Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#2They demonstrate nothing, very misleading title
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#3Going 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" really mean?
If not, are there recommended methods of understanding articles better?
I am thinking of this process:
- copy the article to a document
- find any words or sentences that you would like to understand better, highlight them in some colour e.g. red
- do some googling / wiki surfing or ask in HN or some kind of forums about them
- add sections after the paragraphs with highlights to explain the words or sentences
- recursion
- once satisfied, highlight the words in a different colour?
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#4To 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 know if I care, but press releases tend to oversell so my default stance has to be "No, I don't really care."
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#5To 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…
Your take makes it sound like "we had this awesome idea! but we tested it and we were wrong." I have no idea if you're correct, but that is indeed how science should work.
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#6Going 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…
Highlight and google search? There are already addons that highlight words and provide the definition aka Google Dictionary
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#7Going 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…
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 opening new tabs
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#8To 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…
Your take makes it sound like "we had this awesome idea! but we tested it and we were wrong." I have no idea if you're correct, but that is indeed how science should work.
I think the actual argument is the converse: "We had this awesome idea! We tested it and we were right!" (In this context "violations" are the desired experimental result.)
It rests on whether bi-locality is an empirically interesting property. And as it turns out there are some well-cited theoretical physics papers on the interest in this property for quantum networks [1], so it is likely that I am not the right audience for this press release, and a physicist might find this significantly more interesting.
[1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bilocality+bell%27s+ine...
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#9So in laymen's terms, it sounds like they found a way to send information through an entangled pair of particles. Is that accurate?
Re: Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
#10If anyone wants to learn more about Bell's inequality, the simplest (real, no bullshit) explanation I've ever seen is by David Griffiths. You can follow it if you know the basics of calculus:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys270/Jenkins/Griffiths...