream attention. Last month, The Observer ran a story about Google’s auto-fill pulling up the suggested question of “Are Jews evil?” and giving hate speech prominence in the first page of search results. Within a day, Google had altered the autocomplete results.

Though the company’s response may seem promising, it is important to remember that Google isn’t just a search engine (Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has too many subdivisions to mention). Google AdSense is an online advertising service that allows many websites to profit from hosting advertisements on its pages, including the New Statesman itself. Yesterday, Drew Curtis, the founder of the internet news aggregator Fark.com, shared a story about his experiences with the service.

Under the headline “Google farked us over”, Curtis wrote:

“This past October we suffered a huge financial hit because Google mistakenly identified an image that was posted in our comments section over half a decade ago as an underage adult image – which is a felony by the way. Our ads were turned off for almost five weeks – completely and totally their mistake – and they refuse to make it right.”

The image was of a fully-clothed actress who was an adult at the time, yet Curtis claims Google flagged it because of “a small pedo bear logo” – a meme used to mock paedophiles online. More troubling than Google’s decision, however, is the difficulty that Curtis had contacting the company and resolving the issue, a process which he claims took five weeks. He wrote:

“During this five week period where our ads were shut off, every single interaction with Google Policy took between one to five days. One example: Google Policy told us they shut our ads off due to an image. Without telling us where it was. When I immediately responded and asked them where it was, the response took three more days.”

Curtis claims that other sites have had these issues but are too afraid of Google to speak out publicly. A Google spokesperson says: "We constantly review publishers for compliance with our AdSense policies and take action in the event of violations. If publishers want to appeal or learn more about actions taken with respect to their account, they can find information at the help centre here.”

Fark.com has lost revenue because of Google’s decision, according to Curtis, who sent out a plea for new subscribers to help it “get back on track”. It is easy to see how a smaller website could have been ruined in a similar scenario.


The offending image, via Fark

Google’s decision was not sinister, and it is obviously important that it tackles things that violate its policies. The lack of transparency around such decisions, and the difficulty getting in touch with Google, are troubling, however, as much of the media relies on the AdSense service to exist.

Even if Google doesn’t actively abuse this power, it is disturbing that it has the means by which to strangle any online publication, and worrying that smaller organisations can have problems getting in contact with it to solve any issues. In light of the recent news about Google's search results, the picture painted becomes more even troubling.

Update, 13/01/17:

Another Google spokesperson got in touch to provide the following statement: “We have an existing set of publisher policies that govern where Google ads may be placed in order to protect users from harmful, misleading or inappropriate content.  We enforce these policies vigorously, and taking action may include suspending ads on their site. Publishers can appeal these actions.”

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.