Kitinä

SikaMika kirjoitti:Hyvä yritys.

Wired kirjoitti:The more one probes the universe at smaller and smaller scales, the weirder matter and energy seem to behave.

“We’re interested in this question of why quantum theory is as weird as it is, but not weirder,” said physicist Jonathan Oppenheim of the University of Cambridge. “It was an unnatural question for people to have asked even 20 years ago. The reason we’re able to get these results is that we’re thinking of things in the way a hacker might think of things.”

To see the link between uncertainty and nonlocality, Wehner suggests thinking of a game played by two people, Alice and Bob, who are far apart and not allowed to talk to each other.

In the normal, non-quantum world, the best strategy for this (admittedly really boring) game lets the duo win just 75 percent of the time. If they each have one of a pair of entangled particles, they can do better. Alice can influence the state of Bob’s particle by observing her own. Bob can then look at his particle and have some idea of what Alice’s looks like, and use that information to make a more educated guess about which box has a cup.

But this strategy only improves the pair’s odds of winning to 85 percent. Bob can’t always guess perfectly because the uncertainty principle says he can’t know both bits of information at the same time, Oppenheim and Wehner explained. The stronger the uncertainty principle is, the harder it will be for Bob to retrieve the bit.

“The reason we can’t win this game better than 85 percent is because quantum mechanics respects the uncertainty principle,” Oppenheim said.

Teraslilja_m kirjoitti:Peliteoriaa kvanttimaailmassa ..
Universe’s Quantum Weirdness Limits Its Weirdness

Wired kirjoitti:The more one probes the universe at smaller and smaller scales, the weirder matter and energy seem to behave.

“We’re interested in this question of why quantum theory is as weird as it is, but not weirder,” said physicist Jonathan Oppenheim of the University of Cambridge. “It was an unnatural question for people to have asked even 20 years ago. The reason we’re able to get these results is that we’re thinking of things in the way a hacker might think of things.”

To see the link between uncertainty and nonlocality, Wehner suggests thinking of a game played by two people, Alice and Bob, who are far apart and not allowed to talk to each other.

In the normal, non-quantum world, the best strategy for this (admittedly really boring) game lets the duo win just 75 percent of the time. If they each have one of a pair of entangled particles, they can do better. Alice can influence the state of Bob’s particle by observing her own. Bob can then look at his particle and have some idea of what Alice’s looks like, and use that information to make a more educated guess about which box has a cup.

But this strategy only improves the pair’s odds of winning to 85 percent. Bob can’t always guess perfectly because the uncertainty principle says he can’t know both bits of information at the same time, Oppenheim and Wehner explained. The stronger the uncertainty principle is, the harder it will be for Bob to retrieve the bit.

“The reason we can’t win this game better than 85 percent is because quantum mechanics respects the uncertainty principle,” Oppenheim said.

NuoriD kirjoitti: Öööö. Mä olen ymmärtänyt, että lomittumisella ei voi välittää informaatiota.

Esim wikipedia sanoo "It is now understood that while these nonlocal correlations do occur, they cannot be used to transmit information and thus do not violate causality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Tuo sun lainaama juttusihan väittää, että informaatiota voidaan välittää.

Wikipedia kirjoitti:This experiment found that the "speed" of quantum entanglement has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light.[6] However, because the method involves uncontrollable observation rather than controllable changing of state, no actual information is transmitted in this process. Therefore, the speed of light remains the communication speed limit.

Wired kirjoitti:But this strategy only improves the pair’s odds of winning to 85 percent. Bob can’t always guess perfectly because the uncertainty principle says he can’t know both bits of information at the same time, Oppenheim and Wehner explained. The stronger the uncertainty principle is, the harder it will be for Bob to retrieve the bit.

Gaia kirjoitti:Mikä sinua naapurissa ärsyttää?

Gaia kirjoitti:Mikä sinua naapurissa ärsyttää?

Teraslilja_m kirjoitti:

NuoriD kirjoitti: Öööö. Mä olen ymmärtänyt, että lomittumisella ei voi välittää informaatiota.

Esim wikipedia sanoo "It is now understood that while these nonlocal correlations do occur, they cannot be used to transmit information and thus do not violate causality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Tuo sun lainaama juttusihan väittää, että informaatiota voidaan välittää.

Laajempi lainaus samaisesta wiki artikkelista:

Wikipedia kirjoitti:This experiment found that the "speed" of quantum entanglement has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light.[6] However, because the method involves uncontrollable observation rather than controllable changing of state, no actual information is transmitted in this process. Therefore, the speed of light remains the communication speed limit.

Ymmärtäisin Wired lehden lainauksen (alla) sillä tavalla, että siinä puhutaan kahdesta bitistä tarkoittaen hiukkasen paikkaa ja nopeutta, joiden samanaikaisen mittaamisen epätarkkuusperiaate siis kieltää. Ja mitä voimakkaampi tuo epätarkkuus periaate on, sen vaikeammin peli on siis nonlocalityllä parannettavissa.

Wired kirjoitti:But this strategy only improves the pair’s odds of winning to 85 percent. Bob can’t always guess perfectly because the uncertainty principle says he can’t know both bits of information at the same time, Oppenheim and Wehner explained. The stronger the uncertainty principle is, the harder it will be for Bob to retrieve the bit.

November 23, 2010 by Lisa Zyga @ Physicsorg.com kirjoitti:In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before.

However, Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the CMB in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are not completely random. The scientists think that these circles stem from the results of collisions between supermassive black holes that released huge, mostly isotropic bursts of energy. The bursts have much more energy than the normal local variations in temperature. The strange part is that the scientists calculated that some of the larger of these nearly isotropic circles must have occurred before the time of the Big Bang.

The discovery doesn't suggest that there wasn't a Big Bang - rather, it supports the idea that there could have been many of them. The scientists explain that the CMB circles support the possibility that we live in a cyclic universe, in which the end of one “aeon” or universe triggers another Big Bang that starts another aeon, and the process repeats indefinitely.

NuoriD kirjoitti:Kumpikin lainaamasi Wikipedian kohta sanoo, että informaatiota ei välitetä. Miten siis pelin tulosta voisi parantaa lomittumisella, kun se ei välitä informaatiota. Itse ainakin toistetusti olen lukenut, että vaikka lomittuminen tapahtuu valonnopeutta suuremmalla nopeudelle, se ei välitä informaatioa.

Jos se välittäisi informaatiota JA välittyisi valoa nopeammin, se rikkoisi kausaalisuuden.

Wikipedia kirjoitti:Nevertheless, consider the EPR thought experiment, and suppose quantum states could be cloned. Assume parts of a maximally entangled Bell state are distributed to Alice and Bob. Alice does nothing to her qubit. Bob creates many copies of his electron's state, and measures the spin of each copy in the z direction. ... his [edit: Bob's] measurements will have outcomes +1/2 and −1/2 with equal probability [edit: Tässä lienee virhe wikipediassa, myös tilat +1 ja -1 pitäisi olla mahdollisia, kun spin on ollut z suuntainen].

Wikipedia kirjoitti:If Alice wishes to transmit a '0', she measures the spin of her electron in the z direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |z+>B or |z->B. If Alice wishes to transmit a '1', she measures the spin of her electron in the x direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |x+>B or |x->B. Bob creates many copies of his electron's state, and measures the spin of each copy in the z direction. If Alice transmitted a '0', all his measurements will produce the same result; otherwise, his measurements will be split evenly between +1/2 and -1/2. This would allow Alice and Bob to communicate across space-like separations, potentially violating causality. But violation of causality is not sufficient as proof of no superluminal communication. So superluminal communication remains an open issue [2].

Teraslilja_m kirjoitti: Jos sen sijaan, lähettävän hiukkasen tilaa manipuloitaisiin (johonkin tiettyyn, haluttuun tilaan), niin tämä olisi informaation välitystä. Selvää pässin lihaa minusta ...

Superluminal communication

Wikipedia kirjoitti:If Alice wishes to transmit a '0', she measures the spin of her electron in the z direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |z+>B or |z->B. If Alice wishes to transmit a '1', she measures the spin of her electron in the x direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |x+>B or |x->B. Bob creates many copies of his electron's state, and measures the spin of each copy in the z direction. If Alice transmitted a '0', all his measurements will produce the same result; otherwise, his measurements will be split evenly between +1/2 and -1/2. This would allow Alice and Bob to communicate across space-like separations, potentially violating causality. But violation of causality is not sufficient as proof of no superluminal communication. So superluminal communication remains an open issue [2].

:

NuoriD kirjoitti:Kyllä valtavirran tieteen näkymys mun nähdäkseni on, että valoa nopeammin ei voi kommunikoida, koska se mm rikkoisi kausaliteetin.


Lainaamastasi Ansible-artikkelista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible#In_reality
" The theory of special relativity predicts that any such device would allow communication from the future to the past, which raises problems of causality. For this reason, most physicists believe that they will eventually be proven impossible

Tähän mennessä suhteellisuusteria on selvinnyt kaikista haasteista kokeellisesti...

Wikipedia kirjoitti:Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.
A number of authors have published papers disputing Nimtz's claim that Einstein causality is violated by his experiments, and there are many other papers in the literature discussing why quantum tunneling is not thought to violate causality.[18]

prosessi kirjoitti:Näin valtio käyttää rahaa.

aasi kirjoitti:

prosessi kirjoitti:Näin valtio käyttää rahaa.

Linkki ei toimi.

Lolita kirjoitti:Piraattipuolue FTW!

http://horsmalahti.puheenvuoro.uusisuom ... -ongelmana

(Hyvin on Henry Laasasensa lukenut)

nastamuumio kirjoitti:

Lolita kirjoitti:Piraattipuolue FTW!

http://horsmalahti.puheenvuoro.uusisuom ... -ongelmana

(Hyvin on Henry Laasasensa lukenut)

Mua oikeesti kiinnostais tietää, millaiset elämänkokemukset tai aivokemialliset piirteet saa ihmisen kirjoittamaan tuollaista tekstiä? Lisäksi, jos tuo on oikeassa, onko niin, että minä en ole olemassa vai onko minun todellisuustajuni todella pahasti vinksallaan (ts. asiat, joita kuvittelen omiksi tosikokemuksikseni, eivät voi olla totta, vaan harhaa)?

So Hard kirjoitti:
Eihän sitä tartte kuin vilkaista kaiffarin lärviä niin hiffaa ettei tuolla naamalla saa pillua edes Varkaudesta.