A boson fundamentally changing quantum mechanics? Sounds overhyped
June 19, 2025 at 11:21 PM
A boson fundamentally changing quantum mechanics? Sounds overhyped
Is he taking the interview from a public washroom?
March 13, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Is he taking the interview from a public washroom?
People are looking at your profile. What more could you want?
February 7, 2025 at 12:30 PM
People are looking at your profile. What more could you want?
True AND stupid. I was breaking my head trying to find something like that
January 31, 2025 at 11:53 PM
True AND stupid. I was breaking my head trying to find something like that
From now on it's just engineering
January 31, 2025 at 9:39 PM
From now on it's just engineering
When @graemesmith.bsky.social stopped showing up at the top of my feed.
January 17, 2025 at 1:33 PM
When @graemesmith.bsky.social stopped showing up at the top of my feed.
Yes, but ideally I would like to have a story of what's going on inside the box. Even if we only observe through measurements.
EPR is not about observation, and Bell was inspired to tie it to observation after reading Bohm.
The "story" is useful, even when it might be wrong
EPR is not about observation, and Bell was inspired to tie it to observation after reading Bohm.
The "story" is useful, even when it might be wrong
January 13, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Yes, but ideally I would like to have a story of what's going on inside the box. Even if we only observe through measurements.
EPR is not about observation, and Bell was inspired to tie it to observation after reading Bohm.
The "story" is useful, even when it might be wrong
EPR is not about observation, and Bell was inspired to tie it to observation after reading Bohm.
The "story" is useful, even when it might be wrong
Ah, so I guess the next question is: Do you consider fundamental physics as a tool in the tool belt? Well, obviously it's a great tool. But is it *only* a tool?
January 13, 2025 at 12:41 PM
Ah, so I guess the next question is: Do you consider fundamental physics as a tool in the tool belt? Well, obviously it's a great tool. But is it *only* a tool?
If I gave you a black box that accepts inputs and produces outputs, would you be satisfied with a theory that explains the relationship between input and output, or would you want to hypothesise on what's going on inside?
January 13, 2025 at 12:49 AM
If I gave you a black box that accepts inputs and produces outputs, would you be satisfied with a theory that explains the relationship between input and output, or would you want to hypothesise on what's going on inside?
If you move away from unitary maps (for the universe), why restrict to linear maps?
January 4, 2025 at 3:38 PM
If you move away from unitary maps (for the universe), why restrict to linear maps?
That's reasonable, but if the theorem cannot be stated, it cannot be violated. A violation of CHSH can only rule out theories where it can be consistently stated.
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you mean is that in #3 you lose both realism *and* Bell's notion of locality?
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you mean is that in #3 you lose both realism *and* Bell's notion of locality?
January 2, 2025 at 12:18 AM
That's reasonable, but if the theorem cannot be stated, it cannot be violated. A violation of CHSH can only rule out theories where it can be consistently stated.
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you mean is that in #3 you lose both realism *and* Bell's notion of locality?
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you mean is that in #3 you lose both realism *and* Bell's notion of locality?
P.s. do you know where "local realism" originated?
January 1, 2025 at 11:45 PM
P.s. do you know where "local realism" originated?
I don't understand why you're ruling out idea #3. I agree with the content, but I don't see why I can't define Everett as a "non-realist" interpretation* that supposedly explains Bell's theorem.
* Assuming someone believes its consistent with observation
* Assuming someone believes its consistent with observation
January 1, 2025 at 11:39 PM
I don't understand why you're ruling out idea #3. I agree with the content, but I don't see why I can't define Everett as a "non-realist" interpretation* that supposedly explains Bell's theorem.
* Assuming someone believes its consistent with observation
* Assuming someone believes its consistent with observation
A more fundamental question is "what's a qubit ? " Or more meaningful "what's an N qubit system?"
December 29, 2024 at 10:05 PM
A more fundamental question is "what's a qubit ? " Or more meaningful "what's an N qubit system?"
I guess (given the discussion below) that we need to somehow distinguish, "logical qubit" from "good logical qubit" which is perhaps more fuzzy, but also more open to criticism (imho).
Crappy logical qubits are (relatively) easy, and certainly less interesting.
Crappy logical qubits are (relatively) easy, and certainly less interesting.
December 29, 2024 at 9:28 PM
I guess (given the discussion below) that we need to somehow distinguish, "logical qubit" from "good logical qubit" which is perhaps more fuzzy, but also more open to criticism (imho).
Crappy logical qubits are (relatively) easy, and certainly less interesting.
Crappy logical qubits are (relatively) easy, and certainly less interesting.
What about a trivial encoding? I.e. physical=logical ? Would that count?
December 29, 2024 at 6:28 PM
What about a trivial encoding? I.e. physical=logical ? Would that count?
@graemesmith.bsky.social how would you define a logical qubit?
December 29, 2024 at 4:01 PM
@graemesmith.bsky.social how would you define a logical qubit?
What an amazing and honest scientist. His reaction to Clauser's Bell test experiment is gold
December 23, 2024 at 5:54 PM
What an amazing and honest scientist. His reaction to Clauser's Bell test experiment is gold