Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record

Post by Florin_Andrei » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:45 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #78

ahelwer wrote: post #13

Crash course in entanglement: The state of each qbit is represented by a state vector of two complex numbers [a, b] where |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1. There are two special qbit values called the classical basis : [1, 0] which is the classical bit 0, and [0, 1] which is the classical bit 1. If a qbit is not in one of the two classical states, we say it is in superposition . When a qbit is in superposition, we can measure it[0]…

Since speed warps spacetime, does the relative speed of the qubits change this? Can they go out of sync if one is moved much faster than the other for a prolonged period of time? If not, could this property be used for a universal clock?

Post by rurban » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 10:57 PM UTC

bscphil wrote: post #19

foxes wrote: post #4

I visited USTC several years ago, (2014) and in this time they have basically doubled the number of qubits they can entangle, so this is a great step forward. At around ~100 qubits quantum computing becomes very useful, so maybe we won't have to wait too long.

What's the size needed for cracking large-primes based encryption? If not at 100 qubits, what are some useful calculations that we can do at that size?

Post by Koshkin » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 11:12 PM UTC

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #97

jblow wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The slowness of these languages is mostly uncorrelated with increases in productivity. People only think there’s cause-and-effect here because they haven’t seen counterexamples, because the trend in language design for 25 years has been to make slow languages.

They haven't seen counterexamples because there are virtually none. If what you said was correct wouldn't there be many examples of big bodies of code written in a language like C? (And you can't say "linux kernel" - low-level code needs to be written in a low-level language, in order to communicate with the lower levels like hardware and controllers and such. There is a practical reason to write that in C.) > becaus…

Post by bomberFighter » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 11:54 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #96

crumpington wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just an expression of the conservation of energy. Much in the same way the double slit experiment conflates a particle transporting itself through two windows at once, so too, do these experiments conflate the polarizers as causing the effect. Ask yourself: if you construct a gun, with two diametrically opposed barrels, with exactly opposed rifling twists, and you aim the gun at two opposing (but identical) abra…

No, no, no. There is almost half a century of experimental evidence against you. The experimental results of Bell test experiments are incompatible with the assumption that the states of both particles are fixed when the pair is generated and are only classically correlated because of the way their states are fixed. All your analogy attempts are flawed and bound to fail exactly because entangled pairs of quantum part…

Post by danbruc » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 12:07 AM UTC

breadAndWater wrote: post #108

danbruc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no, no. There is almost half a century of experimental evidence against you. The experimental results of Bell test experiments are incompatible with the assumption that the states of both particles are fixed when the pair is generated and are only classically correlated because of the way their states are fixed. All your analogy attempts are flawed and bound to fail exactly because entangled pairs of quantum part…

Except you can't tell me what the spin is without polarizers. This is like telling me I have to measure the orientation of a fidget spinner with a fitness club's treadmill set to the brisk pace of an uphill jog. None of the experiments don't use polarizing lenses to make a determination of results on both sides. This is where the experiments are fundamentally flawed and propose weak evidence. To simply read about the…