• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ARSTechnica on how quantum computers work

Yes, thank you for reminding me of the nightmares of bra-ket notation. This article needs to come stamped with a warning to wait until morning before starting to read it.
 
Um.. Erm. Let me wait a while before seriously trying to read that. It's been a while since I last took QM ... like 2 years ago?
 
Wow, I still don't understand quantum theory. I trust it as a statistical theory formed around real data, but it'd be nice to have some answers about what's really going on.

BTW, when they talk about entangled photons, how do they measure individual photons? You can't transmit a single photon, you transmit a beam of photons, and how would you ever know which is entangled or not?
 
Fox5 said:
Wow, I still don't understand quantum theory. I trust it as a statistical theory formed around real data, but it'd be nice to have some answers about what's really going on.

BTW, when they talk about entangled photons, how do they measure individual photons? You can't transmit a single photon, you transmit a beam of photons, and how would you ever know which is entangled or not?
Click to expand...

Of course, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
~Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

The thing is everything that we understand has to be statistical. There's basically no way to "see" what is going on (i.e. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc). Only "this can be explained by quantum mechanics", not "this IS quantum mechanics".
 
Last edited:
jimhsu said:
Of course, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
~Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

The thing is everything that we understand has to be statistical. There's basically no way to "see" what is going on (i.e. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc). Only "this can be explained by quantum mechanics", not "this IS quantum mechanics".
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it seems that so many of the crazier interpretations of what quantum mechanics can do are based on "this is quantum mechanics" without setting bounds and limits on it. It just feels like the theory guys are getting ahead of the experimental guys by too much. I guess that's what theorists are for tho.
 
Fox5 said:
Yeah, but it seems that so many of the crazier interpretations of what quantum mechanics can do are based on "this is quantum mechanics" without setting bounds and limits on it. It just feels like the theory guys are getting ahead of the experimental guys by too much. I guess that's what theorists are for tho.
Click to expand...

And pure mathematicians are ahead of everyone else by at least 50 years, probably a century. Just saying...
(note /me is not a mathematician)
 
Fox5 said:
Wow, I still don't understand quantum theory. I trust it as a statistical theory formed around real data, but it'd be nice to have some answers about what's really going on.

BTW, when they talk about entangled photons, how do they measure individual photons? You can't transmit a single photon, you transmit a beam of photons, and how would you ever know which is entangled or not?
Click to expand...

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html

that might help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top