EPR paradox, 3

It turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions violate the principle of locality without violating causality.

Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining “+” and 50% probability of obtaining “-“, completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets.

Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, known as the “no cloning theorem”, which makes it impossible for him to make a million copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting “+” and 50% of getting “-“, regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice’s.

— Wikipedia on EPR paradox

In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects (see reference [6] for a treatment emphasizing the role of conditional probabilities).

— Wikipedia on Delayed choice quantum eraser

2012.04.08 Sunday ACHK

Demo Day

Err on the side of speaking slowly. At Rehearsal Day, one of the founders mentioned a rule actors use: if you feel you’re speaking too slowly, you’re speaking at about the right speed.

What you need to do is talk in this artificial way, and yet make it seem conversational. (Writing is the same. Good writing is an elaborate effort to seem spontaneous.)

The problem is, as you approach (in the calculus sense) a description of something that could be anything, the content of your description approaches zero.

So we concentrate on the basics. On Demo Day each startup will only get ten minutes, so we encourage them to focus on just two goals: (a) explain what you’re doing, and (b) explain why users will want it.

— Paul Graham

2012.04.08 Sunday ACHK

Transcender 1.2.3

這段改編自 2010 年 3 月 20 日的對話。

你現在有沒有問題,需要給我去 transcend 一下?

(安:沒有。但是我想問,「transcend」這個字的中文翻譯是什麼?)

這個字翻譯了的話,就再沒有原本的神髓。例如,你可以用「超越」或者「看化」。它們的意思,和「transcend」非常接近,但感覺不大相同。

當你講「超越問題」時,別人不會知道你的意思。解釋「超越問題」的時間,不會比解釋「transcend」這個字的時間少。你用「看化」的話,又好像帶點滄桑和消極。

(安:如果用「轉化」呢?)

「轉化」就好像是指,由一樣東西,變成同一層次的另一樣東西。它缺乏了「transcend」之中,「跳高一個層次看」和「騰雲架霧」的意思。

— Me@2012.04.08 

2012.04.08 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK