|
michael_nielsen
@
michael_nielsen
San Francisco, CA
|
|
Searching for the numinous. Co-purveyor of quantum.country
|
|
|
21.306
Tweetovi
|
3.412
Pratim
|
50.257
Osobe koje vas prate
|
| Tweetovi |
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
10 h |
|
I am quite puzzled by this. I half wonder if I've simply messed up in relating Q and S, but I've checked the calculation twice, and I don't see it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
10 h |
|
Original paper: journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.110…
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
10 h |
|
This is well short of the maximal violation (Q = 2 sqrt(2) ~ 2.8). But AFAICT the Aspect experiment uses polarization angles that should give the maximal violation
What gives? Have I goofed? Or am I missing something? Is it the cryptic remark about solid angles & efficiencies? pic.twitter.com/w4uhbfiEq5
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
10 h |
|
The more commonly stated form of the CHSH inequality is Q := E(AC)+ E(BC) + E(BD) - E(AD) <= 2, where A, B etc are the observables for the polarization (values +- 1). By my calculation, Q = 2+4S, so the experimental value in Aspect corresponds to Q ~ 2.404.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
10 h |
|
A question for people who know about Bell inequalities: in the 1982 Aspect paper they present them in this form (a version of the CHSH inequality), with an experimental value (& violation) of S = 0.101 pic.twitter.com/MR1CcBfO2q
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
2. velj |
|
Alright, did that. Thanks for the suggestion!
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
2. velj |
|
Thanks!
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
2. velj |
|
A few days ago someone DM'ed me, then immediately deleted their account. Since then, Twitter randomly does this (despite the fact that I've read the DM). Anyone know how to get this bug fixed? Small, but irritating. pic.twitter.com/KHqie3sica
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
2. velj |
|
Nationalization very rarely results in healthy competitive marketplaces.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
2. velj |
|
Of course, in 1992 it was reasonable publishers hadn't yet figured out new business models. Nowadays, things have changed s'what, due to the work by open access & science advocates, but scientific publishing is still slow-moving for reasons described here: twitter.com/michael_nielse…
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
2. velj |
|
(ht Scott Aaronson) pic.twitter.com/Ul7ql77ipY
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
1. velj |
|
No idea. Though I vaguely recall seeing an interview (maybe on YT?) with Murray where he talks about the same phenomenon. Perhaps Crichton crystallized the thought after talking with MGM?
I certainly know what you mean about some ppl having a big impact in a short time!
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
1. velj |
|
TBC: I enjoyed your thread a lot!!! I also completely disagree with it :-)
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
1. velj |
|
I was shocked to have venture capital explained to me, properly, the other day, and to understand the design it represented, and how it solves various problems with older models. And that it's then been a platform for other financial innovation (the Yale model; YC; other expts).
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
1. velj |
|
I believe almost all of finance is yet to be discovered. Non-abelian currencies are an example. Dominant assurance contracts. Quadratic voting for public goods. Virtualized corporations. Etc etc etc; it's easy to generate infinitely many ideas. Most won't work, but some will.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
1. velj |
|
A tiny bit. Someone from whom I learned a lot, despite only ever really interacting three times.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
1. velj |
|
You have a healthier attitude than that attributed to (the great) Murray Gell-Mann: "If I've seen further it's because I'm surrounded by dwarves."
[I liked Murray, but I've heard it too often not to believe that quote.]
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
1. velj |
|
Curious, have you seen non-Abelian currencies anywhere?
If I give you X dollars, then immediately after you give me Y dollars, it's the same as if we'd done it in reverse order. If you use a non-Abelian group, this is not true.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
31. sij |
|
Yes! The first two sentences of that paragraph are what really make the passage for me. Just beautiful.
|
||
|
|
||
|
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen
|
31. sij |
|
That's delightful 😀
I suspect I read it about 3x as often as I tweet it.
More nerd sniping: I cannot read a snippet from the Susan Sontag interview in PR without reading the entire thing. I _must not_ link to it now, or I'll just have to reread it again...
|
||
|
|
||