EPR paradox, 8

Nonlocality vs entanglement

In the media and popular science, quantum nonlocality is often portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While it is true that a bipartite quantum state must be entangled in order for it to produce nonlocal correlations, there exist entangled states which do not produce such correlations. A well-known example of this is the Werner state that is entangled for certain values of p_{sym}, but can always be described using local hidden variables. On the other hand, reasonably simple examples of Bell inequalities have been found for which the quantum state giving the largest violation is never a maximally entangled state, showing that entanglement is, in some sense, not even proportional to nonlocality.

In short, entanglement of a two-party state is necessary but not sufficient for that state to be nonlocal. It is important to recognise that entanglement is more commonly viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a precedent to nonlocality as well as quantum teleportation and superdense coding, whereas nonlocality is interpreted according to experimental statistics and is much more involved with the foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.

— Wikipedia on Quantum nonlocality

2012.12.23 Sunday ACHK

尋找時間的定義

SICM, 3 | SICP, 2

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。

當年,我初看《SICM》(Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics)時,我不太懂做那些練習題目,因為那時,我是只是初學,而尚未能掌握,內裡的編程語言 Scheme programming language。

為了熟習 Scheme,我先行閱讀了《SICM》的姊妹作,《SICP》(Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)的頭幾課。

《SICP》跟《SICM》,同樣是超級名著。但是它不易理解。幸好,它官方網站提供了,一些 1986 年的講課錄影。當年(2006),尚未流行使用 YouTube,所以我要花很多時間,下載那些錄影。我還記得,每節課的錄影檔案,有 600MB 那麼大。

雖然那麼費神,但卻換來意外的收穫。《SICP》令我瞭解「時間」的定義。

This image is taken from 《SICP》 and 《SICP》 itself is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.

最令我意想不到的是,那竟然是來自一本電腦書,而不是物理書。

— Me@2012.12.23

2012.12.23 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Universe 3

— Draft only. These few lines are not 100% correct. —

In other words, whatever list you have constructed, it contains only part of the universe, not all of the universe. The universe, as infinitesimal and infinity, is not a thing, but a process (of keeping collecting things). The universe is a logical implication, or a logical limit.

— Draft only. These few lines are not 100% correct. —

— Me@2012-12-20

2012.12.23 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK