3 ms·
What was wrong with the proof in this case? The paper explicitly states and acknowledges the issue raised by this article before the author was aware of it. T
by terminalbraid 1y ago
What was wrong with the proof in this case? The paper explicitly states and acknowledges the issue raised by this article before the author was aware of it. The author of the article just contends that it is an experimental issue to set up unentangled initial states which are required for the experiment, and indeed someone who was going to perform the experiment needs to convincing demonstrate the assumptions are met.
The author even admits this "is better than doing no test at all".
- moi2388 1y agoNothing, except the perception of what was said and what was actually said. (The same happend to Bells inequality actually) “ (…) you can just mimic the behavior of complex numbers using pairs of real numbers (and appropriately tweaked definitions of operations). (…) What Renou et al are actually claiming is that if you start with quantum mechanics, and then remove all operations and states involving non-real numbers, and then try to emulate what was lost using what remains, you will fail in an experimentally detectable way” Meaning it’s actually totally possible to only use reals to encode the complex Numbers, but not to also remove all operators which do the same things as the complex numbers would.
- j16sdiz 1y ago"the math breaks if you just remove the math" "actually you can replace with something equivalent" "i said just remove the math, not replacing it" so, what's the news?