4 ms·

I like the hands-on tutorial. I have a couple of comments. > teleportation might be a reality ;). Please say "quantum teleportation" instead of "teleportation

I like the hands-on tutorial. I have a couple of comments. > teleportation might be a reality ;). Please say "quantum teleportation" instead of "teleportation" so readers don't confuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation. They are completely different concepts. > That notion of both “dead and alive” is exactly what superposition is. No, this is not what superposition is. The cat example was Schrödinger’s method of illustrating how counter-intuitive quantum superposition is. Please refer to the superposition principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle) instead. > But what if you could entangle them together so both would always guarantee to yield the same outcome? That’s what entanglement is all about. This is not what entanglement is all about. You say "both their wave functions will yield the same outcome." It's the same wave-function when they are entangled, not different ones.

Viveckh 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback, truly appreciate it! Will make those changes. The superposition part though, maybe I could've been more clearer, but I meant to imply the "being in both states" is what superposition meant. I saw it being similar to the coin example conceptually. Or was the coin example supposed to be a more proper representative of the concept?
- vtomole 7y ago
  That coin example is not a proper representative either. There is no possibility for interference. I recommend you explain superposition by making the analogy that in coins, the probabilities are real numbers but in quantum mechanics they are complex amplitudes. The way you should explain this is like https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf. Don't avoid math. You can't explain superposition and entanglement correctly without it. I didn't need to read those sections to figure out that they were incorrect. I just looked for some notation like vectors, matrices e.t.c.. and I didn't see any.

Viveckh 7y ago

Thanks for the feedback, truly appreciate it! Will make those changes. The superposition part though, maybe I could've been more clearer, but I meant to imply the "being in both states" is what superposition meant. I saw it being similar to the coin example conceptually. Or was the coin example supposed to be a more proper representative of the concept?

vtomole 7y ago
That coin example is not a proper representative either. There is no possibility for interference. I recommend you explain superposition by making the analogy that in coins, the probabilities are real numbers but in quantum mechanics they are complex amplitudes. The way you should explain this is like https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf. Don't avoid math. You can't explain superposition and entanglement correctly without it. I didn't need to read those sections to figure out that they were incorrect. I just looked for some notation like vectors, matrices e.t.c.. and I didn't see any.