For the first time, researchers have demonstrated the remarkable ability to perturb pairs of spatially separated yet interconnected quantum entangled particles without altering their shared properties.
The team hopes that this might become a powerful tool that paves the way for new quantum communication protocols that use topology as an alphabet for quantum information processing across entanglement-based channels.
The findings reported in the article are crucial because researchers have grappled for decades with developing techniques to preserve entangled states. The fact that topology remains intact even as entanglement decays suggests a potentially new encoding mechanism that utilizes entanglement, even in scenarios with minimal entanglement where traditional encoding protocols would fail.
Science reporting list the authors or the institutions or the paper being published. There isn't even a DOI. So, I can't even say if any of this has gone through peer review or been published in a reputable journal. It's not really an article. The whole thing reads like OP copied a couple paragraphs out of the middle of a university press release.
Well one is a physical phenomenon and one is a mathematical type of model. So without going further into the article I assume they use topology to model quantum behaviour.
Its like saying light and sine waves are inextricably linked. One is reality and one is the abstract model to help understand that reality
I can tell you about topology though, its essentially a way to talk about a space where points don't have a distance to each other. By that I mean there does not exist a function to measure the distance between two points, which is fundamentally different from "all points are so close we cannot measure their distance". In the latter case a distance might still exist in reality, its just our instruments are not fine enough to detect it. What we mean however is that it makes "no sense", for whatever reason, to talk about distance. The main thing of topology then is that we can still talk about properties of a space, for example whether any two points on a surface can be connected by a path, even though they don't have a distance to eachother or to any of the points linking them.
You definitely lose a lot without the possibility to measure distance but not as much as one might expect. Another example would be that it is possible to distinguish between a torus and a sphere (or any other genus).
My point is that "intextricably linked" makes no sense when talking about an abstract model and a real phenomenon. They aren't inextricably "linked", one is real the other isn't how could they possibly be linked. It's the person modeling reality that makes the link.
I think it's really neat when I read some obscure or esoteric science discovery and feel like I understand it. Although I know I would need years of study to maybe even begin to be able to understand how to discover that truth.
I didn't understand it even slightly, oh well. I couldn't even tell whether this was an experimental result or just a theoretical one. That's just from the phys.org post though. I haven't looked at the Bature article.