Comments on: Quantum interrogation

By: Quantum Diavlog | Cosmic Variance

Quantum Diavlog | Cosmic Variance — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:06:51 +0000

[...] in terms that should be accessible to non-experts. (One user-friendly answer to that question is here.) Happily, that didn’t take up the whole dialogue, and we had the chance to home in on the [...]

By: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Quantum Mechanics, But Were Afraid to Ask | Cosmic Variance

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:26:17 +0000

[...] about quantum mechanics. Start with the basics, try to explain this crazy theory and some of its outlandish consequences in ways that anyone can understand, and then dig into some of the mysteries of measurement, [...]

By: Science Blogging Anthology | Cosmic Variance

Science Blogging Anthology | Cosmic Variance — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:57:20 +0000

[...] In the shortest turnaround time for a book ever, Bora “coturnix” Zivovic (of Blog Around the Clock fame) has put together The Open Laboratory, a collection of the greatest science blogging of all time. Which is a little bit less impressive than it sounds, since science blogging hasn’t been around for that many centuries. Still, it’s a fun concept, to take all of those words on the internet and bind them between covers. I’ll admit that I nominated my own quantum puppies post, in the tradition of all great media shamelessness. [...]

By: Arbitrary Chronological Signifiers | Cosmic Variance

Arbitrary Chronological Signifiers | Cosmic Variance — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:17:34 +0000

[...] Quantum Interrogation [...]

By: A Programmer's Apology

A Programmer's Apology — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:16:23 +0000

Programming the Universe

Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos reads aloud surprisingly well. At least Eamon and I thought so, though perhaps the other vacationers didn’t appreciate it as much. I do my part to provide propoganda…

By: Something Similar » Blog Archive » Quantum Computation Round-up

Something Similar » Blog Archive » Quantum Computation Round-up — Mon, 01 May 2006 00:02:03 +0000

[...] I put this up elsewhere, but I like it so much that it deserves a spot here. We’ve talked about quantum computation a few times before, but how much do we really know? Metafilter, instruct thyself. Don’t forget to learn some advanced probability and computational complexity (Scott Aaronson has more). Whoa, that’s a lot o’ learning, so let’s so check out the much easier, and much cooler “sleeping puppy” experiment. I can only dream that will help break quantum mechanics’ association with animal abuse. Then, there’s the Free Will Theorem that just came out (some discussion on it) and another paper with a new look at an old problem. The latter describes another way of solving ye olde, super importanto Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox using the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (lots of discussion running around). Whew. We don’t need the crackpot ramblings of What the #$*! Do We Know? when we’ve got real physics to keep us up at night. So, who wants to become a physicist? (t’Hooft has some thoughts for those who want to go theoretical.) [...]

By: Matt Schuette

Matt Schuette — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:03:29 +0000

Addressing Tullmejs question, I had the same reaction when I first read through it. But, if there is no puppy, you just do 90 consecutive 1 degree rotations and observe steak. If there is a puppy, each of the 90 times you stick the food in the box, it observes and changes the state back to a pure food state (most likely salad). Each time, there is just a 0.0003 chance that the puppy will observe steak and therefore wake up and bark. It all hinges on the fact that the puppy changes the state and you don’t observe (and therefore change the state) between each rotation. So, the three possible outcomes after 90 rotations: you observe salad – puppy exists, you observe steak and no bark – puppy doesn’t exist, you observe steak and hear a bark – puppy exists.

By: Live Granades » Blog Archive » More Words on the Science Fair Article

Live Granades » Blog Archive » More Words on the Science Fair Article — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:57:03 +0000

[...] Feel free to stick around, though I warn you that most of our blog’s content is us going on about our kid and how cute he is except when he’s being annoying. There’s not much other science content here. Although I am a Ph.D. physicist, so there’s no telling when I’ll bust out with a comment about an explanation of counterfactual quantum computation that uses puppies to make its point. [...]

By: John Kennell

John Kennell — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:36:41 +0000

I’ll have a wedge of lettuce with blue cheese dressing, and I like my fillet medium rare please. Do you have any A-1? Oh, on second thought, forget that. I don’t want to insult the chef.

By: Qubit

Qubit — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:49:20 +0000

I believe the gravitational tidal effects, of a blackhole would prevent, the other side of the coin, that’s falling into the blackhole from being observed? The outgoing information, would always be pushed beyond your horizon, it would fall towards its creation, with the chance of it becoming a silver coin almost nil. A bit of the information of coin that’s falling in, would always remain above the horizon, until the universe came to an end. This, then would mean, the coin will have flipped and then will, slowly become real, for the coin to become real, will take a hell of a lot of evolution (which will have already happened?). The tail side of the coin will then remain beyond the horizon, until you throw in your coin, with the one only chance, of it landing heads up. To flip the coin fast enough to have knowledge of both side, would be at great risk, of a release of an enormous amount of energy. This release could be slowed down, but would eventually cause all Quantum computers to crash, with no chance of recovery.

It may be better, to put back laws of physics 100 years or start again. Better to do it now, instead of when the sun is just about to go out. Better put them back 100 years now, rather than 6,000,000,000 years later on…

Don’t build a vessel and call it unsinkable.