'Remarkable' Mathematical Proof Describes How to Solve Seemingly Impossible Computing Problem:
You enter a cave. At the end of a dark corridor, you encounter a pair of sealed chambers. Inside each chamber is an all-knowing wizard. The prophecy says that with these oracles' help, you can learn the answers to unanswerable problems. But there's a catch: The oracles don't always tell the truth. And though they cannot communicate with each other, their seemingly random responses to your questions are actually connected by the very fabric of the universe. To get the answer you seek, you must first devise... the questions.
Computer scientists are buzzing about a new mathematical proof that proposes a quantum-entangled system sort of like the one described above. It seems to disprove a 44-year-old conjecture and details a theoretical machine capable of solving the famous halting problem, which says a computer cannot determine whether it will ever be able to solve a problem it's currently trying to solve.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 21 2020, @11:49AM (8 children)
Granted, now: clearly demonstrate that whatever is shared is not simply a hidden variable which was determined at the time of entanglement?
And Bernie Madoff delivered spooky returns on investment, time and time again, until he didn't.
If you had said "a simpler experimental setup..." I'd believe we're onto something truly worthwhile.
I've caught the occasional reference to a special-relativity hidden-variable, but the best I can come up with on short notice is this:
In any event it disturbs me that our "men of science" seem to be, in large part, taking things like on faith just as blind as those who send money to TV evangelists...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 21 2020, @12:38PM (7 children)
There's 56 years of history behind that particular endeavour (plus the work before Bell's paper). Many are happy that their chosen interpretation supports that, and and their experimental results support their interpretation, and I think that's true for most commonly accepted interpretations (some interpretations make the question meaningless, of course, which I'd say makes it vacuously true).
> If you had said "a simpler experimental setup..." I'd believe we're onto something truly worthwhile.
Removal of the posibility of alternative explanations requires active prevention of them, that's just how things work. The Bell inequality is one of the hypotheses where there's been more such refinements than any other one than I can think of, because there are so many alternative "but it could be"s that need to be nullified. IIRC the wikipedia page had a good list of most of them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 21 2020, @03:55PM (6 children)
But, back to Gallileo - dropping two objects of unequal size and mass off of a high place and observing they fall at the same rate is a simple demonstration that removes the possibility of any number of alternative, incorrect explanations...
I recognize that I'm a naive poseur, but my initial and only objection to the whole thing boils down to what is referred to in the field as "hidden variables," and as long as there are demonstrations that:
- for particles A and B entangled at point 1 time T,
- A moved to point 2, B moved to point 3, some significant distance apart,
- if something about A measured at time U has some bearing on something about B measured at time U,
- I find it logically inescapable that that bearing is accountable to either:
-- a hidden variable established at point 1 time T, or
-- faster than light communication of something from A at point 2 time U to B at point 3 time U.
Explanations built up around theories of indeterminate collapsing states are all well and good, and those mathematical/theoretical constructs may, or may not, be self consistent and consistent with the physical observations, but... I fail to see how they refute the seemingly simpler logical explanation: "the states were determined at time T, we just didn't measure them until time U."
It's all well and good to say: It's very esoteric and confusing, you wouldn't understand it unless you were a rare expert in the field. However, if Bernie Madoff gave me that explanation for the returns on his fund, I wouldn't be investing in it.
I would also, romantically, far prefer the explanation of faster than light communication to be true - but I believe the Fermi paradox is a fairly strong piece of circumstantial evidence that FTL just doesn't happen in this universe.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:17PM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:46PM (4 children)
I know the horse is dead, but I just can't stop kicking it...
Does it have to be? Forget quantum mechanics mostly altogether: put your two particles (or, rather, large sampling of particle pairs) into their "entangled state" in any of these experiments (time T). Then, measure them later (time U). Where is the outcome that says the later measurement state couldn't possibly have been determined at the time the particles were "entangled." As I understand the rules of engagement, no measurement is permitted until time U, ergo you just don't know what happened after T until U - what's the possible proof that the state did not become determinate at T which does not involve FTL travel between the measurement points?
Yes, yes, and here I'm devolving into complexity just like the rest of the field, which I'd rather not do, but... just because there's a "masking bit" which must be communicated between the points to conduct the experiment, and therefore no new information can be communicated between B and C, doesn't have a damn thing to do with willful ignorance of a state determined at the time of entanglement - insisting that it wasn't determined at that time and place doesn't make it so.
I realize that a rather large number of "smart guys" have put a rather large amount of thought into this problem for a rather long amount of time, but it still feels after all these decades of "progress" have passed that there's that rather basic question left unanswered while buzzing around all the details and intricacies of more highly developed theories.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 21 2020, @11:30PM (3 children)
I would hate to be responsible for mangling what I learnt even more by trying to pass it on. At times like this, I just run off to the internet, there are many reliable resources out there. Wikipedia's pretty good, and has plenty of outward pointing links.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 22 2020, @02:32AM (2 children)
Thanks for your patience... usually there's a "hidden gotcha" that they don't explain up front. In college I had a few "NP hard" problems explained to me in ways that weren't NP hard, I think one had to do with factoring boolean expressions - which I thought: HA, I've already written algorithms that do that... but when I finally dug into it the ACTUAL boolean expressions in the NP hard problem are product of sums expressions, not sum of products expressions - well, of course, what f'ing idiot writes complex boolean expressions in product of sums form?!? For one thing, they're so much harder to work with like that, doh!
Like I've said, I've breezed through some Wikipedia articles, kind of stepped my way through the supposed proof experiments, and challenged "great physicists" to explain it to me - all to no avail, and 1) as you said: Einstein didn't seem to get it, so I guess I'm in good company, and 2) I've explained a thing or two to some PhD physicists over the years that I proved numerically (computer algorithms) with large numbers of demonstrations of equal results and had the PhD leave notes in the computer code to the effect of "I don't understand this part, see Joe for an explanation." So, I guess that point is: PhDs can be a sort of bifurcating group, some are so brilliant that academia is the only place they can be appreciated, some are so obtuse that academia is the only place they can survive, and many are both at the same time which might explain where theories of quantum superposition came from in the first place ;-)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 22 2020, @02:32PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 22 2020, @04:03PM
The reason 90+% of the PhD physicists I've worked with never pull out those big guns is because they know the big guns would squash them flat like a bug before they ever found the trigger...
Which is awesome, and believable, and there's tons of great work in the field like that.
🌻🌻 [google.com]