Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas - 177 | Monika Schleier-Smith on Cold Atoms and Emergent Spacetime

Episode Date: December 13, 2021

When it comes to thinking about quantum mechanics, there are levels. One level is shut-up-and-calculate: find a wave function, square it to get a probability. One level is foundational: dig deeply into the underlying ontology. But there's a level in between, long neglected but recently coming to life. In this level you think about — or do experiments with — entangled quantum systems in the real world, putting entanglement to use. Monika Schleier-Smith is an experimental physicist specializing in cold atoms, which can be both entangled and manipulated. We discuss how to use such systems to study everything from metrology to quantum gravity. Support Mindscape on Patreon. Monika Schleier-Smith received her Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is currently an Associate Professor of Physics at Stanford University. Among her awards are a MacArthur Fellowship, a Sloan Fellowship, and the I. I. Rabi Prize in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics from the American Physical Society. Web site Stanford web page Google Scholar publications Wikipedia

When I competed in track and field at the collegiate level, there were times I second-guessed myself. That's why it's important for female athletes to have a space to build confidence and self-esteem. Colgate supports female athletes of all levels through the Colgate Women's Games, the nation's longest running indoor track and field series for girls and women. By supporting female athletes, Colgate hopes to put more smiles out into the world. Colgate, your smile is your strength. Agents who are real tours do more than open doors. They analyze market trends, interest rates, comps.

They can tell you about flood zones, mixed use zones, and decode acronyms like HOA, APR, MLS. They connect you to lawyers, contractors, even Phil, the Sewardcope guy. They negotiate, coordinate, advocate for you, close the deal with you, and hand the keys to you. They bring you home. Realtor's are members of the National Association of Realtors, right by you. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll.

And I do realize that by reading my books, listening to my lectures, even listening to the Mindscape podcast, you can get an impression of quantum mechanics and in modern physics more generally that is a little way out, right? We're talking about parallel universes or quantum gravity, emergent space time, evaporating black holes. It may seem a little bit removed from the nitty-gritty of not just experimental physics,

but also of your everyday experience. But of course, quantum mechanics itself was not invented by theoretical physicists just trying to think of cool things. They were forced to come up with these crazy ideas by trying to explain the data, by trying to explain experiments. And these experiments have not stopped.

They've not gone away. And I'm not talking about experiments that use quantum mechanics. Those experiments have also been going on a long time. Every particle physics experiment, like the Large Hadron Collider, uses quantum mechanics to make the predictions. I'm talking about a new generation of quantum mechanics experiments

that really digs into entanglement. Quantum entanglement is really one of the things that is special about quantum mechanics. Makes it very different from the classical world. The idea that different physical systems can be related to each other in some deep quantum way. What can we do with that? We can build quantum computers. We can do other things as well. So today's guest, Monica Schleyer-Smith, is an experimental physicist

who works on cold atoms. And the reason why cold atoms are really interesting is because when they're cold, you can entangle them and you can control the amount of entanglement. You can shoot little photons at them, and you can sort of manipulate them in a very, very delicate way. So ordinary atoms that are hot or just bumping into each other randomly,

they'll become entangled but then unentangled and you don't know and you can't really control it. When you really cool them down, you have this pinpoint precision control. So you can do a lot of different things. You can do sort of down-to-earth things, which I think was the original motivation, metrology, measuring things to exquisite precision. But then guess what? The crazy theorists have come in and ruined everything by pointing out you can also build models of quantum gravity.

And this is one of the things that Monica does. She, in her lab at Stanford, builds groups of atoms that are entangled with each other in the right way. that, well, it's just beginning. I wouldn't say that we're there yet, but it's resembling the features of a model of holographic duality. The famous ADS-CFT conjecture that Juan Maldesana put forward

almost 25 years ago now, where you can have a theory without gravity and a theory with gravity and secretly they're the same. Likewise, Monica can build collections of entangled atoms that if you look at them in exactly the right way,

resemble a system with gravity. And then you can use what you know about gravity to make predictions about what those atoms are going to do. It's still beginning stuff, very, very cutting edge. But the hope is we'll both just learn more about quantum mechanics and how to manipulate entanglement and collections of atoms, but maybe also learn a little bit about how gravity and space time do emerge from these collections of atoms. So the real lesson here is that there's no real clear, sharp distinction between the down-to-earth-to-earth useful. applications of quantum mechanics and the pie in the sky theorizing that me and my friends like to do so much. So let's go.

Monica Flyersmith, welcome to the Mindscape podcast. Thanks for having me. So I want to start with a slightly left field question because you're an experimental physicist. I'm a theoretical physicist. In certain circles, there's a feeling that theorists kind of grab all the glory. They hog all the credit. You know, like experimentalists are in there doing the hard work. Most physicists are experimenters, many more than theorists.

But it's the theorists who end up writing the books and being on TV and things like that. Is this a feeling that you either have or get in your everyday work or is in your world, it's happy collaborations all around? Yeah. That is actually not a feeling I've gotten. I do remember one of my college professors saying everybody comes into college thinking they want to be a theoretical. critical physicist and nobody thinks to do experiments and you know there's something to the idea of doing experiments but no often you know I often tell my students one of the things I love about being an experimentalist is if I can have an idea I don't need to convince and it's an idea that

merits experimentation I don't need to convince somebody else to do the experiment it's on me to do it in my own lab and so I think that's you know and technology is always advancing so that's something that we can take advantage of. So, yeah, I think it's wonderful being an experimentalist and getting to actually sort of kind of do things in the lab. The data sometimes just speak for themselves in a way that you don't have to argue whose idea it was. If you did the experiment, you did the experiment.

And did you start off wanting to be an experimentalist, or did that come to you at some point? Yeah, that's a good question. So I think if I sort of think back to being a freshman in college, I was interested in, I actually loved kind of abstract math courses where, you know, I stayed up all night trying to prove something, right, that kind of thing. So I certainly had that theoretical bent and also enjoyed physics and chemistry. And I think that for me, I wanted to go into a field of physics, once I realized it was physics I wanted to do, where I could maybe think about

some interesting ideas, but not have my whole job be to think. And so what I love about My job is there's sort of the hands-on part. These days, it's more the graduate students and postdocs doing the hand-on. Alas, yes. But there's sort of a varied aspect to it. We get to do a little bit of theory on the side that the whole job isn't to think. And you're doing experiments in the realm of quantum mechanics, which is great because, you know, I've talked about quantum mechanics on the podcast before.

Most listeners know that this is one of my things. But I would love to hear, you know, how you explain quantum mechanics to the person on the street. I want to say as an experimentalist, but just explain it however you would explain it. I'm curious as to whether or not we think about it differently. Yeah. So to me, kind of the most kind of remarkable and revolutionary aspect of quantum mechanics is the concept that information is not something that has to exist locally. So classically, when you think about information in your computer, you know, it's stored in

individual bits that are ones or zeros. And in quantum mechanics, first of all, we can have the concept of superposition where a quantum bit is not just a zero or one, but it can be in a state where until you measure it, it's somehow undecided what state it's in. And there's some randomness potentially in the measurement outcome. So that that randomness is part of what's special about quantum mechanics. I sometimes like to use the analogy of a coin toss. So when we do that measurement, it's like tossing a coin that could land heads or tails. But the cool thing about quantum mechanics is also that there can be correlations in the randomness. So I can be tossing a coin here and you can toss a coin there. And we could arrange a situation where every time I get heads, you also get heads. And every time I get tails, you get tails. And that would never happen with an actual toin cost, but that could happen with measurements on a pair of cubits or quantum bits. And that tells us that kind of there's some information that,

isn't your information. Where are you? Pasadena? Right now I'm in Boston, actually. You're in Boston. It's not in Boston. It's not in Palo Alto, right? Because everything I'm measuring looks completely random. But when we actually compare notes, we realize there's some information there. So there's this sort of information hidden in correlations. And that phenomenon known as entanglement is what's really special about quantum mechanics. And I find that kind of amazing that information can exist in this the localized fashion. Yeah, I think that it's exactly right. So let me run by you something it has been on my mind because I actually am beginning to write a textbook, undergraduate level textbook on quantum mechanics, reading other people's textbooks, and I'm struck by how

little they talk about entanglement. You know, they just saw the Schrodinger equation over and over again. And the fact that there is entanglement is mentioned, but then it's breezed right on by. I mean, am I right that the modern frontier of experimental quantum mechanics as well as theoretical is very entanglement-centric? Absolutely. And you mentioned writing a textbook. I haven't written books, but I teach a course for freshmen on quantum mechanics. Oh, wow. On quantum information. And that's actually part of what I have found amazing in teaching this course is that you can sort of start talking about entanglement from day one. and certainly really start to get an understanding of its implications in a couple of weeks. And actually, at week seven, we get to the Schrodinger equation.

But we sort of flip it around, and it lets you get to some of the kind of really cutting-edge aspects of what's special about quantum mechanics. Yeah, it makes perfect sense to me. So, yeah, I'm going to try to revolutionize the teaching of undergrad quantum mechanics by putting entanglement front and center a lot quicker. But this, I need to ask now, do you have strong? feelings about the interpretation or foundations of quantum mechanics? You know, I think that that is, it's like a fascinating topic. It's great for sort of, you know,

after dinner conversations. If you get a bunch of physicists around the table, everyone will have heated, you know, arguments. For me, it's sort of, you know, at the end of the day, so far, you know, there is a theory that predicts very well everything we do in the lab. Sometimes what we do in the lab doesn't match the theory, but then it's usually something that we didn't do what we thought we did and we need to track down some source of experimental error. And so certain aspects, you know, the things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, this idea that you can't know where something is and how fast it's moving at the same time. When you do experiments that deal directly with quantum uncertainty, you really develop an intuition for kind of where it comes

from and what are the mechanisms that enforce that principle? And so I think that there are lots of things that are sort of mysterious about quantum mechanics, and one should stop and be bothered about it and think about interpretations. But it's not something I have strong feelings about. There might be some interpretations that I would take issue with, but yeah. Well, next time we're at the same conference, we'll have dinner together. We can talk about the interpretations of quantum mechanics. I can give you a pitch for that.

But then you mentioned the idea of measurement, right? And of, you know, I guess the three big ideas that you mentioned, all of which I agree with that come in when you start talking about quantum mechanics, superposition, measurement, right? So is there a simple explanation for why we don't observe all this weird quantumness in our everyday life? You did the coin flip example, but then you were quick to say, not with real coins, of course, with qubits. So why not? If the real world is quantum mechanical, why don't we observe all these things? Yeah, I mean, I think a good example is perhaps the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that I mentioned.

Right. So there's a fundamental limit on how well you can know where a thing is and how fast it's moving, its position, and its momentum. But for sort of macroscopic objects that we encounter in our everyday lives, those uncertainties are tiny compared to, you know, kind of what we can see with our everyday lives. those uncertainties are tiny compared to, you know, kind of what we can see with our eye, compared to motion that has to do with that object is at some finite temperature. So usually in sort of our day-to-day lives, we're not observing things at the scale where you would see these quantum phenomena. And again, when you do experiments, you often really deal firsthand or even try to plan experiments.

You deal firsthand with sort of why it is hard to scale up these phenomena like quantum superposition. I guess, yeah, and that's really what I was going to try to get at because you gave a very sensible answer about using the uncertainty principle to why, you know, quantum uncertainties are there for individual particles, et cetera. But for an experimentalist like yourself, isn't much of your job trying to make quantum systems bigger and still be quantum? Yeah, yeah.

And so, you know, one thing that I have, for example, thought about a fair amount, and I haven't done an experiment like this, but there's various groups doing experiments along these lines, is how would you make what you might call a Schroding or cat state? Yes. So a quantum superposition of a cat being alive and dead. And, okay, so we like to sort of simplify that down a little bit as physicists. So rather than a superposition of a cat being alive or dead, you could ask the question, can I make a superposition of a group? of atoms, either all being in their ground states or all being in their excited states. And fundamentally, it's unknown which of those scenarios is the one we're in until we do a measurement, right? That actually turns out to be a state that is potentially very useful if you can make it.

It's a resource for improving precision measurements of time. So, you know, why is that hard to do? You need to somehow, first of all, manipulate this collection of many atoms. Actually, let me give an example. So you could imagine maybe you can do this by having, I sometimes like to think of the ground state and the excited state as a spin that points down or a spin that points up. Good. Or equivalently, maybe a spin that points left and a spin that points right, but two opposite orientations. I mean, probably for a lot of people, the spin pointing up or down makes more sense intuitively to them than an excited state and not an excited state.

Yeah, exactly. And so you could imagine maybe trying to do an experiment where I send some light that interacts with a group of atoms. Maybe I send a photon. If the photon is in one polarization state, it will rotate the spins one way. If it's in a different polarization state, it'll rotate the spins another way, for example. And then if I, but in that type of a system, I could create something that's this superposition of the spins oriented in one direction or the other. And maybe I can just scale this up and do this with more and more spins or more and more atoms and make more and more macroscopic superposition states. And then you sort of run into the problem that the larger I try to make my system, the higher the probability that one atom does something it shouldn't do.

Or you don't want it to do. It decays from an excited state to the ground state. And there's a photon that leaves and hits and in principle could be observed by somebody. and that would give that observer information about the state of that one atom, and that would, so to speak, collapse the entire superposition state. So basically, the bigger you make the system, the harder it is to control what you don't know about it. Right. About it.

And this idea of sort of superposition, it's all about having this kind of quantum system where there's something unknown about it until you perform the measurement. So there's that risk that you accidentally let some information leak to the environment that destroys that delicate superposition. state. And so that's something that when you plan an experiment, you can sort of immediately see why it gets hard. But you just said that you have contemplated this, but you haven't actually done this particular experiment, trying to put as many entangled particles together. No, no, in part

because it's hard. It's hard. But there are, you know, sort of the state of the art. There are a couple of physical systems where people have done things like this for, let's around 20 spins, right? So that's kind of the state of the art. So we can go beyond just a single spin or qubit. in a superposition of zero and one. You could scale it up to about 20, and I'm sure this will keep getting pushed. Well, this is what we need to push for quantum computers, right? When you say 20 cubits, I mean, that's a 20-cubit quantum computers.

We haven't had anything more than that, I guess, is what you're saying. Yeah. So, I mean, I guess if you read the news, you know, they're 50-ish-cubit quantum computers, depending what you define as a quantum computer. but yeah. And what exactly is the kind of system that you're working with? I mean, you gave us some kind of conceptual things, but what happens in your lab when you're pushing these quantum systems around?

Yeah, great. So what do we do in my lab? So first of all, the general system I work with are systems of laser-cooled atoms. And so perhaps it's a little counterintuitive, but we can use lasers to bring atoms to temperatures that are sort of in our lab millions of a degree above absolute zero. I mean, maybe it's worth explaining a little bit about that. When I think of shooting a laser at something, it sounds like I'm going to heat it up, but you're somehow cooling it down.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. So there's a trick we use, which basically relies on the Doppler effect. So, you know, I wish I could wave my arms and the listeners of the podcast and see it. They can imagine. But the basic picture you can have in mind is we have some atoms flying around, you know, they're initially at room temperature. and we have laser beams, basically, that are counter-propagating. So if we want to slow the atom down in a particular direction, we would have two laser beams that are pointing in opposite directions.

And instead of tuning those laser beams so that they can resonantly be absorbed by the atoms, we tune them so that they're like a little bit too low in energy or too low in frequency to be on resonance with the atoms. But there's this phenomenon of the Doppler effect. the same thing where, you know, if I'm sort of driving along the highway and a truck comes the other other way, you know, the faster it's moving, the more its kind of frequency will be shifted upward, sound higher pitched. In the same way to the atom, depending which way it's moving, the sort of laser beam will seem like it's higher pitched or at a higher frequency. And this

results in a phenomenon where the atom is more likely to absorb a laser beam that's propagating in a way that will kick it to slow it down than a laser beam that's propagating in the other direction. And so that basically means you get this preferential absorption of photons that slow down the atom, give them the momentum kick that slows down the atom. And then the photon, it's slowed down and now it emits a photon. And actually that emitted photon then has a higher energy than the one that was absorbed because the atom is now, if it's sitting still, it'll, yeah, if it's gone from sort of moving to sitting still, the energy it emits will be different. So that's, That gives you a way to extract energy from the atoms and sort of put it into the light field.

And also the atom emits some photon in a random direction. So actually the entropy of the light field goes up. There's some sort of disorder that's getting pumped into the light field and the atoms can be more ordered than in ultimately sitting still. You know what's wild? We can video chat from space. Order groceries just by talking out loud. And men have like 17 options for hair. Los Salon, but a bra that actually fits and feels good, apparently too much to ask.

Until now, meet the uplift bra from Nix. That's K-N-I-X, a wireless bra that finally delivers real lift and all-day comfort. The secret? Molded cups with a built-in foam panel that gently enhances your natural shape. So you get a subtle boost without wires, digging, or that, why am I still wearing this moment at 3 p.m? You asked for it. We delivered. We delivered. We delivered. We delivered in a push-up bra that doesn't dig, poke, or pinch. And with an extensive size range from 28A through 42E, you'll be sure to find your perfect fit with the uplift. Try the uplift bra at nix.com and use code perfect fit 15 for 15% off your first order. That's k-nix.com, code perfect fit 15, nix.com. This is Riley did Luca from a really good cry. I've been doing

reform of Pilates for years and I always loved how it made me feel. But getting to a class, not so much. Now I have a reformer at home, it has completely changed my routine. I'll do 20 minutes in the morning, sometimes in the evening, sometimes both. No commute, no scheduling around a class, no pressure to keep up with anyone else. It's just me moving in a way that feels good that day. And it genuinely looks so beautiful and they have a foldable version too. So it just lives in my space, which makes it so much easier to stay consistent. Every your reformer comes with over a thousand instructor-led workouts on the app so you can follow along or just move at your own pace. They deliver straight to your door within seven days across the mainland US. So if you've ever loved

Reforma Pilates but struggle to make it part of your routine, this makes it so easy. Visit your Reforma.com and use the code free month rental. So just to make sure I get this, I'm a perfect podcast host for this because I actually don't know anything that you're talking about. I mean, I've heard colloquial on it before, but I'm not an expert. So I'm learning here in real time. So the great thing about the procedure you just outlined is that it's not like you're trying to be Maxwell's demon and observing the velocity of all the atoms. You're flooding them with light with the property that they will, if they're moving too fast in some direction, they will absorb a bit

of light and slow down. And then they'll kick out another photon and you're left with a very bunch of cold atoms. That's right. Yeah. Okay. And what kind of atoms are we talking about? What element? So in my labs, we work with either rubidium or cesium. Those are both in the first column of the periodic table. So they have one valence electron, which gives you sort of a relatively simple atomic structure to electronic structure to work with. They have sort of convenient laser frequencies that we can use to address them. Yeah. And how many atoms are in a little group that you're working with at any one time? Yeah. So typically this starting point of laser cooling gives some cloud that could have, you know, could easily have 10 million atoms in it,

let's say. But we don't, and then that's sort of just the first stage of our experiments. And then, you know, I have a couple of different labs that do different things, but actually one of the things we've been doing is doing experiments where we have little clouds of atoms that are individually trapped and asking how much control can we get over the ways that these atoms can actually interact with each other. Right. And sort of the general motivation is we talked earlier about entanglement, and in order to generate entanglement, one needs sort of some way for the atoms to interact.

Now, ultimately, the sort of conceptually simplest thing one might want to do, and there are some labs that do this, is have sort of an individual atom trapped at the focus of a laser beam and have perhaps some array of those individual atoms so that you can kind of control, think of each one as a cubit, right, and form some kind of a quantum register. So they have every single atom pinned at one location. Yeah, exactly. In things that I'm currently doing in my lab, we work with little clouds of atoms, each one pinned in a focused laser beam.

And that, for what we're doing right now, happens to have some advantages. But that's kind of what you can picture is sort of a bunch of little clouds of atoms sitting in kind of a line trapped one next to the other. And then how many atoms are we left with or how many effective cubits? Oh, right. And so each little cloud has a few thousand atoms. And we can have, let's say, 20 of these little clouds. Okay. Yeah.

All right. And so are the individual clouds, does it even make sense to ask this question? Are they like solid or gas? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think they're a gas. Okay. So the atoms within the individual clouds, they can move around freely, they're to lowest order, not really interacting with each other. They're far apart compared to the size of the atom.

So they're sort of at micron scale distances apart, whereas the size of the atom is on the instrument scale. And are they like sitting in a bowl or something? What prevents them from just falling to the floor? Yeah. And so that's where lasers come in again. So so much of what we do involves using lasers. the first step I said was cooling them, but also then we hold them in place. We essentially kind of are levitating them or, yeah, essentially trapping them by using the fact that the atom

can basically experience an attractive force when it's, or a force that attracts it to the intensity maximum of the laser beam. Okay. So this is, you can kind of think of it as you have this oscillating electric field of the light, which can polarize the atom. And so that allows the atom to, so the light sort of induces some polarization in the atom that's along the field direction and so it can lower its energy by being in the presence of that oscillating field, which is the light. Maybe one somewhat down-to-earth question here is, what does the lab look like? I think that most people have an image of the large Hadron Collider as a physics lab. And I think that it's a different scale. that you're working on here.

Yeah, that's a great question. So the typical scale, first of all, in terms of sort of the number of people who are operating such a machine where we laser cool and track the atoms and do our physics, it's typically, you know, a team of three or four people working together. Very different. And, you know, and they're in a room that's something like, you know, 500 square feet to give us kind of a sense of scale. And so they will have, you can picture basically having several optical tables.

So imagine a table that's something like five feet by nine feet or so that has on it. Well, so in a typical lab we might have one table that has a vacuum chamber where our experiments happen. So we need these atoms, these particular atoms we care about, let's say the rubidium atoms to be isolated in ultra-high vacuum without anything else flying around. We don't want them to bump into air molecules or whatever, right. Yeah. And so there's that vacuum chamber, all the pumps needed to create the vacuum. And then various lots and lots of kind of optical components, so laser beams that are used to do the cooling and the trapping and manipulating the atoms, which we usually prepare this laser light on

another table, send it into optical fibers that carry it to where the experiments happen. So you can adjust something at the laser end without needing to readjust everything at the vacuum chamber side. Okay. And so there's, yeah, so there's sort of a couple of these tables with lasers on one, the vacuum system on the other, lots of electronic components often kind of home-built to do what we need to do. So every laser needs to be at exactly the right frequency and we're constantly measuring and

feeding back to make sure it stays at the right frequency. So lots of feedback loops and things like that. So it sounds like a lot of the day-to-day work of one of your graduate students is tending the lasers. Well, that actually depends a lot on kind of the stage we're at in our research. So I would say in sort of the early stages, you know, there's kind of really a custom-built apparatus that the graduate students, they need to design and build and set up the lasers and get them all the light into the optical fibers and at the right frequencies. And then eventually, you know, the graduate students aren't, you know, pressing buttons to turn on and off the light.

That is all automated, right? So they're writing computer code that tells all of the lasers, for example, what they need to do in the magnetic fields and so forth. And so then the day-to-day life becomes more about writing that script that's telling the apparatus what to do, analyzing the data, which is, you know, some images, let's say, from a camera that tell us what the atoms are doing. Yeah, and so there's sort of a shift then to kind of sitting at a computer and making sure

and telling the experiment what to do, analyzing data, and every so often perhaps going and fixing something on the experiment table. And the ultimate goal is we want to entangle these things. So what is it that is entangled? Is it individual atoms within a cloud that you're entangling with each other? Are you entangling different clouds? Yeah. So one of the things we're currently very interested.

in is how one can have some kind of like programmability of what this sort of graph is of entanglement that we can create. And I will say that in my lab, we're actually currently working on, you know, can we actually quantify and prove that there's entanglement in our system? And that takes a fairly sophisticated set of measurements that are in progress. But what we've done so far is show that we have a high degree of control over basically the structure of interactions. and those interactions are the mechanism for generating entanglement. And so what we are most interested in, well, yeah, and so both of these things are interesting,

generating entanglement within a cloud, generating entanglement between the clouds. What you would care about depends a little bit on what application you have in mind. And for us, there are a few different directions that we're intrigued by, which range from sort of preparing states that could have applications in precision measurement or in computation, or simulating phenomena from other areas of physics and one that I'm intrigued by is connections to gravity that you actually probably know much more about than I do. We're going to get there, believe me.

And so, again, so depending which of those things you want to do, you might want to entangle things in different ways. Yeah, and I'm just luxuriating in all the vicarious pleasures of being in the lab without actually doing any of the work. So how does the entanglement come about? Do the atoms bump into each other or interact with each other? Or does like some separate manipulation get them into an entangled state? Yeah.

So one way, generically, one way to entangle atoms is actually to let them bump into each other. And that is something that is not the focus in our lab. And the reason that we're kind of interested in actually going beyond that and being able to let atoms interact that aren't directly bumping into each other is related to this. is related to this idea I mentioned right at the outset that the special thing about quantum mechanics is that information doesn't have to be local, that it can be stored in these kind of non-local correlations. And if you want to kind of efficiently build up non-local correlations, then it would be great to be able to have kind of interactions that don't rely on things being right next to each other.

And so one of the things that we do in our lab is actually use, again, use light. So use photons to carry information between atoms that are, far apart. So, you know, the atoms, again, are kind of angstrom-scale objects, but we can have a photon convey information from one atom to another atom that's a millimeter away or from one little cloud to another cloud that's a millimeter away. And so for us, that's a very long distance. Exactly, yeah. On the scale of our experiments. And so that's, yeah, that's one of the key approaches that we use in our lab. And you already alluded to this, but can I get more details on this question of how do you know that things are entangled? Is it just a

just you trust the rules of quantum mechanics? Because my impression is that entanglement itself is not measurable, at least in a single measurement. Maybe you could sort of do it over and over again. Yeah. And so in the experiment, you always need to basically prepare the same state many times and do a set of measurements. So that allows you to do kind of complementary measurements that give you kind of more than one piece of information about the same state, even though the measurement does fundamentally change the state, right? So that's why we need to redo the same experiment

and measure a different quantity. One of the ways that we are actually currently working on is using some insight from kind of the field of precision measurement. So there are known fundamental limits having to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that I mentioned before, for if I have a collection of atoms that are unentangled, what is the best measurement that I can do?

In our case, we're not looking at position or momentum, but you could ask, for example, what is the best measurement I can do of the strength of a magnetic field? Okay. That makes these spins that I think of these atoms as spins, that makes these spins rotate. And again, you know, this phenomenon of quantum superposition means that when we measure the state of an atom,

it's kind of like a coin toss. There's some randomness. And we know if we were to flip 100 coins on average, on average 50 would land heads and 50 would land tails, but there'd be some fluctuations around that. And that just comes from the statistics of a binomial distribution. So, and so those fluctuations scale roughly with the number of, the square root of the number of coins you tossed, or in our case, the square root of the number of atoms that we did our measurement on. So that sets a limit to how precisely you could, you know, measure a magnetic

field using the atoms. And if we can do better than that limit, then actually that is one way of in a very sort of operatively useful way, saying there's entanglement in the system. So that's the type of measurement that we're currently kind of working on. It requires making sure all the technical noise is not a limitation and that you're really just seeing the quantum noise. Yeah. And so far, so far we've seen kind of evidence that we have the right structure of interactions to give rise to entanglement. And we're working on showing, you know, is it really entanglement? And like you said, that requires sort of performing measurements of sort of the spin in different directions.

So there's a full set of measurements one needs to do. So just to be clear to the people who are not quantum mechanics experts here, if I have an atom, a single one that may or may not be entangled with other atoms, there is literally no measurement I could make on just that one atom that would tell me whether it was entangled. Is that right? Can you repeat? Sorry, can you repeat the question? If I have, if I focus in on one atom that may or may not be entangled with others, And I think about measuring just that one atom, there's nothing I could measure that would tell me whether there was entanglement with it elsewhere.

That's exactly right. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So you got to be clever. This is why you get paid the big books. Again, if we had that state we described before, the so-called bell state where it's a superposition of both coins being heads and both coins being tails, if we just look at one of them, everything looks random, right? And we can't tell.

And that's generally true that I need to somehow look at both parts of the system. You're confused about your credit score. One site has one number and another site, something completely... What? That can't be right. It's okay. Forget everything except MyFICO. These free scores from other apps can differ by as much as 100 points from your FICO score that 90% of top lenders actually use

when you apply for a credit card, personal loan, car loan, or mortgage. For the moments that matter, get the score that matters, your FICO score. Visit MyFICO.com and get started for free today. And I got the impression from looking at your website, et cetera, that one of the things that you are specializing in is the fact that, you know, it's relatively easy to get two atoms to be entangled if they're right next to each other. But you are trying to be separating the sort of physical proximity of different atoms from their entanglement. So you can have different kinds of entanglement structures. I guess maybe explain what I mean when I just said that. What does it mean to have different kinds of entanglement structures?

Can anatomy entangled with many other things, or is it just one at a time? Oh, yeah, that's a great question. I mean, first of all, there is sort of a rule called monogamy of entanglement, which says, you know, if I can have two things that are kind of maximally entangled, or I can have many things that are all sort of weakly entangled. So there are some tradeoffs there. One thing that, and, yeah, as you said, we'd like kind of control over the structures of entanglement. One thing I've worked on on the past is having sort of the opposite limit of two things, which are strongly entangled, which is having many that are sort of collectively entangled.

So if I have a cloud of atoms and every atom can talk to every other atom, that gives a way of making a certain type of kind of collective entangled state that does have applications actually in enhanced precision measurements. And that is actually something I worked on in my PhD thesis, was using that type of kind of collective entanglement to make states that are useful for enhancing the precision of atomic clocks. So that's kind of one simple limit is like everybody is talking to each other and there's a collective form of entanglement all to all. Another limit is sort of maybe pairwise entanglement that you could get by having some nearest neighbor interaction. And what we would love to do is kind of

be able to explore between those two and really control kind of the structure of interactions and explore a wider range of quantum states. And did you ever expect when you started doing this kind of thing that you would be modeling quantum gravity? No. Yeah. But it happened. Apparently that is what is going on.

I mean, I'm not sure what the best way to approach this is. Do we have to talk about ADS-E-F-T? Perhaps, yeah. I could say a little bit about how I got interested in this topic. I think maybe that, yeah. So, you know, again, so my background had been in this area of kind of, you know, quantum metrology. I was building a lab where I have ways of letting atoms talk to each other with light. That's a little bit, you know, different from letting atoms collide with each other.

And somewhere along, some time when we were kind of working on getting the lab set up, I had a conversation with a theorist named Brian Swingle, who at the time was a postdoc at Stanford. And he, you know, has a background in, I guess, everything from condensed matter of physics to quantum gravity. And, you know, so very complimentary to mine. But was interested in whether one can do experiments that would probe a phenomenon known as information scrambling, which is sort of trying to get at what happens to information that falls into a black hole. So, sorry, just to again be clear. Is the phenomenon of information scrambling unique to black holes, or is it a property that systems have including black holes? And maybe explain what it is.

Right. Yeah, yeah. So to the best of my understanding, this sort of term was maybe first used in the context of thinking about black holes and asking about, you know, is information lost that falls into a black hole. And our understanding is, no, it's not lost. But it is very quickly scrambled, which is to say it kind of gets hidden in complex quantum correlations and entanglement and it's something information that was initially locally encoded in one quantum bit would become quickly very delocalized. And there's a conjecture known as the fast scrambling conjecture that there's sort of a fundamental limit to how fast this can happen. And that that would happen in essentially black holes. Or perhaps we should say systems that are.

and now you mentioned this concept ADS-C-F-T in systems that are dual-to-black holes under the framework of what's known as holographic duality. So I almost feel like I should let you explain. You're more of an expert. Let me say a couple words about it, and then you can fill in for what is relevant to what you think about it. So we did have Neda Englehart on the podcast a few months ago, and she's an expert.

So the idea that there, one Maldesena back in the 90s explained that there is a certain set of theories, quantum field theories, without gravity. So things we think we understand pretty well in N dimensions, where N is some number like four. And then there's also theories with gravity, super string theories in particular, but maybe it's broader than that, that have a certain background geometry, anti-desider space, right? to like a cosmology with a negative vacuum energy. And there's a relationship between these non-gravitational theories in N dimensions and these gravitational theories in N plus one dimensions. And the relationship is supposed to be they're the same theory. And it's not completely clear to me that it's true that they're the same theory,

but they're certainly very, very similar in relevant operational ways. So the idea is that we can learn about a real theory of quantum gravity in the context of this dual theory without gravity. where presumably we understand things better. How do I do? Right. Yeah. And so to me, what was intriguing about this idea, or one, there are actually a number of things that are intriguing about it.

But one was this idea that in certain cases you could have on one side of the duality a strongly interacting quantum system whose properties might seem like they should be hard to calculate. And on the other side, there's kind of a way to actually visualize aspects of this. this highly entangled quantum system in terms of curved space and gravity, that it might give us some kind of new ways of being able to think about strongly interacting quantum systems and have some ways of visualizing. What generically you might worry is something that requires kind of an exponentially large description.

So that was one thing that to me was kind of intriguing about hearing about this. So the relevance to what you do is that you can imagine setting something up that resembles in some way the non-gravitational side of the duality, but then if dualities like this are real, in some other way of looking at it, you're doing an experiment that involves gravity. Exactly. Yeah. Or that mimics gravity, simulates gravity. I mean, you're not actually putting something heavy in your lab and feeling its gravitational force. Right. And that's also, you know, a fascinating direction of research. Can one do precision measurements in a regime where quantum mechanics and gravity both matter, but that's not what we're doing. That's right. So we're kind of

asking, can we build quantum systems in the lab where there is this idea of some kind of emergent extra dimension that has curvature that maybe we can think about as a gravitational system? Is that something that might apply to systems we can actually build? And then, you know, I think that connects to broader questions. There are big questions about does gravity in our universe is that actually something that emerges fundamentally from quantum mechanics. I don't feel equipped to answer that question. But we can explore the concept, and maybe it will help us actually think about, have new ways of understanding quantum systems and entanglement.

You know that when Pencyus and Wilson discovered the cosmic bakery background, their famous paper just said, we measured some excess antenna temperature. I'm not going to say what it is, right? Right, yeah. That's okay. Other people worry about that. the Nobel Prize anyway. It still counts. So in other words, let's see, the hope is that there are certain kinds of theories or kinds of physical situations you can set up where they have the

properties that, if all this fancy theorizing is correct, there's a dual description that seems gravitational. Right. And presumably these setups of entangled sets of cubits or atoms or whatever are not just lying around. You have to work hard to create them. Right, yes. And that is what you're trying to do? Is that fair? Yeah, so I think we are,

so let's see. So we're trying to create, as a starting point, one thing we've done is kind of build what I would say is kind of a toy model for this idea of an emergent geometry that describes something about the structure of the correlations

in the quantum system. And for me, sort of that, starting from some, and this is something where, you know, based on things we wrote on paper, we had an idea of what we should expect to see in the experiment. But nevertheless, seeing that feels like a starting point for thinking about how you can connect to these theoretical ideas. And then the hope, I think ultimately is that one might build a system where one doesn't know sort of that there is this picture, some picture in terms of an emergent geometry. but one discovers it perhaps by measurements and it tells you something about the system, right? So that might be the longer term goal. Yeah, so.

So let me actually just dig into that a little bit. With what you've done so far, I guess the question is, are you learning things from the experiments right now or are you just checking that you're getting the answers you expected by doing the experiments so far? I would say that we are, first of all, kind of developing a level of control in the experiments to be able to. So just as an example,

I mentioned sort of first hearing about some of these ideas of holographic duality in the context of the phenomenon of fast scrambling. And one of the things that struck me there was that the models that people write down on paper that are supposed to behave in this way of exhibiting fast scrambling have rather exotic-looking interactions that are not local. Right. And that was one of the things that first made me think, well, maybe actually, you know, we do know how to realize not precisely those models, but systems with non-local interactions, you know, is that something where we might be able to explore that phenomenon or build other toy models that would be sort of hard to realize in other systems where you have, you know, nearest neighbor interactions on a lot of us. So good. I mean, let's, let's dig even, sorry, let's dig even closer there because I think that probably a lot of people think of entanglement as an interaction, but it's not, right? You have something different in mind when you say, how do you make a long-distance interaction in your world? Right. And so in our experiments, what we, so essentially, I mean, interactions actually are always local.

But we can make things that look effectively like non-local interactions by letting photons carry information very quickly at the speed of light, you know, from one atom to another. And so effectively at the end of the day, what we have is what looks like the atoms interacting. We actually can kind of ignore the photons at the end of the day and say it looks like these atoms interacted, even though they're a millimeter apart. That's our mechanism for generating what I would call sort of effectively non-local interactions. And again, just for the people out there who listen to this in similar podcasts, this has nothing to do with the spooky action at a distance that Einstein worried about, right? Because that's when you measure a spin and now you know the, if it's entangled, you know the state of some other spin on elsewhere. Alpha Centauri or whatever, but you're actually just creating entanglement or manipulating entanglement between spins. You're not collapsing the wave function by doing some measurement on them.

Exactly. So the first step is to generate these interactions, which can create entanglement. And then ultimately, to see whether you have entanglement, you do need to perform that measurement. And you would perform a set of measurements that do look like they're showing what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. Of course, we understand how it comes about. And one key, thing is that information did need to sort of travel from point A to point B to generate that entanglement. And so, I mean, maybe you said this, but it got lost. I mean, have you made quantum systems that exhibit this fast scrambling that they hypothesized for black holes? No, no, not yet. So one of the things we had started to think about is sort of with the toolbox

that we're building, what are some models that might exhibit this fast scrambling? And we had, I had a toy model that I'd been thinking about for a while where instead of having, let's say, nearest neighbor interactions on a lattice, you have interactions at a distance of one site, two sites, four sites, eight sites, any power of two. And that was actually somewhat different from models that are known to be holographically dual to black holes. But it has this feature that actually in a sort of information can spread exponentially fast kind of from one point to any other point in the system. So the characteristic of the timescale,

if you had local interactions, for information to spread from one site across the entire system, would scale linearly with the system size. Here it can scale as the logarithm of the system size. So that, you know, I had kind of this toy model and had an idea of how we could actually do that in the lab. And then somewhere actually in the context of kind of thinking about this toy model,

actually my graduate student at the time, Greg Benson, started kind of asking theorists whether there's like a more rigorous way to think about this model than my kind of hand waving. I can count how, yeah, my hand waving sort of arguments. And through a rather serendipitous chain of events, Greg came into contact with Steve Gubser at Princeton, who rather remarkably, it turned out that this toy model we've been thinking about, If you tweak it a little bit, connects to a version of this ADS-CFT correspondence of holographic duality that Steve formulated that is actually really kind of builds on some very deep ideas in number theory. I can go deeper into that if it's of interest.

But that actually then led us to this idea of by tweaking that toy model, we actually could build something in the lab that has some sense of an emeritus. emergent geometry that looks a little bit like anti-descern space. You know what's wild? We can video chat from space. Order groceries just by talking out loud. And men have like 17 options for hair loss alone.

But a bra that actually fits and feels good, apparently too much to ask. Until now, meet the uplift bra from Nix. That's K-N-I-X, a wireless bra that finally delivers real lift and all-day comfort. The secret? Molded cups with a built-in foam panel that gently enhances your natural shape. So you get a subtle boost without wires, digging, or that, why am I still wearing this moment at 3 p.m?

You asked for it. We delivered in a push-up bra that doesn't dig, poke, or pinch. And with an extensive size range from 28A through 42E, you'll be sure to find your perfect fit with the uplift. Try the uplift bra at nix.com and use code perfect fit 15 for 15% off your first order. That's K-N-I-X.com code perfect fit 15. Nix.com. This is Riley DeVluka from a really good cry. I've been doing reformer Pilates for years and I always loved how it made me feel. But getting to a class, not so much. Now I have a reformer at home. It has completely changed my routine. I'll do 20 minutes in the morning, sometimes in the evening, sometimes both. No commute, no scheduling

around a class, no pressure to keep up with anyone else. It's just me moving in a way that feels good that day. And it genuinely looks so beautiful and they have a foldable version too. So it just lives in my space which makes it so much easier to stay consistent. Every your reformer comes with over a thousand instructor-led workouts on the app so you can follow along or just move at your own pace. They deliver straight to your door within seven days across the mainland US. So if you've ever loved Reform Pilates but struggle to make it part of your routine, this makes it so easy. Visit your reformer.com and use the code free month rental. Okay, so let's just catch our breath here.

Yeah. So if we didn't know any better, if we were just dumb and naive and had a bunch of atoms on a lattice, and we poked at one of those atoms with a bit of information or something like that, we're being very hand-wavy here. What you'd expect is the information would then spread out to the nearest neighbors of that atom and then their nearest neighbors. So it would spread out linearly over time. But what you want is, or what the conjecture is happens in,

in gravity in black holes is faster than that. So you poke one at them and it spreads out all over the place. And you're able to build toy models of that. That's right. Yeah. And so we haven't really directly probed the scrambling, I would say. What we've done so far is show that we can build this graph of interactions. Right.

Okay. Yeah. And then presumably where Goopser, et cetera, come in is that it's one thing to make these non-local interactions. It's another thing to make them of precisely the, right form to look like gravity in some dual theory, right? That is, yeah, that's certainly true. That's another thing to make them of the precise form to look like gravity in some dual theory.

And I mean, so far, kind of the toy model we've realized in the lab has, it has some parameter we can tune and there's a particular point where it does have this feature of, to the best of our understanding. Actually, you can't quite really do the theory for a scalable number. of particles. But to the best of our understanding, it could exhibit fast scrambling at some point, but I'm not claiming that it's the holographic dual of a black hole. And then there's a different place you can tune it to where it has some features that bear a resemblance to a system where there is kind of an emergent geometry. Okay. That looks like a curved space,

but it's not actually a fast scrambler in that regime. Okay. That's fine. So what is the where do we make our money doing this? Are we saying that, I mean, at the end of the day, you have a bunch of atoms, and you don't really have gravity in some sense. Are we trying to learn things about systems that have some dual gravitational description? Or is there a question that we don't know about those systems

that you're going to answer experimentally? I think what I would like to understand better, and again, to be honest, I would say lately we've been focused on building up a toolbox. Yeah, sure, of course. And for a while, I actually sort of stopped chatting with theorists. Too distracting, yes. You can always have billions of ideas, but if you can't do the experiment, then where does that get you?

No, but now I think to me one question is, let's say we have this particular toy model where it does seem that there is a sense of what we might call a holographic bulk geometry. and is there some predictive power to that? And I don't have a sharp answer to this, but is there a sense where having this geometrical picture helps us predict something about the dynamics of the quantum system? I see. Okay. Helps us understand, you know,

what's the most efficient way to transfer information from point A to point B in this collection of cubits, for example. And I think that there are things there where actually the gravity, this, it's not precisely gravity, but this picture of this bulk geometry actually shows. should give a useful way of thinking about the behavior of the quantum system. And I feel that having a toy model in the lab to play with that, and hopefully soon more than one model, right, is kind of a starting point.

So I guess I feel that there's value in doing experiments. It sort of, for me, at least, clarifies things to really think, how do you do this in the lab? Just to give maybe also one example. So what I think is fascinating theoretically is the, is the idea that there is a direct connection between, we talked about entanglement earlier, between the property called entanglement entropy, which is a measure of entanglement in the quantum system, and the geometry in this extra dimension. So there's this idea that the amount of entanglement

entropy in some region on the quantum system that lives on the boundary of this higher dimensional space is connected to the area of sort of a particular surface, in the higher dimensional space, in the bulk. So that is something where that would be kind of cool to see a system where you can directly measure that in the lab. And there are some experiments where one can measure entanglement entropy. But also you can ask, do you need to measure that? Or at least as an experimentalist, you naturally say,

well, are there simpler experimental observables that will kind of get at some of the same physics? And in our experiment, so far entanglement entropy isn't something we can measure. and we were actually kind of surprised, even though when we'd been doing some theory before, we had made some plots of what the entanglement entropy would do in a system like this.

And we were sort of surprised that actually by being forced to work with what we could, there were simpler observables that kind of actually showed some of the same physics. And so that type of thing you don't really have to think about until you're confronted with it in the lab, but perhaps you can learn something from that. Yeah, no, I mean, I'm entirely on board

that experiments are just simply worth doing, right? I mean, can't just have theorists talking to each other all the time. But just so, I think I finally get some logic from your explanation that I hadn't gotten before. So let me play it back to you, and you can tell me if I'm on the right track. So you have the system of atoms with entanglement and, you know, you're poking at them with photons and whatever. And in principle, I could imagine taking a giant computer and solving for what the system is going to do using the Schrodinger equation. But in practice, that's just impractical. There's too many degrees of freedom, too many things going around.

But if the specific arrangements of entanglement and interactions have this holographic dual, that is to say there's a way of thinking about them that looks like gravity in an extra dimension, it's not gravity and extra dimension. You know, we know how many dimensions are, et cetera, but you can use that knowledge to make a prediction for what's actually going to happen in your experiment. And then you can test to see whether that comes true. Yes, yeah, yeah. And I think that sort of the sort of fundamental challenge that we never really explicitly,

stated in our discussion about entanglement earlier is the fact that having a, you know, a full description of a quantum system that I could, let's say, put on my classical computer, that description grows exponentially. Yeah. With the number of particles, you know, and even for, you know, 50-some particles, it just won't fit on the world's largest supercomputer, right? That's right. Yeah. And, and so that's where the question is sort of, under what circumstances, is there a simpler description? Good.

And in some cases, and, you know, there's lots of work on that by people who are pushing the state of the art in kind of numerical simulations of quantum systems. And in some cases where it's a one-dimensional system and, you know, you have nearest neighbor interactions, it's kind of known how to more efficiently represent the classes of quantum states that you would naturally get from that in certain cases. But in more generic cases, it's not obvious necessarily. And the hope is that this holographic duality could perhaps give an approach that lends itself to some quantum systems where currently we don't know how to efficiently describe them. And is it too much to ask that we might learn something about quantum gravity by doing this? Are you going to address questions about black hole information loss? So I don't think that I personally can solve those problems because a lot of other people have thought about the most. much more deeply than I have.

So what can we contribute? I think we can talk to the people who've thought more deeply, right? And so and we can kind of, again, build these model systems and see how they behave in regimes where you might not be able to calculate it.

Yeah. Right? And I would say actually right now we're still working in the regime where we can calculate what happens well in our system that has something to do with the fact that we work with little clouds of atoms that you can think of a bit more semi-classically.

And so there's still, I mentioned a lot of this is about just developing the experimental tools. So there's a path to getting to systems that are more in a regime where it's, let's say, one cubit per site. And it has a simple theoretical description on paper, but nevertheless, it's hard to calculate what will happen. Right. And so in that regime, the hope is that sort of with the right sort of dialogue between

us and other experimentalists who can build systems in the lab and theorists who might know exactly what is the right question to ask, right, to learn something about information in black holes. I think that that dialogue is essential. And part of it, so for example, but you mentioned before, if one can build a system that's a fast scrambler, that's not a sufficient condition for having the holographic dual, the black hole, but it is a necessary condition.

and then you can start, at least to the best of my understanding. And so then you can start to ask, you know, you can explore, can we build things that maybe it's not actually easy to calculate what will happen, but you can measure it in the lab. And people are thinking about more and more refined tests for whether the system is or might or might not have a gravity duel beyond just asking how fast is information scrambled. And so I think there's a lot of kind of parallel work in terms of making experiments. more capable and thinking about whether they're right measurements to perform. I don't know if this is a fair question, but in the original work by Maldesana, the non-gravitational side of the duality was this very specific theory, right? Super Yang Mills theory with a lot of supersymmetry, et cetera, et cetera.

So should we be, so how confident are we that just from a bunch of rubidium atoms you can mimic a system like that? Are we confident that we have the right properties? No. Certainly not. But to me, one of the questions is like how generic are these ideas about holographic duality? And I believe that theorists are often restricted to thinking about models that they have

the right tools to analyze. Right. It would be great if the concepts generalize beyond those models. Yes. Okay. Good. Right. And so what we can do on the experimental side is build systems that we might have some reason to believe are interesting. Like, oh, I think this seems like it should be a fast scrambler. Maybe it's interesting, right? And then learn something in regimes where you can't easily analyze it on paper. Yeah, no, I'm a big believer in doing the experiments and being surprised and then realize, oh, I should have thought of that all along, right? Yeah. Yeah. And I guess it's worth before we, before we end, I don't. I don't. do want to come back to the fact that there are other reasons to do these experiments other than pretending to make black holes or whatever. So I mean, you know what those reasons are better than I do, but one that you mentioned is precision timing measurements. So how does that work? Yeah. So generally speaking, you know, one of the reasons that we love atoms is that atoms are

are best measurements of time. And the second is defined in terms of an oscillation frequency in the cesium atom. And one place, and actually sort of the best clocks made of these laser-pooled atoms, really are at the point where one of the limitations on their performance is quantum uncertainty, that sort of coin-toss noise that comes from the randomness of these acts of projecting an atom into one of two states. So this is one place where entanglement can help you kind of introduce correlations that if one coin lands heads and other is more likely to entail, so to speak, and so the fluctuations and that total count are reduced. I see. And so that's a direction where entanglement certainly can help. And there's lots of work going on in terms of just taking

some things that have already been kind of demonstrated and applying them towards the world. best clocks. One of the questions I'm kind of fundamentally interested in is the sort of simplest states one could make and that have been made are so-called squeezed states that have that sort of collective entanglement. Every atom is entangled with every other in sort of an equal way. And those are certainly, it's well understood kind of why those are useful for those applications. But one of the questions I'm kind of interested in is if you can have richer structures of entanglement, that also have a benefit for sensing and in what cases does it have a benefit? And that might be that you're trying to get more information than just measuring one single quantity. Like,

it might be that you're trying to actually image a magnetic field or something. You're trying to, right, you're trying to or get information that's, how is some signal varying as a function of time? What are the spatial correlations in the signal? So kind of there's not that much, there's, I would say we're at an early stage of understanding kind of how rich are structures of entanglement can offer benefits in both sensing and timekeeping tasks. And so that's something where the more we kind of build up this toolbox, the more we can start to even explore at a fundamental level, how to harness entanglement, how to fully harness it as a resource for precision measurement. I'm sure there's very good answers to this question, but why do we want to have even more precise measurements

of time than we already have? Like, we're pretty good at it now. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, one of the, you know, we talked earlier about sort of different ways of probing gravity, actually, right? Or harnessing holographic duality. But perhaps actually, can you really do measurements in the regime where quantum mechanics and gravity are both playing a role? Uh-huh. And the best atomic clocks are just extraordinarily precise to the point where if you have just a very,

just a very small change in the height of the clock. I think by now probably in the millimeter scale. One can actually, you know, that changes the rate at which the clock ticks because of gravitational redshift. And so you can actually really sort of resolve that and see these effects of general relativity in the atomic clock, right? And in this case, you're talking about real honest to goodness gravity making apples fall from trees, not, you know,

dual gravity in your theory. Yeah. Yeah. And so that's, so I would actually say one of the sort of motivations for better clocks is that actually you can do better and better precision tests of fundamental physics. They're ideas for using clocks to detect gravitational waves and regimes where sort of different parameter regimes from LIGO and things like that. So that's that's kind of one direction. And it seems, maybe this is too naive on my part, but it seems from all the words you use that maybe quantum computing is an application for this kind of thing. learn anything that is then relevant to quantum computing? Yeah. I mean, so, so one of the things that we're interested in, so certainly generally entanglement is kind of the fundamental resource for

quantum computing. So, you know, in a very general sense, anything that advances, you know, what types of entangled states you can prepare might have some computing application. But at a more sort of direct level, you know, there's sort of the goal of building a universal error-corrected quantum computer. And then there's a kind of goal of asking, are there certain classes of computational problems that might naturally map to sort of existing or near-term hardware in the lab? And can we sort of ask whether the quantum systems that are natural for us to build can solve certain classes of problems? And so in that vein, there's a whole class of optimization problems that can be mapped to essentially minimizing the energy of an interacting spin

system. And generically, those problems, so these are things in the vein of traveling salesman problem, they can be certain scheduling problems and things like that. Generically, those require some spins with non-local interactions. And it turns out that, you know, so if you can, and to have a particular problem that you're solving, you need to be able to basically program the graph of those interactions. And you'd like to also control the sign of the interaction. Do the spins want to align or anti-align? And how strongly do they want to do that? So, sorry, when you say the graph of the interactions,

we have some atoms that we know their locations, and then the graph of the interactions is given atom A and some other atom B, how strong is this interaction? Exactly, yeah. And also, what is the sign of it? Do they want to align? For every single pair of atoms or whatever. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And so having these programmable non-local interactions is a great way to start exploring. Does this quantum system give you a way of efficiently solving these certain classes of problems that are known to be hard classically? And it's not, there are lots of, you know, there's lots of theoretical work on, you know, can quantum systems help with this or not? And there are, certain cases where it's known that they won't help or certain approaches won't help and certain cases where it looks like the quantum systems can help. And then a huge wide open space where I really think you need to kind of play with the systems and learn from experiments.

And so we naturally now have a way of making these non-local interaction graphs. We see some evidence that we have a way of kind of naturally generating what look like low temperature states of this interacting spin model. And we would love to go deeper into exploring for sort of, you know, the cases, the types of graphs that are hard classically. Can our system find the ground state and so forth? And it seems to be as a quasi-alider that the field is advancing pretty darn rapidly. I mean, how do you see what's the, what this field is like 20 years from now in terms of how many spins are being entangled and what kind of systems you're looking at? Yeah.

You know, 20 years, I think it is really hard to predict. because like you said, even just in the past few years, there has been quite rapid advances. I would say, you know, one area where there's been in this field of cold atoms, substantial progress in the past few years, is the ability to really scalably create arrays of individually trapped atoms, where one can have, you know, an ordered array of hundreds of atoms that you can look at one by one and pretty soon, hopefully manipulate any one of them,

individually, there are ways of having kind of nearest neighbor interactions that are explored in a number of labs. And it's actually also something we work on in a different setup than the one I was describing so you can either have local interactions or one thing that so far from that toolbox is kind of missing is having this longer range connectivity that could be really valuable in this context of efficiently implementing certain quantum algorithms or

generating certain structures of entanglement. And so to me, like for this is maybe not an answer for the field as a whole, but one thing I'm kind of excited about is can we kind of merge these different technologies of the ability to have sort of more control over the

graph of interactions with this really scalable single particle control. And it's just the kind of thing where you could do it much, much better if you had a billion dollars or is it just you need time in the individual 500 square foot labs and eventually we'll get to the point where you need a lot more money? I would say you, I would say for things I'm working on, I would say we need time in individual 500 square foot labs and sort of the ingenuity of, you know, grad students and postdocs

coming up with kind of, yeah, clever solutions. And that's partly sort of, I think my taste is doing some things that are a little bit you don't already know how to do it. If I knew how to do it and that just money would solve it, then I'd actually be less excited than I am about things where I have a sense that there's something interesting to explore, but I don't really quite know what the answer is yet. I think that's the perfect place to end,

and you've convinced us all that we need to understand entanglement better theoretically and experimentally. So Monica Schlier-Smith, thanks very much for being on the Mindscape podcast. Thanks so much again for the invitation.