31–40 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a pair of quantum particles [1], when one is spinning-up, other is spinning down even when they are separated. Therefore it is possible to find out about the state of one by looking at the other. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept
Yes but doing so collapses the wavefunction . Hence there's no way to observe when the wavefunction collapses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's what happend. Schrodinger's cat was also initially conceived to ridicule the idea of quantum superposition.
The name Big Bang was also coined to ridicule the idea.
The speed of light ought to be enough for anyone.
Except HFT traders. I'm sure somewhere some poor ops guy is being harangued with "Hey I hear the Chinese have this tech that is faster than light, I want that shit on my fiber right now dammit, I don't care if its alpha quality ok? What? No I don't need to know about physics, I pay you guys to know about physics, get me that tech now."
Tell your boss you found a company with a scheme that can transmit bits over a quantum optical link, but only with a fidelity of 50%. Then get a friend to found that company and charge your boss' company $5 million for the device.
"If it turns out that we actually can communicate data via quantum entanglement, we now know that it’ll be much faster than the speed of light." No, no, no, no, no. No. No. No. Quantum entanglement can not be used to communicate in that manner, on its own. This is well-established, and given the how mathematical the establishment is, it's not going to change anytime soon. No. No. No. Stop that. No.
Yes, they shouldn't get their hopes up too much. Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one. With MWI there is no spooky action at a distance, and nothing is actually transmitted faster than the speed of light.
The simplest defeasible claim in 2013, is still: "we don't know".
Consider, 'How does the sun come up every day?'
Answer A: God makes it happen.
Answer B: The earth is a spinning geoid that rotates eastwards, once about it's axis, roughly every 24 hours. However most of the effect is not related to the orbits of either the sun or earth, with respect to each other. The sun "rises" is more an observational effect of a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, having their field of view rotated.
(For the record, answer B can be improved of course, though that's not the point here)
"Simplicity" does not mean a catchall (Answer A). It also does not necessarily mean linguistic brevity either. There is debate around what it means and it's beyond the scope of my comment[1]. This is the problem with string theory, that also tends to be popular among the MWI crowd too. It's overly broad and the math looks pretty, but those are not sufficient conditions for a good scientific theory. (Oblig xkcd [1])
MWI, like string theory, makes little if any falsifiable and testable claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a pair of quantum particles [1], when one is spinning-up, other is spinning down even when they are separated. Therefore it is possible to find out about the state of one by looking at the other. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept
Yes but doing so collapses the wavefunction . Hence there's no way to observe when the wavefunction collapses.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Einstein coined 'spooky action' sarcastically, to try and point out that it was absurd and violated his theories. I guess there aren't any better, sexy physicist names to put in the headline to attract clicks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
Amaze your friends! Shoot light through steel ball bearings with a laser pointer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they shouldn't get their hopes up too much. Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one. With MWI there is no spooky action at a distance, and nothing is actually transmitted faster than the speed of light.
> Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one The simplest defeasible claim in 2013, is still: "we don't know". Consider, 'How does the sun come up every day?' Answer A: God makes it happen. Answer B: The earth is a spinning geoid that rotates eastwards, once about it's axis, roughly every 24 hours. However most of the effect is not related to the orbits of either the sun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they shouldn't get their hopes up too much. Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one. With MWI there is no spooky action at a distance, and nothing is actually transmitted faster than the speed of light.
> Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one The simplest defeasible claim in 2013, is still: "we don't know". Consider, 'How does the sun come up every day?' Answer A: God makes it happen. Answer B: The earth is a spinning geoid that rotates eastwards, once about it's axis, roughly every 24 hours. However most of the effect is not related to the orbits of either the sun…
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...
Contrary to the claims of the extremetech article, they have not closed all loopholes in this experiment. Specifically, the detection loophole has not been closed. This loophole is caused by not being able to detect a high enough portion of the photons your source emits. A paranoid person might argue that the ones you do detect are not a representative sample. For example, some devious third party could be choosing w…
Not completely, but if I'm reading the paper correctly, they claim a detection rate of 91%, which is pretty high. Previous experiments had much lower detection rates. So while it may not completely close the loophole, it does make the detection loophole argument ("the photons you detected weren't a representative sample") much more "paranoid", to use your word.