5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsistent_comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsistent_comparison Josephson phase qubits aren't even utilizing the sa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsistent_comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsistent_comparison Josephson phase qubits aren't even utilizing the same fundamental concepts to examine the qualities of the mediums that quantum uncertainty affects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_qubit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_qubit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_voltage_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_voltage_standard

danbruc 8y ago
You complained - without providing any substantive arguments why this might be an issue - that all Bell test experiments use polarizers, I pointed out that you are wrong. I have no idea what you are complaining about now, what is »[...] qualities of the mediums that quantum uncertainty affects [...]« even supposed to mean? You are obviously far outside of your area of competence. If not, just do the experiment, write the paper, and collect your Nobel Prize, no need to argue with clueless people on the web.
- breadAndWater 8y ago
  A Josephson junction doesn't even trap any single actual physical particle. It's just a standing wave of electrical current trapped in a bounded array of geometrically crafted slabs of superconductors and insulators. It's a phenomenon that arises from the construction of the device. Unlike fundamental particles such as photons and electrons, there is nothing substantial about the state represented by the standing wave qubit trapped in a circuit operated by a Josephson junction device. Destroy the device (or nevermind that, just never place it in a dewar flask chilled to 4 degrees kelvin, to activate it) and the phenomenon doesn't even exist. So much for whether or not matter or energy can never be created nor destroyed. To sit there and state that, on paper, this is the same thing as an individual electron emitted as beta decay is, well... fundamentally flawed.
donutte 8y ago
Just to be clear, these are experimental results that are statistically impossible assuming a classical physics. Are you actually worried that they are somehow studying the wrong self-evidently non-classical thing, or what?
- breadAndWater 8y ago
  Quote from the "Phase_qubit" Wikipedia article: "The zero voltage state describes one of the two distinct dynamic behaviors displayed by the phase particle, and corresponds to when the particle is trapped in one of the local minima in the washboard potential. [...] With the phase particle trapped in a minimum, it has zero average velocity and therefore zero average voltage. [...] The voltage state is the other dynamic behavior displayed by a Josephson junction, and corresponds to the phase particle free-running down the slope of the potential, with a non-zero average velocity and therefore non-zero voltage." So, we're not even talking about actual fundamental subatomic particles anymore. We're talking about phase oscillations, and renaming that as if it were a "particle" because, hey, particle/wave duality, so why not? Hand-wavey math permits us to equivocate that a current induced on a wire, by way of the transfer of many actual electrons across substrates, can serve to prove the premise of a "teleportation device" also. See? If we play our game of three-card monte, change phase oscillations, wiggle our noses, and tilt our heads a little, it's all very obvious that faster-than-light information transfer can be generalized to fit in the same picture, because this tuning fork makes that tuning fork ring in harmony, but only when we choose to notice.
  - donutte 8y ago
    I’m not sure I follow your argument, but if I understand you right, I don’t believe what you’re quoting is relevant. From the article you are (I think?) criticizing: We measure a Bell signal S of 2.0732 ± 0.0003, exceeding the maximum value |S| = 2 for a classical system by 244 standard deviations. In the experiment, we deterministically generate the entangled state, and measure both qubits in a single-shot manner, closing the “detection loophole”[11]. Since the Bell inequality was designed to test for non-classical behavior without assuming the applicability of quantum mechanics to the system in question, this experiment provides further strong evidence that a macroscopic electrical circuit is really a quantum system [7]. https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann2009.pdf https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20... That says in plain English that they have not assumed that this system behaves according to quantum principles. In fact, it is precisely the opposite: the quantum nature of this system is a conclusion of their results. It would be statistically impossible for any system following classical rules to produce the same data. (It bears repeating that the math underlying that conclusion is truly not very complex, and it is very, very well studied. If you can show that it’s flawed somehow, don’t bother publishing— just post your proof here and I’ll, uh... pick up the Nobel for you.) The only caveat is that this experiment closes the detection loophole, but not the locality loophole; it is theoretically possible that a classical signal could be sent from one qubit to the other quickly enough to fabricate this data. There’s no particular reason to suspect a secret signal is in play, but it isn’t theoretically prohibited. Assuming you haven’t found a flaw in their mathematics, and that you aren’t alleging that the researchers deliberately fabricated their data, the locality loophole is your best (and likely only) avenue to dispute their conclusions. However, if you wish to pursue that, you should keep in mind that there are many other experiments which close the locality loophole but not the detection loophole, and, since 2015, several that close both. Three-card monte may be a better investment of your time.

danbruc 8y ago

You complained - without providing any substantive arguments why this might be an issue - that all Bell test experiments use polarizers, I pointed out that you are wrong. I have no idea what you are complaining about now, what is »[...] qualities of the mediums that quantum uncertainty affects [...]« even supposed to mean? You are obviously far outside of your area of competence. If not, just do the experiment, write the paper, and collect your Nobel Prize, no need to argue with clueless people on the web.

breadAndWater 8y ago
A Josephson junction doesn't even trap any single actual physical particle. It's just a standing wave of electrical current trapped in a bounded array of geometrically crafted slabs of superconductors and insulators. It's a phenomenon that arises from the construction of the device. Unlike fundamental particles such as photons and electrons, there is nothing substantial about the state represented by the standing wave qubit trapped in a circuit operated by a Josephson junction device. Destroy the device (or nevermind that, just never place it in a dewar flask chilled to 4 degrees kelvin, to activate it) and the phenomenon doesn't even exist. So much for whether or not matter or energy can never be created nor destroyed. To sit there and state that, on paper, this is the same thing as an individual electron emitted as beta decay is, well... fundamentally flawed.

donutte 8y ago

Just to be clear, these are experimental results that are statistically impossible assuming a classical physics. Are you actually worried that they are somehow studying the wrong self-evidently non-classical thing, or what?

breadAndWater 8y ago
Quote from the "Phase_qubit" Wikipedia article: "The zero voltage state describes one of the two distinct dynamic behaviors displayed by the phase particle, and corresponds to when the particle is trapped in one of the local minima in the washboard potential. [...] With the phase particle trapped in a minimum, it has zero average velocity and therefore zero average voltage. [...] The voltage state is the other dynamic behavior displayed by a Josephson junction, and corresponds to the phase particle free-running down the slope of the potential, with a non-zero average velocity and therefore non-zero voltage." So, we're not even talking about actual fundamental subatomic particles anymore. We're talking about phase oscillations, and renaming that as if it were a "particle" because, hey, particle/wave duality, so why not? Hand-wavey math permits us to equivocate that a current induced on a wire, by way of the transfer of many actual electrons across substrates, can serve to prove the premise of a "teleportation device" also. See? If we play our game of three-card monte, change phase oscillations, wiggle our noses, and tilt our heads a little, it's all very obvious that faster-than-light information transfer can be generalized to fit in the same picture, because this tuning fork makes that tuning fork ring in harmony, but only when we choose to notice.
- donutte 8y ago
  I’m not sure I follow your argument, but if I understand you right, I don’t believe what you’re quoting is relevant. From the article you are (I think?) criticizing: We measure a Bell signal S of 2.0732 ± 0.0003, exceeding the maximum value |S| = 2 for a classical system by 244 standard deviations. In the experiment, we deterministically generate the entangled state, and measure both qubits in a single-shot manner, closing the “detection loophole”[11]. Since the Bell inequality was designed to test for non-classical behavior without assuming the applicability of quantum mechanics to the system in question, this experiment provides further strong evidence that a macroscopic electrical circuit is really a quantum system [7]. https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann2009.pdf https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20... That says in plain English that they have not assumed that this system behaves according to quantum principles. In fact, it is precisely the opposite: the quantum nature of this system is a conclusion of their results. It would be statistically impossible for any system following classical rules to produce the same data. (It bears repeating that the math underlying that conclusion is truly not very complex, and it is very, very well studied. If you can show that it’s flawed somehow, don’t bother publishing— just post your proof here and I’ll, uh... pick up the Nobel for you.) The only caveat is that this experiment closes the detection loophole, but not the locality loophole; it is theoretically possible that a classical signal could be sent from one qubit to the other quickly enough to fabricate this data. There’s no particular reason to suspect a secret signal is in play, but it isn’t theoretically prohibited. Assuming you haven’t found a flaw in their mathematics, and that you aren’t alleging that the researchers deliberately fabricated their data, the locality loophole is your best (and likely only) avenue to dispute their conclusions. However, if you wish to pursue that, you should keep in mind that there are many other experiments which close the locality loophole but not the detection loophole, and, since 2015, several that close both. Three-card monte may be a better investment of your time.