tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post6586417118023352937..comments2024-01-24T00:50:00.616-08:00Comments on Schroedinger's rat: Research lines that lead nowhere (II) to publishing in Nature: unnecessary experimentsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-7516770945335734662019-06-05T00:46:09.810-07:002019-06-05T00:46:09.810-07:00Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice...Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice useful information!<br /><br />Giaonhan247 chuyên dịch vụ <a href="http://janeyleegrace.worldsecuresystems.com/redirect.aspx?destination=https://giaonhan247.vn/bang-gia-cuoc-ship-van-chuyen-gui-hang-tu-viet-nam-di-my-gia-re.html" rel="nofollow">vận chuyển hàng đi mỹ</a> cũng như dịch vụ <a href="https://www.nachi.org/redirect.php?url=https://giaonhan247.vn/ship-hang-my.html" rel="nofollow">ship hàng mỹ</a> từ dịch vụ nhận <a href="http://openforbusinessmagazine01.businesscatalyst.com/Redirect.aspx?destination=https://giaonhan247.vn/mua-ho-hang-my.html" rel="nofollow">mua hộ hàng mỹ</a> từ website nổi tiếng Mỹ là <a href="http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/help/urlstatusgo.html?url=https://giaonhan247.vn/cach-mua-hang-tren-amazon.html" rel="nofollow">mua hàng amazon</a> về VN uy tín, giá rẻ.thulannguyenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12739173686013878533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-5848970564904970922016-08-21T07:56:52.686-07:002016-08-21T07:56:52.686-07:00Good post. Eventually Nature and PRL will notice t...Good post. Eventually Nature and PRL will notice the problem. I would put it, equivalently, as I think, but totally humorlessly, that Quantum information/computation/mechanics is making a transition from Science to a system of Engineering rules. We're part way through the process inasmuch as, for example, one can now buy off the shelf components that not long ago would have taken a year to build, but the creation of good engineering rules is hard. Once rules are in place, Engineers construct stuff not to test a theory but to use it.Peter Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075268176382429701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-39579549118223855662014-12-26T23:25:10.718-08:002014-12-26T23:25:10.718-08:00Dear 'Rat'.
You may find the following a...Dear 'Rat'. <br /><br />You may find the following article interesting. <br /><br />http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/mumford/blog/2014/Grothendieck.html<br /><br />This is the story about the obituary for Alexander Grothendieck (one of the greatest mathematician and visionary of last century) written by two great mathematicians - John Tate (and Abel prize winner) and David Mumford (Fields medallist). :)rbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-50420462123043899692014-08-08T07:58:12.478-07:002014-08-08T07:58:12.478-07:00You don't even need a classical computer to fa...You don't even need a classical computer to factor a prime number of any size...Mike Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-11784391255136573942013-11-24T18:57:21.898-08:002013-11-24T18:57:21.898-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.aram harrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01272118188252697149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-68595769371347541542013-07-17T02:53:53.802-07:002013-07-17T02:53:53.802-07:00There are very few people in scientific heaven, it...There are very few people in scientific heaven, it seems. Do you want to be one of them? (expl. below) ;)<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2010/11/24/the-9-circles-of-scientific-hell/#.UeZm2ReKZHcHuliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00966583345918732376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-40157419892873460742013-07-12T07:32:20.319-07:002013-07-12T07:32:20.319-07:00What a wonderful, and funny post. I especially lik...What a wonderful, and funny post. I especially liked the sexistic references ;)<br /><br />After reading this, my former view of the QI physics mafia is confirmed again. So glad that I left physics 2 years ago.<br /><br />Compare what is produced nowadays by theoretical and experimental physicists, with the experiments and theories developed 100 years ago. The establishment of impact factors and citation hunting might be the reason for the massive decay of quality in physics.Tassilohttp://www.wellness-heaven.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-57289284059718707912013-05-16T04:48:33.878-07:002013-05-16T04:48:33.878-07:00x^2+y^2=1 is mathematics, not physics :) on the ot...x^2+y^2=1 is mathematics, not physics :) on the other hand, the physics would be: how close is my compass to an ideal compass, then you can use quantum optical experiments to test with high precision whether you have actually implemented x^2+y^2=1 with good approx. hehe <br /><br />for what concerns a, a^dag, i don't know well enough these experiments, are you referring to the stuff done by bellini et al?<br /><br />and for gravity: in principle yes, every time you release a stone and it falls to the ground you are once again confirming newton, so you can decrease your estimated probability that the law is wrong, but who knows, some day it may not fall! hehe again!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08702706960463903883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-92002039076782623802013-05-11T03:44:54.462-07:002013-05-11T03:44:54.462-07:00"you should in principle perform the experime..."you should in principle perform the experiments that prove your theory"<br /><br />Sure, but the experiments refereed here are in the same level of drawing a circle with a compass and then performing a complicated experiment of quantum optics to verify that the points that were draw really obey x^2+y^2=1. You are not getting any new insight in anything. <br /><br />For example: There are some experiments that test the commutation relations of creation and annihilation operators. Instead, the right experiment should be to test the regime of validity of using these operators to describe processes of absorption and adition of photons. If you are in the valid regime, it is obvious that the commutation relations hold. <br /><br />There is no need to check experimentally every theoretical step of a theory; this is nonsensical. By the same reasoning, we should check every day that a stone will fall to the ground according to Newton's law - well, who knows, it could stop mid-air! <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-4050705609296407182013-05-10T05:14:28.366-07:002013-05-10T05:14:28.366-07:00I think computation with crabs is pretty cool!
Al...I think computation with crabs is pretty cool!<br /><br />Also, I think I agree with the Travis Humble guy above, even if you think they are trivial, you should in principle perform the experiments that prove your theory. At least, if I understood correctly what Galileo said!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08702706960463903883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-67225370662095822092013-05-03T11:36:19.999-07:002013-05-03T11:36:19.999-07:00I was afraid that this blog will soon be history, ...I was afraid that this blog will soon be history, but please, please prove me wrong :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-26193589853546090212013-04-16T02:35:56.404-07:002013-04-16T02:35:56.404-07:00Great post! keep upGreat post! keep upNachohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008575970695073141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-29645375506436080982013-04-08T11:05:48.689-07:002013-04-08T11:05:48.689-07:00"rubbish"
Sir Isaac Newton:
" T..."rubbish"<br /><br /><br /><br />Sir Isaac Newton:<br /><br />" This part of mechanics was cultivated<br />by the ancients in the five powers which relate to manual arts, who considered gravity (it not being a manual power, no otherwise<br />than as it moved weights by those powers). Our design not respecting arts, but philosophy, and our subject NOT MANUAL but natural powers...for all the difficulty of philosophy seems to consist in this "from the phænomena of motions to investigate the forces of nature, AND THEN these forces to demonstrate the other phenomena..."perageniusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-2418904674383619302013-04-05T10:37:39.835-07:002013-04-05T10:37:39.835-07:00" Did you know that people in other fields (e..." Did you know that people in other fields (e.g.: organic chemistry) conduct experiments to actually advance the theory?"<br /><br />Oh my God! They must be completely out of their minds to do that!<br />Somebody must help those poor souls and bless them with the <br />Copenhagen interpreation!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-83334627396329875952013-04-03T10:56:44.729-07:002013-04-03T10:56:44.729-07:00rubbishrubbishAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-47049008700403137232013-04-03T07:18:59.612-07:002013-04-03T07:18:59.612-07:00>But to get back to your initial point: what...>But to get back to your initial point: what's wrong with <br />>the Josephson paper then? The novelty was obviously that <br />>they extended their quantum control capabilities to <br />>entangling two phase qubits. And a Bell test is, no matter <br />>whether you think that's a bit medieval (which I do), <br />>still the litmus test for demonstrating entanglement.<br /><br />In principle, you can use self-testing or rigidity to certify, from a Bell inequality violation, that the state and measurements that you have in the lab are close to what the theory predicts. However, with a CHSH violation of 2.07 -barely beyond the classical value- you cannot certify much in a device-independent way.<br /><br />To the authors' credit, the experiment does show quantum control: their state has high overlap with the singlet, and their measurements have high fidelity. These parameters are not derived from the CHSH violation, though, but through other methods, like quantum tomography. <br /><br />The Bell test thus seems superfluous in this paper. That is, IF the goal is to evidence quantum control. Because, from the conclusion and the Supplementary Material, the aim of the authors seems to be rather to convince the reader that they could violate local realism without loopholes in a similar experiment where the qubits are separated by 10 m. <br /><br />I sincerely hope that the authors conduct such an experiment successfully in a near future. Still, I don't see the need of implementing a simulacrum of a CHSH experiment; at this stage, it was enough to prepare the state and check the fidelities.<br /><br />>You're now saying, the title should instead have been "New <br />>method for entangling two Josephson phase qubits". But <br />>what does "new" mean? Nothing, without context. So should >they have put the whole method section of their paper in <br />>the title?<br /><br />Using "new" in the title is not a good idea (to be fair, neither is using "revolutionary"); APS wouldn't allow it, for instance. How about "Quantum Control of blah blah VIA blah blah"? Hinting (not giving a whole description) what makes your technique different to other methods will attract the attention of other researchers in the area.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-26614231114104567512013-04-01T15:39:13.073-07:002013-04-01T15:39:13.073-07:00> On an unrelated note, I don't need a quan...> On an unrelated note, I don't need a quantum computer to factor a 300-digit prime number.<br /><br />Does that mean you've found a method for factoring -prime- numbers on classical computers? Now that would be revolutionary. My bad.<br /><br />But to get back to your initial point: what's wrong with the Josephson paper then? The novelty was obviously that they extended their quantum control capabilities to entangling two phase qubits. And a Bell test is, no matter whether you think that's a bit medieval (which I do), still the litmus test for demonstrating entanglement.<br /><br />You're now saying, the title should instead have been "New method for entangling two Josephson phase qubits". But what does "new" mean? Nothing, without context. So should they have put the whole method section of their paper in the title?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-12140282985168258052013-04-01T08:20:29.572-07:002013-04-01T08:20:29.572-07:00Dear Travis,
The point of the post is that experi...Dear Travis,<br /><br />The point of the post is that experimentation is not ALWAYS necessary. <br /><br />E.g.: it was clear from the beginning that nothing can be learned about time machines by making a teleportation experiment. <br /><br />E.g. (2): biologists already knew that they could control swarms of soldier crabs with shadows. It was not necessary to build logic gates with crabs to show that you can do "crab computation" (no matter how funny!).<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />The RatAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-12039758136340325672013-04-01T07:56:50.793-07:002013-04-01T07:56:50.793-07:00>It seems that what you're suggesting is th...>It seems that what you're suggesting is that <br />>experimentalists should lock themselves into their labs <br />>and not come out until they can factor a 300-digit prime <br />>number. <br /><br />Not at all. I think that experimental quantum control is an important subject, that should be funded independently of quantum computation, and I will be happy to see experimentalists reporting their advances. <br /><br />Most importantly, I want the experimentalists to advertise their actual breakthroughs, rather than hide them behind a “QI application” label. <br /><br />When you invent a new algorithm for quantum chemistry, you do not report your result as: “calculation of the angle of the water molecule up to eight decimal places”. Computing the shape of water is just an example of what you can do with your new method, not your main achievement.<br /><br />The same holds for experiments. If you invent a new experimental tool that enhances your quantum control over many-photon systems (and, in particular, it allows you to generate a seven-photon entangled state), the title of your paper should be “Revolutionary experimental technique for quantum control”, not “Entanglement of seven photons”.<br /><br />On an unrelated note, I don't need a quantum computer to factor a 300-digit prime number.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-7149934952613001332013-03-30T15:02:19.706-07:002013-03-30T15:02:19.706-07:00Perhaps I've misunderstood the main point bein...Perhaps I've misunderstood the main point being made in the original post, but you appear to adopt the position that experimentation is unnecessary in the light of theoretical results ["not every theoretical discovery must be complemented with an experiment." ]. <br /><br />This position seems counter to the point of science. Theory must always suffer the disadvantage of requiring proof - ideas cannot live on your recommendation alone. Experimentation is the only means of validating theoretical efforts and, even when experiment don't impress you, they serve the greater purpose of validating the consistency of science. Yes, experiments that fail to have known theoretical descriptions are, in some sense, more interesting, but they are not the only ones that are necessary.<br />Travis Humblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-68125991564822400552013-03-30T13:31:57.111-07:002013-03-30T13:31:57.111-07:00Does
"Part of the reason why experimentalis...Does <br /><br />"Part of the reason why experimentalists publish those papers is that it helps pay for the actual tech development..."<br /><br />reveals a fraud, or what?perageniousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-44444782862712310822013-03-30T05:45:44.006-07:002013-03-30T05:45:44.006-07:00"Experimentalists: for many of you, the real ..."Experimentalists: for many of you, the real motivation is the experimental control of quantum systems. Such is a noble enterprise"<br /><br />That's exactly what this:<br /><br />"Experimental demonstration of 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-photon entanglement."<br /><br />is all about. <br /><br />Except for that, I mostly agree. Part of the reason why experimentalists publish those papers is that it helps pay for the actual tech development that would otherwise go unfunded. It might not have filtered through to your sewer yet, but actual quantum computers are still far away. You need to build up some excitement and keep the funding agencies interested if you ever want to arrive there.<br /><br />It seems that what you're suggesting is that experimentalists should lock themselves into their labs and not come out until they can factor a 300-digit prime number. Once they do, you will probably tell us that factoring wasn't ever interesting anyway. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-20104584132328773912013-03-27T08:55:49.709-07:002013-03-27T08:55:49.709-07:00Of course, once you've proven "If XXX the...Of course, once you've proven "If XXX then YYY", there are lots of other questions that can make the result more or less important. For example, is XXX likely to be true in any system anyone might build? Is the chain of reasoning from XXX to YYY so convoluted that for all practical purposes we can often have XXX but not YYY because of non-idealities in real systems, even though the result is mathematically true? Is the effect so small that nobody should ever care about it anyway? These are all questions that you can answer with an experiment to demonstrate your theory. I think the Rat's real concern is that (like in his example with coherent states), often the fact that an experiment will match the theory has already been established. Then you end up doing stuff like labeling a half-wave plate a "quantum gun" and calling it time-travel.Graemehttp://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-graemesmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-47494204896562467452013-03-26T07:04:42.408-07:002013-03-26T07:04:42.408-07:00To say the same thing … a little more directly … i...To say the same thing … a little more directly … it is far from evident (theoretically, or experimentally, or in engineering practice) that <i>exact</i> unitary evolution on finite-yet-exponential-dimension Hilbert state-manifolds is a scalably realizable limit of relativistic gauge field theories — which are (apparently?) the sole quantum-dynamical systems that Nature provides.<br /><br />So despite their undeniable algebraic convenience, perhaps finite-dimension Hilbert spaces are not the sole (or even the most fertile) grounds for quantum information theory? That would be good news for young quantum researchers, because <b><a href="http://qist.lanl.gov/" rel="nofollow">the old QIT roadmaps are lagging so dismayingly</a></b>, that new STEM avenues are welcome, eh "anonymous"?John Sidleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16286860374431298556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-85260815865674117462013-03-26T06:24:18.112-07:002013-03-26T06:24:18.112-07:00The 1980s assertion "genomics has nothing to ...The 1980s assertion "genomics has nothing to do with genetics" is unassailably correct … yet history has shown us that this point-of-view is so self-limiting as to be wrong-headed. <br /><br />Perhaps the conviction that "quantum mechanics is the study of trajectories in Hilbert space" has this same trait … it is unassailably correct, yet perhaps we should be concerned that it has been excessively limiting?John Sidleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16286860374431298556noreply@blogger.com