The problem that I have with the multiverse concept for me is that ever time the 'verse branches, the amount of energy in the multiverse must essentially double. That may not violate any laws of the multiverse, but it is incompatible with what we know about the universe.
A "branching" of the universe isn't really a process where the universe is physically split into two universes. Rather it is a process where you get entangled with the thing you observed, and therefore you "split up" into two versions, each one observing a different projection ("branch") of the universal wave function. The physical universe doesn't split.
Indeed, the Wikipedia self-ads grew to become annoying. Unlike when they were less annoying, I now immediately close them without even looking at what they say (I didn't do that back when they were less annoying). If you want me to pay attention to your ads, don't make them annoying!
Scientifically speaking, this should be extremely funny.
No. It just should be more funny than
Dick dick dick dick dick dick, dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick. Dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick. Dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick, dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick, dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick.
3. (The trump card) "but all that well structured and logical scientific stuff was put there by god to mess with the minds of disbelievers!!!!"
Well, if that's true, this means that God actually wants us to believe it (because that's usually the point of placing evidence). In that case, by not believing the evidence, even if rightly so, you are acting against the will of God. So you better believe the scientific evidence, or you'll end in hell.:-)
The problem is that passing of ideas is not restricted to the offspring. That is, while bad traits in your genes are only passed on to your children (and therefore any genetic trait which reduces your reproductive success will be reduced), bad traits in your mind can be passed on to other individuals similar to infections. Therefore even ideas which increase mortality can be evolutionary very successful.
Actually what is tested isn't even your believe in the material, but your knowledge of it. So what's wrong with knowing something you don't believe in?
Actually, they also mention that ducks makes a joke more funny. So if you expand the joke to 103 words by making the hunters duck hunters, you've added two funny traits in one step.
Questions of the nature "is nuclear power safe?" seem more political than scientific. Shouldn't the question really be "is this nuclear reactor design (including its associated fueling, storage and waste handling) safe?
No, that's only a part of the question. At least as important is the question: "Do we trust the power companies to responsibly run a nuclear plant without compromising safety for cutting costs?"
Also, binary data is open to endian issues and integer/pointer size issues.
You seem to mix up binary data with ad-hoc binary files. Any reasonable binary format has a well-defined and well-specified encoding, which includes sizes and endianness of numeric data. Just fwriting from your program variables directly into the file is not defining a proper binary format. Also note that pointers have no place in binary files at all.
Thanks... that clears up my basic confusion. I didn't see how it could be done with linear optics either, but not being in the field wasn't sure if there wasn't something I was missing.
Having read the paper in more detail I'm not overwhelmed by their argument.: "That is, 'Preparing a photon in the same quantum state will sometimes result in photons in different physical states' does not imply 'Preparing a photon in different quantum states will sometimes result in photons that are in the same physical state'. The former proposition is the statistical interpretation. The latter is the assumption that the author’s argument depends on."
The authors (as far as I can see) don't claim the latter to follow from the former. However in my understanding their point is that if two different physical states imply two different quantum states then the quantum state is part of the physical state (because the quantum state then is uniquely determined by the physical state). And since that's what they want to prove by contradiction, they of course have to assume that this is not the case, i.e. that the same physical state can be part of different quantum states.
They would not be pure states of the (hypothetical) underlying theory, yes. They would still be pure states of quantum theory because quantum theory doesn't know about the badge numbers, only about the machines (and the state "psi badge" belongs to 100% certainty of being produced by the "psi" machine).
(Yeah, yeah, I get it, they are really just trying to say that "time-ordered phenomena apparently exist so the wavefunction must be real", but why bother?. Did any physicist for the last sixty years or so ever doubt this?
What it proves is that if you assume that there is something like a real state of the quantum system at all (and assuming quantum mechanics is actually right) then that real state must include the full wave function.
I've not dug deeply into the paper yet, but I don't understand their measurement apparatus (I'm an experimentalist but not in this field.) Their various states look to me like perfectly ordinary linear polarization states, so their "00/0+/+0/++" apparatus ought to be some kind of linear polarimeter, like a sequence of polarizing beam-splitters with ones at 45 degrees on the arms of one is vertical/horizontal, probably, ultimately, I guess with a recombining of the beams as in a Mach-Zedner interferometer...
But since there is no (apparent) interaction between the two photons I don't see what they mean by a "joint measurement" in this context. Can you give some insight into what kind of measurement apparatus they are actually talking about in the ideal case that would allow them to make the kind of "joint measurement" their argument depends on?
The joint measurement is basically a Bell measurement. I'm no experimentalist, so I don't know how a bell measurement is done in practice, however it seems that linear optics is not sufficient for it. But then, the scheme doesn't demand that the states are states of photons anyway. If you can do arbitraty operations (e.g. you are able to transfer the states into any two-qubit quantum computing setup), you can just transform that basis into a product basis and then measure that. I'm now too lazy (and too tired) to figure it out in detail, but basically you transfer the basis into the standard Bell basis (which needs only local operations; this could even be done with local optics), then you apply a controlled NOT (that's the hard part, but CNOTs have already been implemented in various systems; this is also where the interaction you missed happens), then a local Hadamard on the control qubit. Now you can just measure in the standard basis.
However I'd not be surprised if that would not be the optimal scheme (actually I'd be surprised if it was), and there are better ways to more directly do a Bell measurement. But for that you better ask an experimentalist.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
A "branching" of the universe isn't really a process where the universe is physically split into two universes. Rather it is a process where you get entangled with the thing you observed, and therefore you "split up" into two versions, each one observing a different projection ("branch") of the universal wave function. The physical universe doesn't split.
Indeed, the Wikipedia self-ads grew to become annoying. Unlike when they were less annoying, I now immediately close them without even looking at what they say (I didn't do that back when they were less annoying). If you want me to pay attention to your ads, don't make them annoying!
Personal rule of thumb: Don't share anything on FB you wouldn't willingly share to a person you got stuck in a broken elevator with.
Well, my conversation with other people in a broken elevator would concern the topic "how do we get out of here?"
Yea, you just responded to an obvious goatse troll like it was a real post.
He just announced that if that goatse site is kept alive ("If they keep it up") he might also become a goatse troll ("I might join you.") :-)
Ha! Now you have just admitted they care! :-)
perhaps you don't understand what "WE THE PEOPLE" means.
It means "we who are claiming (rightly or wrongly) to speak in the name of the people".
No. It just should be more funny than
Dick dick dick dick dick dick, dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick. Dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick. Dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick, dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick, dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick dick.
Breeding the stupid out is not a minus side.
Well, if that's true, this means that God actually wants us to believe it (because that's usually the point of placing evidence). In that case, by not believing the evidence, even if rightly so, you are acting against the will of God. So you better believe the scientific evidence, or you'll end in hell. :-)
The problem is that passing of ideas is not restricted to the offspring. That is, while bad traits in your genes are only passed on to your children (and therefore any genetic trait which reduces your reproductive success will be reduced), bad traits in your mind can be passed on to other individuals similar to infections. Therefore even ideas which increase mortality can be evolutionary very successful.
Actually what is tested isn't even your believe in the material, but your knowledge of it. So what's wrong with knowing something you don't believe in?
Actually, they also mention that ducks makes a joke more funny. So if you expand the joke to 103 words by making the hunters duck hunters, you've added two funny traits in one step.
Seems you took the term "shooting pictures" a bit too literal. :-)
No, that's only a part of the question. At least as important is the question: "Do we trust the power companies to responsibly run a nuclear plant without compromising safety for cutting costs?"
I did it as a service to Mankind.
Yeah, mankind got so much better from knowing that some random AC doesn't care about sports footage.
</sarcasm>
Fat people bind carbon in their body and thus fight global warming! :-)
I can say, with no reservation whatsoever, that I don't care about this article in any way, shape or form.
You at least cared enough to post this.
You seem to mix up binary data with ad-hoc binary files. Any reasonable binary format has a well-defined and well-specified encoding, which includes sizes and endianness of numeric data. Just fwriting from your program variables directly into the file is not defining a proper binary format. Also note that pointers have no place in binary files at all.
If you were having a party or getting married you would invite your friends, 99% of the "Friends" on facebook wouldn't get an invite.
Not intentionally, at least. :-)
That's probably as valid as taking the opinions expressed on Slashdot as model for the opinion of the general population. In other words, not very.
Thanks... that clears up my basic confusion. I didn't see how it could be done with linear optics either, but not being in the field wasn't sure if there wasn't something I was missing.
Having read the paper in more detail I'm not overwhelmed by their argument.: "That is, 'Preparing a photon in the same quantum state will sometimes result in photons in different physical states' does not imply 'Preparing a photon in different quantum states will sometimes result in photons that are in the same physical state'. The former proposition is the statistical interpretation. The latter is the assumption that the author’s argument depends on."
The authors (as far as I can see) don't claim the latter to follow from the former. However in my understanding their point is that if two different physical states imply two different quantum states then the quantum state is part of the physical state (because the quantum state then is uniquely determined by the physical state). And since that's what they want to prove by contradiction, they of course have to assume that this is not the case, i.e. that the same physical state can be part of different quantum states.
They would not be pure states of the (hypothetical) underlying theory, yes. They would still be pure states of quantum theory because quantum theory doesn't know about the badge numbers, only about the machines (and the state "psi badge" belongs to 100% certainty of being produced by the "psi" machine).
Yes.
What it proves is that if you assume that there is something like a real state of the quantum system at all (and assuming quantum mechanics is actually right) then that real state must include the full wave function.
I've not dug deeply into the paper yet, but I don't understand their measurement apparatus (I'm an experimentalist but not in this field.) Their various states look to me like perfectly ordinary linear polarization states, so their "00/0+/+0/++" apparatus ought to be some kind of linear polarimeter, like a sequence of polarizing beam-splitters with ones at 45 degrees on the arms of one is vertical/horizontal, probably, ultimately, I guess with a recombining of the beams as in a Mach-Zedner interferometer...
But since there is no (apparent) interaction between the two photons I don't see what they mean by a "joint measurement" in this context. Can you give some insight into what kind of measurement apparatus they are actually talking about in the ideal case that would allow them to make the kind of "joint measurement" their argument depends on?
The joint measurement is basically a Bell measurement. I'm no experimentalist, so I don't know how a bell measurement is done in practice, however it seems that linear optics is not sufficient for it. But then, the scheme doesn't demand that the states are states of photons anyway. If you can do arbitraty operations (e.g. you are able to transfer the states into any two-qubit quantum computing setup), you can just transform that basis into a product basis and then measure that. I'm now too lazy (and too tired) to figure it out in detail, but basically you transfer the basis into the standard Bell basis (which needs only local operations; this could even be done with local optics), then you apply a controlled NOT (that's the hard part, but CNOTs have already been implemented in various systems; this is also where the interaction you missed happens), then a local Hadamard on the control qubit. Now you can just measure in the standard basis.
However I'd not be surprised if that would not be the optimal scheme (actually I'd be surprised if it was), and there are better ways to more directly do a Bell measurement. But for that you better ask an experimentalist. :-)
My salt and pepper shakers came as a set. They did not, however, come with salt and pepper in them. They were a - wait for it - Empty Set.
Hope I didn't break the maths too much.
Sorry, but your salt and pepper shakers did not come empty. They were filled with air.