Comments on: 281. Twitter updates for 2009-02-21 http://www.nonequilibrium.net/281-twitter-updates-20090221/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed For physicts by physicists Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:24:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dmitry http://www.nonequilibrium.net/281-twitter-updates-20090221/comment-page-1/#comment-6142 Dmitry Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:49:35 +0000 http://www.nonequilibrium.net/?p=2090#comment-6142 <blockquote>I thought that they would get the sensation of EPR by cloning people in the biological sense - that would be even "better" a paper!</blockquote> Grand unification of quantum physics with biology (well, anatomy as they propose) :-)

I thought that they would get the sensation of EPR by cloning people in the biological sense – that would be even “better” a paper!

Grand unification of quantum physics with biology (well, anatomy as they propose) :-)

]]> By: Lubos Motl http://www.nonequilibrium.net/281-twitter-updates-20090221/comment-page-1/#comment-6135 Lubos Motl Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:40:15 +0000 http://www.nonequilibrium.net/?p=2090#comment-6135 The entanglement paper is an unbelievable silliness and I can't believe that arxivblog.com which once looked very inspiring and reasonable is promoting this stuff so uncritically. Entanglement is only interesting if it includes many independent correlations, e.g. in linear polarization as well as circular polarization, that would be impossible to combine in classical physics. Once they start to "clone" the photons, this feature is manifestly lost. So once the humans observe a photon in a state, they can indeed create billions of such photons and write thousands of copies of a paper that announces what the state is, but it will no longer be a quantum entanglement that is able to violate Bell's inequalities. It will only be a "classical" result of a measurement. Quantum mechanics doesn't allow for any cloning. First, I thought that they would get the sensation of EPR by cloning people in the biological sense - that would be even "better" a paper! :-) At any rate, the general idea that humans eyes can probe any principles that machines can't is just preposterous. The entanglement paper is an unbelievable silliness and I can’t believe that arxivblog.com which once looked very inspiring and reasonable is promoting this stuff so uncritically.

Entanglement is only interesting if it includes many independent correlations, e.g. in linear polarization as well as circular polarization, that would be impossible to combine in classical physics.

Once they start to “clone” the photons, this feature is manifestly lost. So once the humans observe a photon in a state, they can indeed create billions of such photons and write thousands of copies of a paper that announces what the state is, but it will no longer be a quantum entanglement that is able to violate Bell’s inequalities.

It will only be a “classical” result of a measurement. Quantum mechanics doesn’t allow for any cloning.

First, I thought that they would get the sensation of EPR by cloning people in the biological sense – that would be even “better” a paper! :-) At any rate, the general idea that humans eyes can probe any principles that machines can’t is just preposterous.

]]>