Quantized Majorana conductance

[bmforre]

Snippet from the not-philosophy nor science prophesying shpalman linked to:

... discover nutritionally viable methods of food synthesis.

In essence, that would mean the invention of a machine that could produce food from ambient, available resources – like a 3D-printer that makes nutritionally viable food-paste out of air and mud ...

So where is the energy and negative entropy required for this production to come from??

Rubbish that may fool some.

[monkey]

Snippet from the not-philosophy nor science prophesying shpalman linked to:

... discover nutritionally viable methods of food synthesis.

In essence, that would mean the invention of a machine that could produce food from ambient, available resources – like a 3D-printer that makes nutritionally viable food-paste out of air and mud ...

So where is the energy and negative entropy required for this production to come from??

Rubbish that may fool some.

You could use solar power, and I reckon you'd need water too.

I think plants have already been invented though.

[shpalman]

Snippet from the not-philosophy nor science prophesying shpalman linked to:

... discover nutritionally viable methods of food synthesis.

In essence, that would mean the invention of a machine that could produce food from ambient, available resources – like a 3D-printer that makes nutritionally viable food-paste out of air and mud ...

So where is the energy and negative entropy required for this production to come from??

Rubbish that may fool some.

I've only just read the final Culture novel and I think the science in there is more consistently worked out.

[Al Capone Junior]

I know nothing about the subject and this comment adds nothing to the discussion but... I keep reading the thread title as marijuana and it's very distracting.

This won't add anything either, but does have to do with marijuana.

A man came to buy my mom's pop up camper yesterday. He was there for a couple hours. I saw he had a pipe and some bud in a bag. We exchanged a bud as well.

My dog, Chico, came out to meet him and jumped in his truck. Chico is small. He's also very friendly, and VERY food motivated.

A couple hours later, Chico is acting exactly as I felt when I ate a very strong pot edible last year. I like to smoke, but no more edibles, ever.

I suspected he had eaten some weed. I've seen dogs eat it before. I called to make sure he had not spilled pharmaceuticals or had pills in the truck, and there was nothing else it could have been.

What's the chance he had dropped a bud and Chico had found it. Oh, about 100%.

Chico is fine now, but woke up with a bad case of the Munchies.

[shpalman]

Boris Johnson hears about quantum computing

("cubits" joke)

[shpalman]

it's totally not our fault for making up something which doesn't exist it's your fault for not making good enough material

I'm sure that once you do manage to make better material, following considerable experimental and technical effort, when it still doesn't work it will still be your fault.

[shpalman]

For the third time this year, a leading science journal has raised concerns about a paper on the “Majorana” particle, which doesn't exist

[shpalman]

Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade

[shpalman]

Here's a review on Semiconductor Spin Qubits which will probably be eventually published in Reviews of Modern Physics but is free to read on arxiv, for anyone who wants to read seriously on the subject.

[shpalman]

Ballistic superconductivity in semiconductor nanowires...

Majorana modes are zero-energy quasiparticles emerging at the boundary of a topological superconductor

No they aren't. They would be, if they existed, but they don't.

I share my plots from additional data that confirm non-representative selection and manipulation. I am a co-author of this paper, but I did not know about this.

I am on this paper because I developed such devices in the group, but I did not take these data. I trusted they had evidence to back up their claims, though I voiced concerns at the time. Now I find the paper to be invalid. I will seek retraction or I remove my name from it.

[IvanV]

Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade

Or not. Located in the twitter thread from your later post.

[jimbob]

Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade

Or not. Located in the twitter thread from your later post.

Given the whole thread I was assuming shpalman was pointing this out as another ridiculous claim. I'd go as far as to say nonsense claim.

[shpalman]

Of course it's nonsense, it's not like they're in a superposition of tardigrade there or not there, or tardigrade in one qubit or the other.

I know how entanglement is created between or within qubits and this isn't it.

Spoiler:

In the singlet-triplet qubit which the Austrians made out of our material, there are two quantum dots (called "Left" and "Right") and they put two particles in there, loading them in from the left. If both particles were in the Left dot, we call that state (2,0) and the spins of the two particles have to be different (because they're fermions, which means they can't stay in the same place with the same spin). A state (1,1) can of course have the two particles with opposite spins ("singlet") or different spins ("triplet") because the two particles are in different places. (The two spin states have slightly different energy because a small magnetic field is applied.)

But if you start from (2,0) in which you know that the two spins have to be opposite, and go to (1,1) by putting one of the particles in the Right dot, well, you don't know whether it's spin up in Left and spin down in Right, or spin down in Left and spin up in Right. But you know that if you could measure one of them, the other would be the opposite. That's all that entanglement is.

By the way, Thomas Wong had made his textbook Introduction to Classical and Quantum Computing free to download.

* - (This is not actually how our qubit works, and the distinction between singlet and triplet is that the wavefunction needs to be antisymmetric when you exchange the two particles, so the singlet has the asymmetry in the spin states while the triplet has the asymmetry in the spatial distribution. But there isn't really an intuitive way to think about the unpolarized triplet [up,down + down,up] as compared to the singlet [up,down - down,up]. In our case we tell the difference between a singlet and a triplet because (1,1) will go back to (2,0) only if it's a singlet. So we never break the entanglement between the two dots. But if does mean that the singlet has a different charge distribution to the triplet and if you put another qubit next to it, that second qubit should feel the difference and operate differently because of it. So two qubits can be entangled that way, by applying a signal which would flip the second qubit only if the first qubit was in one state but not the other.)

[jimbob]

Of course it's nonsense, it's not like they're in a superposition of tardigrade there or not there, or tardigrade in one qubit or the other.

I know how entanglement is created between or within qubits and this isn't it.

Spoiler:

In the singlet-triplet qubit which the Austrians made out of our material, there are two quantum dots (called "Left" and "Right") and they put two particles in there, loading them in from the left. If both particles were in the Left dot, we call that state (2,0) and the spins of the two particles have to be different (because they're fermions, which means they can't stay in the same place with the same spin). A state (1,1) can of course have the two particles with opposite spins ("singlet") or different spins ("triplet") because the two particles are in different places. (The two spin states have slightly different energy because a small magnetic field is applied.)

But if you start from (2,0) in which you know that the two spins have to be opposite, and go to (1,1) by putting one of the particles in the Right dot, well, you don't know whether it's spin up in Left and spin down in Right, or spin down in Left and spin up in Right. But you know that if you could measure one of them, the other would be the opposite. That's all that entanglement is.

By the way, Thomas Wong had made his textbook Introduction to Classical and Quantum Computing free to download.

* - (This is not actually how our qubit works, and the distinction between singlet and triplet is that the wavefunction needs to be antisymmetric when you exchange the two particles, so the singlet has the asymmetry in the spin states while the triplet has the asymmetry in the spatial distribution. But there isn't really an intuitive way to think about the unpolarized triplet [up,down + down,up] as compared to the singlet [up,down - down,up]. In our case we tell the difference between a singlet and a triplet because (1,1) will go back to (2,0) only if it's a singlet. So we never break the entanglement between the two dots. But if does mean that the singlet has a different charge distribution to the triplet and if you put another qubit next to it, that second qubit should feel the difference and operate differently because of it. So two qubits can be entangled that way, by applying a signal which would flip the second qubit only if the first qubit was in one state but not the other.)

Yes, when I scanned it, my first thought was that it was a category error

[shpalman]

quantum apocalypse!

Maybe quantum computers will at least save us from the "grey goo" of nanobots we're supposed to have been knee deep in by now.

[dyqik]

quantum apocalypse!

Maybe quantum computers will at least save us from the "grey goo" of nanobots we're supposed to have been knee deep in by now.

They should at least save us from the bored apes.

[jimbob]

quantum apocalypse!

Maybe quantum computers will at least save us from the "grey goo" of nanobots we're supposed to have been knee deep in by now.

There are plenty of nanobots around at the moment. The larger ones are self-powered. The smaller ones need a host to replicate.

[shpalman]

quantum apocalypse!

Maybe quantum computers will at least save us from the "grey goo" of nanobots we're supposed to have been knee deep in by now.

There are plenty of nanobots around at the moment. The larger ones are self-powered. The smaller ones need a host to replicate.

wiTh The potEntIAL power Of a NEaR-FUturE QUaNTuM compUTiNG sySTeM, iT’S perFeCTly FeaSIBlE TO ImAGInE a WORlD wheRe dISease and IlLnEss aRE thingS Of THe pAST.

... from here:

Meanwhile here's some nonsense about how quantum is magic which will solve everyone's problems

https://thenextweb.com/news/optimists-g ... h-paradise

"But this isn’t a philosophy article."

Well it's certainly not a science article.

A better bit is just after that:

To the outsider looking in, humans might seem to love few things more than destroying one another. Quantum computing could help us a lot in that endeavor – if we’re going to discover massively destructive technologies such as cold fusion or planet-smashing death rays, it’ll likely be through the use of quantum computers.

Yet, it could also make war obsolete. There’s hope for a far future where people with incompatible ideological differences can warp away from Earth and carve out their own domain on a planet far, far away.

[shpalman]

quantum apocalypse!

Maybe quantum computers will at least save us from the "grey goo" of nanobots we're supposed to have been knee deep in by now.

There are plenty of nanobots around at the moment. The larger ones are self-powered. The smaller ones need a host to replicate.

... but I'm fairly sure I remember ranting around the time of this original grey goo b.llsh.t that bacteria were already a kind of that.

[jimbob]

quantum apocalypse!

Maybe quantum computers will at least save us from the "grey goo" of nanobots we're supposed to have been knee deep in by now.

There are plenty of nanobots around at the moment. The larger ones are self-powered. The smaller ones need a host to replicate.

... but I'm fairly sure I remember ranting around the time of this original grey goo b.llsh.t that bacteria were already a kind of that.

Of that I, I have no doubt. I've been saying so for a similar length of time. Because it is obvious.

[shpalman]

In a historic milestone, Microsoft have written a press release about scalable topological qubits.

This formerly elusive press release has now been written, based on this underlying press release.

"This new press release allows us to distinguish a distinguished university professor of physics and a distinguished engineer of quantum in a youtube video" said a distinguished university professor of physics known for publishing papers claiming to see Majorana modes and then pretending he never said that when it turns out that the papers were based on manipulated data and anyway Majorana Zero Modes aren't important we're still be a leading theory center even though MZMs don't exist it was them who made fools of themselves not us even though we coauthored the papers why are you having a go at us with everything else which is going on in the world it's not like banging on about Majoranas is all we do.

[shpalman]

These data were made up.

[Bird on a Fire]

These data were made up.

Some guy sold me "Majorana" when I was 14.

I could've predicted all of this.

[shpalman]

Yes, we did the joke about "Majorana" sounding a bit like "marijuana". Is memory loss a side effect?

Meanwhile, scientists haven't made a wormhole.

"... the experiment was based on a modelling that was so simple that it could just as well have been studied using a pencil and paper"

[shpalman]

you can get things which people use to claim they see Majoranas when there obviously aren't actually Majoranas

Although the boss of the group which published this isn't happy about how Sergey Frolov @spinespresso is using it to give Charlie Marcus a kicking.