Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#11

Post by andrepd »

ohaideredevs wrote: post #7
krastanov wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't. I just got my PhD (working on quantum computing at a good school) and I do not really get the point they are making. It is interesting, but esoteric even for people working in related fields. However, it is a great opportunity to start learning more about it!

My comment isn't useful, but I really can't get a handle on anything "quantum" related. The only thing I sort of understand is that if you could entangle a massive amount of photons/electrons, you could have "quantum radar" which would be jam-proof. I don't really understand even that though. Could you verify an electron reflecting back is entangled with an electron you have on hand, or are they all just "entangled"…

>My comment isn't useful, but I really can't get a handle on anything "quantum" related.

That is probably because you have tried to read "applications" papers/articles (some of them of dubious scientific value, and more sci-fi/futurology) without properly understanding the fundamentals first. I strongly recommend "Quantum Mechanics", Cohen-Tannoudji et al. The first two chapters are the best introduction to quantum mechanics I've read: concise and to the point, starting from experiment and explaining the key ideas of quantum theory, and then the mathematical formulation.

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#12

Post by KevinCarbonara »

thelazydogsback wrote: post #10

> possible only because pointer states of quantum objects exist I knew it was pointers! So observation is the universe's GC? I feel better knowing that life is here at least to collapse enough wave functions to keep things humming along nicely. (Ever wake up and feel that you must have been stopped-and-copied over the night??)

I know this is a joke, but QD specifically excludes the requirement of a living observer.

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#13

Post by calais »

jackfoxy wrote: post #8

Here's a rebuttal from a physicist https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/07/quanta-magazines-anti-qua...

The rebuttal takes a view which is close to my heart—but [Motl] puts it so viciously, dismisses without genuine inquiry or curiosity the intriguing claims of the article, and plays so much faster and looser with his ideas than the author he critiques—you can taste his contrition. Ball and [Motl] are probably both mistaken about what QD actually explains.

Edit: fixed names

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#15

Post by jessriedel »

calais wrote: post #13
jackfoxy wrote: post #8

Here's a rebuttal from a physicist https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/07/quanta-magazines-anti-qua...

The rebuttal takes a view which is close to my heart—but [Motl] puts it so viciously, dismisses without genuine inquiry or curiosity the intriguing claims of the article, and plays so much faster and looser with his ideas than the author he critiques—you can taste his contrition. Ball and [Motl] are probably both mistaken about what QD actually explains. Edit: fixed names

(The author of the blog post is Luboš Motl. Pilsen is the name of a town in Czechia where he presumably lives.)

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#16

Post by jessriedel »

ohaideredevs wrote: post #7
krastanov wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't. I just got my PhD (working on quantum computing at a good school) and I do not really get the point they are making. It is interesting, but esoteric even for people working in related fields. However, it is a great opportunity to start learning more about it!

My comment isn't useful, but I really can't get a handle on anything "quantum" related. The only thing I sort of understand is that if you could entangle a massive amount of photons/electrons, you could have "quantum radar" which would be jam-proof. I don't really understand even that though. Could you verify an electron reflecting back is entangled with an electron you have on hand, or are they all just "entangled"…

This is a go-to resources for laymen who would like to learn the basics of physics. https://theoreticalminimum.com/

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#17

Post by phs318u »

jessriedel wrote: post #16
ohaideredevs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment isn't useful, but I really can't get a handle on anything "quantum" related. The only thing I sort of understand is that if you could entangle a massive amount of photons/electrons, you could have "quantum radar" which would be jam-proof. I don't really understand even that though. Could you verify an electron reflecting back is entangled with an electron you have on hand, or are they all just "entangled"…

This is a go-to resources for laymen who would like to learn the basics of physics. https://theoreticalminimum.com/

Thanks for that! Hadn’t come across this. Seems like the perfect way to refresh the knowledge I once had (bachelor degree 1986).

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#18

Post by kgwgk »

jackfoxy wrote: post #8

Here's a rebuttal from a physicist https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/07/quanta-magazines-anti-qua...

Motl is often too agressive and not fair to the target of his critiques, but when it's about quantamagazine vs. Motl he's the safe bet. (I've not read neither in this case, though.)

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#19

Post by [deleted] »

berrynice wrote: post #9

I don't know if the analogy to darwinian evolution makes much sense, it seems to me that it makes more sense to see this as a way of error-correcting our reality, that is to say quantum phenomenon occur because anything else would cause a severe inconsistency.

[deleted]

Re: Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests

#20

Post by canada_dry »

As a layman I just can't get past the glaring reality of: we simply do not possess the means (i.e. equipment/tools) to examine/measure/control the fundamental elements of matter without utterly affecting the outcome in ways we are not able to control, understand or accurately predict.

I don't believe there is any amount of quantum theories that will get us past this fundamental boundary.

Post reply on HN