11–20 of 74 posts
Leonard Susskind, Adam R. Brown, Ying Zhao
Quantum Complexity and Negative Curvature https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02612
The Second Law of Quantum Complexity https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01107
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highlight and google search? There are already addons that highlight words and provide the definition aka Google Dictionary
Yes it's likely that I'm over-thinking this... It does not feel good enough since it would be ~opening new tabs and~ make me go through a lot more effort than necessary, and it feels like I would be overwhelmed and give up eventually. If there is something that would make "understanding articles as easy as possible" then that would be amazing. I'll probably end up developing this myself... Edit: was incorrect about o…
To someone who doesn't actually know many of the terms here, it sounds like they didn't accomplish much. They defined a stronger form of locality called "bi-locality" and found a way to violate it. The structure of the argument is, "We stood up a strawman and knocked it down," which sounds pretty weak. Is bi-locality an inherently interesting property? Does all classical computation follow it? I don't know enough to…
Weaker than "I don't understand what the paper says, only read a high level layman summary, not sure even what what the experiment was for, but I'm gonna piss on it anyway"?
Even assuming what you already describe, the ability to show bi-locality as a new lower bound above which locality constraints apply, is very interesting, and nothing like a strawman.
It would only be a strawman if they claimed they violated locality in general.
Going meta here, speaking from the perspective of a software engineer with a great interest for physics. There are a lot of terms I do not fully understand in this article. Can you recommend an application that would allow me to select for example the words "distant particles can be correlated in ways that are impossible for classical objects" and find out what lead to that discovery? Or what does "Bell inequality" r…
Venkman: Ray, pretend for a moment that I don't know anything about metallurgy, engineering, or physics, and just tell me what the hell is going on.
Stantz: You never studied.
(Ghostbusters)
Just studying the principles -- e.g. reading an entry level Physics/QM book, would be better and more solid than surfing around, or asking for opinions on forums (which you couldn't evaluate anyway -- tons of bogus opinions in any kind of forum), or googling stuff.
Stuff like "Bell's inequality" are so basic that merely surfing and skimming wouldn't help (it would be all a kind of concept soup in the end). You can do that with more advanced notions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highlight and google search? There are already addons that highlight words and provide the definition aka Google Dictionary
Yes it's likely that I'm over-thinking this... It does not feel good enough since it would be ~opening new tabs and~ make me go through a lot more effort than necessary, and it feels like I would be overwhelmed and give up eventually. If there is something that would make "understanding articles as easy as possible" then that would be amazing. I'll probably end up developing this myself... Edit: was incorrect about o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highlight and google search? There are already addons that highlight words and provide the definition aka Google Dictionary
Yes it's likely that I'm over-thinking this... It does not feel good enough since it would be ~opening new tabs and~ make me go through a lot more effort than necessary, and it feels like I would be overwhelmed and give up eventually. If there is something that would make "understanding articles as easy as possible" then that would be amazing. I'll probably end up developing this myself... Edit: was incorrect about o…
While you don't need new tabs to google a term with some addons, actual knowledge of the subject, even at a basic level, takes a lot more effort than opening tabs.
There's no magic bullet to learning.
So in laymen's terms, it sounds like they found a way to send information through an entangled pair of particles. Is that accurate?
Going meta here, speaking from the perspective of a software engineer with a great interest for physics. There are a lot of terms I do not fully understand in this article. Can you recommend an application that would allow me to select for example the words "distant particles can be correlated in ways that are impossible for classical objects" and find out what lead to that discovery? Or what does "Bell inequality" r…
> Can you recommend an application that would allow me to select for example the words "distant particles can be correlated in ways that are impossible for classical objects" and find out what lead to that discovery? Or what does "Bell inequality" really mean? If not, are there recommended methods of understanding articles better? Venkman: Ray, pretend for a moment that I don't know anything about metallurgy, enginee…
To someone who doesn't actually know many of the terms here, it sounds like they didn't accomplish much. They defined a stronger form of locality called "bi-locality" and found a way to violate it. The structure of the argument is, "We stood up a strawman and knocked it down," which sounds pretty weak. Is bi-locality an inherently interesting property? Does all classical computation follow it? I don't know enough to…
They took an prediction of existing theory that violates a weaker form of locality (i.e. demonstrated stronger non-locality), and realized it experimentally. They also didn't invent bilocality in any case.