Nominations for the 2026 #BellPrize are being accepted through September 30th, 2025 – please consider nominating the work from the past 6 yrs which you believe has done the most to advance #Quantum science.
Please RT.
(See cqiqc.physics.utoronto.ca/bell-prize/n... .)
@CQIQC_Toronto
A boson fundamentally changing quantum mechanics? Sounds overhyped
🚨Postdoc opportunity in quantum computing available with IonQ Canada and the @uoft.bsky.social ! Collaborate with Prof. Arno Jacobsen and Dr. @brodutch.bsky.social ⏳ Apply by May 30, 2025. More details and application info here: 🔗 qscc.ca/open-positio...
Blasphemy!
Is he taking the interview from a public washroom?
The pigeonhole experiment I worked on in @quantumaephraim.bsky.social 's lab has finally been published. We used variable strength measurements of non local observables to strengthen the case for weak values as elements of reality.
#quantumfoundations
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
People are looking at your profile. What more could you want?
True AND stupid. I was breaking my head trying to find something like that
From now on it's just engineering
When @graemesmith.bsky.social stopped showing up at the top of my feed.
Yes, but ideally I would like to have a story of what's going on inside the box. Even if we only observe through measurements.
EPR is not about observation, and Bell was inspired to tie it to observation after reading Bohm.
The "story" is useful, even when it might be wrong
Ah, so I guess the next question is: Do you consider fundamental physics as a tool in the tool belt? Well, obviously it's a great tool. But is it *only* a tool?
If I gave you a black box that accepts inputs and produces outputs, would you be satisfied with a theory that explains the relationship between input and output, or would you want to hypothesise on what's going on inside?
If you move away from unitary maps (for the universe), why restrict to linear maps?
That's reasonable, but if the theorem cannot be stated, it cannot be violated. A violation of CHSH can only rule out theories where it can be consistently stated.
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you mean is that in #3 you lose both realism *and* Bell's notion of locality?
P.s. do you know where "local realism" originated?
I don't understand why you're ruling out idea #3. I agree with the content, but I don't see why I can't define Everett as a "non-realist" interpretation* that supposedly explains Bell's theorem.
* Assuming someone believes its consistent with observation
A more fundamental question is "what's a qubit ? " Or more meaningful "what's an N qubit system?"
I guess (given the discussion below) that we need to somehow distinguish, "logical qubit" from "good logical qubit" which is perhaps more fuzzy, but also more open to criticism (imho).
Crappy logical qubits are (relatively) easy, and certainly less interesting.
What about a trivial encoding? I.e. physical=logical ? Would that count?
@graemesmith.bsky.social how would you define a logical qubit?
What an amazing and honest scientist. His reaction to Clauser's Bell test experiment is gold
Where would you place the EPR paper?
I just liked the student's honest approach. "If this is not polite blame AI"
Why?
I'm not a fan of the Everett interpretation, and certainly this is part of the hype train, *but* every advance in experimental QC certainly makes the interpretation more compelling.
1 billion logical qubits* would certainly make me an Everettian
*Some caveats about connectivity etc.
Joined Bluesky. Followed a bunch of quantum people. Followed a couple of quantum organizations. Followed NYT. Why is NYT dominating my feed?
