Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
121–130 of 152 posts
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of things regarding chemistry and biology - finding catalysts for nitrate fertiliser production (uses 5% of worlds power), perhaps some catalysts in cement production (my idea), invention of new medicines, either due to better cell simulations or (my idea) faster protein folding.
Is the bottleneck preventing better cell simulations computational or lack of data / insufficient understanding of biology to inform a predictive model?
I'm a cofounder of a start-up working on near-term applications of quantum computing in biology, specifically on the protein structure side of things (https://www.proteinqure.com). There are many self-contained subproblems in this space which are not limited by data because models are accurate enough to inform experiments, but there's probably not a scientist in the world who would say we have a sufficient understanding of biology to make predictive models with generality.
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And we all use them just to rant at each other about political things that we in reality are totally misinformed about ... and otherwise just waste our lives. So if I decide to use the device that I have bought and invested in, to "rant" about something (to connect to other people through it, essentially), or even just connect to my loved ones sending "meaningless" information (as many I'm sure would call it), or i…
I think many people would find intellectually boring your position of absolute personal freedom with no objective measure of excellence, along with your aggressive defense of such. But there is also objective information which would support OP's position for someone who considers objectivity in the personal sphere of little value: heavy computer and mobile use has been linked many times with psychological difficultie…
> And we all use them just to rant at each other about political things that we in reality are totally misinformed about ... and otherwise just waste our lives.
You're certainly free to find the relevant response to that intellectually boring. But it's quite a leap from OP's totalizing statement of despair to implicitly fill in that ellipsis with "allusion to human well being."
I'd like to be generous in my reading, but I don't see any room in there for a discussion of "heavy" vs healthy device use.
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsistent_comparison Josephson phase qubits aren't even utilizing the same fundamental concepts to examine the qualities of the mediums that quantum uncertainty affects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_qubit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_voltage_standard
You complained - without providing any substantive arguments why this might be an issue - that all Bell test experiments use polarizers, I pointed out that you are wrong. I have no idea what you are complaining about now, what is »[...] qualities of the mediums that quantum uncertainty affects [...]« even supposed to mean? You are obviously far outside of your area of competence. If not, just do the experiment, write…
A Josephson junction doesn't even trap any single actual physical particle. It's just a standing wave of electrical current trapped in a bounded array of geometrically crafted slabs of superconductors and insulators. It's a phenomenon that arises from the construction of the device.
Unlike fundamental particles such as photons and electrons, there is nothing substantial about the state represented by the standing wave qubit trapped in a circuit operated by a Josephson junction device. Destroy the device (or nevermind that, just never place it in a dewar flask chilled to 4 degrees kelvin, to activate it) and the phenomenon doesn't even exist. So much for whether or not matter or energy can never be created nor destroyed.
To sit there and state that, on paper, this is the same thing as an individual electron emitted as beta decay is, well... fundamentally flawed.
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsistent_comparison Josephson phase qubits aren't even utilizing the same fundamental concepts to examine the qualities of the mediums that quantum uncertainty affects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_qubit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_voltage_standard
Just to be clear, these are experimental results that are statistically impossible assuming a classical physics. Are you actually worried that they are somehow studying the wrong self-evidently non-classical thing, or what?
Quote from the "Phase_qubit" Wikipedia article:
"The zero voltage state describes one of the two distinct dynamic behaviors displayed by the phase particle, and corresponds to when the particle is trapped in one of the local minima in the washboard potential. [...] With the phase particle trapped in a minimum, it has zero average velocity and therefore zero average voltage. [...] The voltage state is the other dynamic behavior displayed by a Josephson junction, and corresponds to the phase particle free-running down the slope of the potential, with a non-zero average velocity and therefore non-zero voltage."
So, we're not even talking about actual fundamental subatomic particles anymore. We're talking about phase oscillations, and renaming that as if it were a "particle" because, hey, particle/wave duality, so why not?
Hand-wavey math permits us to equivocate that a current induced on a wire, by way of the transfer of many actual electrons across substrates, can serve to prove the premise of a "teleportation device" also.
See? If we play our game of three-card monte, change phase oscillations, wiggle our noses, and tilt our heads a little, it's all very obvious that faster-than-light information transfer can be generalized to fit in the same picture, because this tuning fork makes that tuning fork ring in harmony, but only when we choose to notice.
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation you're supposing for the "spooky action at a distance" is called a hidden variable theory, and as others have said, this explanation has been disproven. You might be wondering how , and I'll tell you the scenario (adapted from The Elegant Universe) that helped me understand. Imagine you and I each have a device: a small box with one openable window on the top, one on the front, and one on the back. Wh…
What I draw from this is that polarized light doesn't quite work the way we think, and the investigation should be into the modes of polarity.
Are you seriously dismissing offhand theoretically sound and experimentally-verified core tenets of quantum mechanics?
It's not like they're making this stuff up. It falls very straightforwardly out of the mathematics underpinning quantum mechanics, we have tested these things, and we have conclusively disproven the existence of any type of hidden variable theory.
That's not to say quantum mechanics is faultless and complete, but any new theory is going to have to incorporate these results rather than throw them out entirely (much like how Newtonian physics "falls out" of general relativity at low speeds and small masses.
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, these are experimental results that are statistically impossible assuming a classical physics. Are you actually worried that they are somehow studying the wrong self-evidently non-classical thing, or what?
Quote from the " Phase_qubit " Wikipedia article: "The zero voltage state describes one of the two distinct dynamic behaviors displayed by the phase particle , and corresponds to when the particle is trapped in one of the local minima in the washboard potential. [...] With the phase particle trapped in a minimum, it has zero average velocity and therefore zero average voltage. [...] The voltage state is the other dyn…
I’m not sure I follow your argument, but if I understand you right, I don’t believe what you’re quoting is relevant. From the article you are (I think?) criticizing:
We measure a Bell signal S of 2.0732 ± 0.0003, exceeding the maximum value |S| = 2 for a classical system by 244 standard deviations. In the experiment, we deterministically generate the entangled state, and measure both qubits in a single-shot manner, closing the “detection loophole”[11]. Since the Bell inequality was designed to test for non-classical behavior without assuming the applicability of quantum mechanics to the system in question, this experiment provides further strong evidence that a macroscopic electrical circuit is really a quantum system [7]. https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20...
That says in plain English that they have not assumed that this system behaves according to quantum principles. In fact, it is precisely the opposite: the quantum nature of this system is a conclusion of their results. It would be statistically impossible for any system following classical rules to produce the same data.
(It bears repeating that the math underlying that conclusion is truly not very complex, and it is very, very well studied. If you can show that it’s flawed somehow, don’t bother publishing— just post your proof here and I’ll, uh... pick up the Nobel for you.)
The only caveat is that this experiment closes the detection loophole, but not the locality loophole; it is theoretically possible that a classical signal could be sent from one qubit to the other quickly enough to fabricate this data. There’s no particular reason to suspect a secret signal is in play, but it isn’t theoretically prohibited.
Assuming you haven’t found a flaw in their mathematics, and that you aren’t alleging that the researchers deliberately fabricated their data, the locality loophole is your best (and likely only) avenue to dispute their conclusions. However, if you wish to pursue that, you should keep in mind that there are many other experiments which close the locality loophole but not the detection loophole, and, since 2015, several that close both. Three-card monte may be a better investment of your time.
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#128Earlier 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…
The trend is to make solving problems easier for the untrained; giving the heavy lifting to the machines, making the machines slower for the actual task at hand. Nobody is actually targeting the experts who will love to have more power over safety
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#129Want to raise funding for your science field? Contact the opposing partys propaganda office immediately! You are one cold war announcement away from getting funded without due diligence! What are you waiting for?
Re: Chinese Researchers Achieve Quantum Entanglement Record
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote from the " Phase_qubit " Wikipedia article: "The zero voltage state describes one of the two distinct dynamic behaviors displayed by the phase particle , and corresponds to when the particle is trapped in one of the local minima in the washboard potential. [...] With the phase particle trapped in a minimum, it has zero average velocity and therefore zero average voltage. [...] The voltage state is the other dyn…
I’m not sure I follow your argument, but if I understand you right, I don’t believe what you’re quoting is relevant. From the article you are (I think?) criticizing: We measure a Bell signal S of 2.0732 ± 0.0003, exceeding the maximum value |S| = 2 for a classical system by 244 standard deviations. In the experiment, we deterministically generate the entangled state, and measure both qubits in a single-shot manner, c…
Uh, wow, at no point have I made the claim that an electrical circuit is not a quantum system. Nor have I claimed that they are incapable of simulating quantum phenomena. Quite the very opposite.
What I did clearly state, and insist as quite relevant, is that entanglement and double slit experiments are hocus pocus and irrelevant distractions. In fact, I stated that this experiment says basically nothing because it merely simulates quantum phenomena within a circuit.
Hello? Yes. Electrons are quantum entities, and assuredly interact with photons which are also quantum entities. This is demonstrated by the photo-electric effect, which we can all notice by placing tin foil in a microwave. Therefore a circuit is indeed a quantum system, since it assuredly deals in electrons.
Wow! Didn't even need to publish a paper about qubits to draw that conclusion! Amazing!
The implication here is that Bell is waste of time, and so is his theorum: such that emission doesn't determine state, especially when you don't look at it.
Great, thanks Bell. I'll be sure to not look at anything until I want to know what it is. True genius at work.