This is all well above my paygrade. Is this all conceptual? Are the scientists involed anywhere near an experiment to verify any of this? In a word, huh?
Considering the source was Nature, I doubt your analysis is correct. The researchers are from Ludwig-Maximilians-University and ETH Zürich, which appear to be respectable institutions. I found a write-up at Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100727082652.htm) that provides some more details on the research. From that link:
“The teams at LMU and the ETH Zurich have now shown that the result of a measurement on a quantum particle can be predicted with greater accuracy if information about the particle is available in a quantum memory. Atoms or ions can form the basis for such a quantum memory.
The researchers have, for the first time, derived a formula for Heisenberg’s Principle, which takes account of the effect of a quantum memory. In the case of so-called entangled particles, whose states are very highly correlated (i.e. to a degree that is greater than that allowed by the laws of classical physics), the uncertainty can disappear.
According to Christandl, this can be roughly understood as follows “One might say that the disorder or uncertainty in the state of a particle depends on the information stored in the quantum memory. Imagine having a pile of papers on a table. Often these will appear to be completely disordered—except to the person who put them there in the first place.”
This is one of the very few places online that I’ve seen thoughtful discussion on the implications of quantum mechanics, so I felt research that could impact quantum theory would be relevant.
This is one of the very few places online that I’ve seen thoughtful discussion on the implications of quantum mechanics, so I felt research that could impact quantum theory would be relevant.
The discussion of quantum mechanics Eliezer Yudkowsky did was not because quantum mechanics is relevant to the interests of this community, but because the counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics offered good case studies to use in discussing rationality.
If this is off-topic for the open thread, then we should make a monthly off-topic thread where we can discuss things not directly related to rationality. I think it’s rather silly to suggest that we can’t discuss non-rationality topics.
One of the things which many of us like to do is to follow the “Recent Comments” (Google Reader updates RSS feeds frequently enough to make it practicable) so we can catch new discussions on old threads—and crowding that feed with conversation not related to our common interest is annoying.
If you want to post a link to your blog for discussion of a tangentially-related subject, there probably wouldn’t be much objection.
Since this site has such a high sanity waterline, I’d like to see comments about important topics even if they aren’t directly rationality-related. Has anyone figured out a way to satisfy both me and RobinZ without making this site any less convenient to contribute to?
Isn’t that what the open thread is for? Quantum physics is hardly the most off-topic thing discussed on the open thread. In fact, it doesn’t seem off-topic at all.
It may be a fascinating piece of quantum mechanics, but I don’t see any relevance to rationality at all. Even if it were relevant, there’s no basis for a real discussion, because the original article is behind a paywall. I don’t see anything available online but popular-level articles saying nothing of substance.
I came across a blurb on Ars Technica about “quantum memory” with the headline proclaiming that it may “topple Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle”. Here’s the link: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/quantum-memory-may-topple-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
They didn’t source the specific article, but it seems to be this one, published in Nature Physics. Here’s that link: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys1734.html
This is all well above my paygrade. Is this all conceptual? Are the scientists involed anywhere near an experiment to verify any of this? In a word, huh?
I don’t want this kind of items to be discussed on LW. It’s either off-topic or crackpottery, irrelevant whatever the case.
Considering the source was Nature, I doubt your analysis is correct. The researchers are from Ludwig-Maximilians-University and ETH Zürich, which appear to be respectable institutions. I found a write-up at Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100727082652.htm) that provides some more details on the research. From that link:
“The teams at LMU and the ETH Zurich have now shown that the result of a measurement on a quantum particle can be predicted with greater accuracy if information about the particle is available in a quantum memory. Atoms or ions can form the basis for such a quantum memory.
The researchers have, for the first time, derived a formula for Heisenberg’s Principle, which takes account of the effect of a quantum memory. In the case of so-called entangled particles, whose states are very highly correlated (i.e. to a degree that is greater than that allowed by the laws of classical physics), the uncertainty can disappear.
According to Christandl, this can be roughly understood as follows “One might say that the disorder or uncertainty in the state of a particle depends on the information stored in the quantum memory. Imagine having a pile of papers on a table. Often these will appear to be completely disordered—except to the person who put them there in the first place.”
This is one of the very few places online that I’ve seen thoughtful discussion on the implications of quantum mechanics, so I felt research that could impact quantum theory would be relevant.
The discussion of quantum mechanics Eliezer Yudkowsky did was not because quantum mechanics is relevant to the interests of this community, but because the counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics offered good case studies to use in discussing rationality.
As I said, off-topic.
If this is off-topic for the open thread, then we should make a monthly off-topic thread where we can discuss things not directly related to rationality. I think it’s rather silly to suggest that we can’t discuss non-rationality topics.
One of the things which many of us like to do is to follow the “Recent Comments” (Google Reader updates RSS feeds frequently enough to make it practicable) so we can catch new discussions on old threads—and crowding that feed with conversation not related to our common interest is annoying.
If you want to post a link to your blog for discussion of a tangentially-related subject, there probably wouldn’t be much objection.
Since this site has such a high sanity waterline, I’d like to see comments about important topics even if they aren’t directly rationality-related. Has anyone figured out a way to satisfy both me and RobinZ without making this site any less convenient to contribute to?
(Upvoted for explaining your objection.)
Isn’t that what the open thread is for? Quantum physics is hardly the most off-topic thing discussed on the open thread. In fact, it doesn’t seem off-topic at all.
It may be a fascinating piece of quantum mechanics, but I don’t see any relevance to rationality at all. Even if it were relevant, there’s no basis for a real discussion, because the original article is behind a paywall. I don’t see anything available online but popular-level articles saying nothing of substance.
Agreed, though as-needed instead of strictly monthly.