digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Quantum Weirdness: Two Times Zero Doesn't Always Equal Zero

spectrum.ieee.org — Researchers think they can extract quantum information from two noisy channels that are individually useless

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dignation, on 08/23/2008, -4/+222What about 2/0?
    OH SHI-
  • DDION, on 08/24/2008, -2/+39Truecrypt better be taking notes. This sounds like a bit of a jump in security potential.
    • Rykielz, on 08/24/2008, -0/+15heh a 'bit' huh?
      • ORBAT, on 08/24/2008, -0/+21A qubit of a jump.

        *badump chh*

        Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.
  • accn112, on 08/24/2008, -1/+27Well my mind is blown.
  • nendoke, on 08/24/2008, -4/+15*****
  • alex0r, on 08/24/2008, -2/+460+0=1
    • kirakun, on 08/24/2008, -2/+68If your assertion is true, then subtracting 0 from both sides of the equation would yield 0 = 1. Now multiply both sides by any number x, and you get 0 = x for any x.

      So, all numbers are nothing but zero.

      That'll certainly simplify mathematics. :)

      • DigitusAnonymus, on 08/24/2008, -1/+11I don't think it woks that way but I'll give it a try. I'm a Missile targeting specialist relocating to Poland to work in the new U.S missile shield center, my job is to calculate, confirm and input the correct coordinates of a missile that is about to intercept & neutralize a moving target in real-time. You are all safe with me.
      • MyLittlePwny, on 08/24/2008, -0/+4But we just learned that 2 * 0 != 0, so instead we'll just have to start from scratch with a more confusing system.

        Thanks a lot!
      • mnky9800n, on 08/24/2008, -2/+2umm, mylittlepwny, 0! = 1 so 2*1=2.
      • summer0f89, on 08/24/2008, -0/+4he didnt say anything about 0! (zero factorial). the symbol != means "not equal to" in java and other programming languages.
    • calmdownppl, on 08/24/2008, -3/+230 + 0 = PROFIT
    • Sebach, on 08/24/2008, -1/+19Or would it be more accurate to say, 0+0=>0?
    • jeexbit, on 08/24/2008, -0/+80 = 1

      separation is an illusion.
    • renegade003, on 08/24/2008, -0/+80+0=1
      for higher powers of 0
    • peterjmag, on 08/24/2008, -1/+52+2=5?
      • tech42er, on 08/24/2008, -0/+6For large values of 2.
      • bwdd, on 08/24/2008, -0/+4YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!
      • peterjmag, on 08/25/2008, -0/+2Paying attention, paying attention, paying attention!
    • teddycruger, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Damn Axioms

  • Nico_, on 08/24/2008, -1/+25One thing I don't understand is that if nothing can travel faster than light(read Einstein) then how can two quantum bits affect each other instantaneously across huge distances(quantum entanglement)..?

    FTA: "Most troubling to the legendary physicist was the fact that two “entangled” quantum bits could theoretically lie on opposite sides of the universe from each other—and yet a measurement performed on one would still instantaneously affect its twin."
    • Netrilix, on 08/24/2008, -2/+20Nico_, I'll admit I'm no expert on the subject, but my first guess would be a higher dimension (i.e. dimensional folding or something similar).
    • TheSkunkMonkey, on 08/24/2008, -1/+33You aren't alone. Scientists have been trying to answer that since Einstein proposed it.

      It seems that every time the human race figures out part of the world around them, 3 more questions arise in it's place. Talk about a field with job security!
      • avsfan987, on 08/24/2008, -1/+20It's like watching an episode of Lost.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/25/2008, -0/+3Don't you know? Anytime someone figures out the way the universe works, it instantly changes into something completely different.
    • dgaspard, on 08/24/2008, -7/+1That is because light doesn't have a speed. We visualize it at 299 792 458 m / s. Those two light photons are actually the same photon. It is in an infinite amount of space at any given time.

      That is the ten second answer anyways....
      • jgzman, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1I should point out two things:

        One: when measuring the speed of on object (photon) of course you measure the same one. I wouldn't measure the speed of a car by noting when the red car passed a spot, then when the green car passed another spot, would I?

        Two: The explination he is going for is one possible answer. It seems as likely as any other, from my low level of understanding. The answer to the original question is, of course, 'we don't know.' Yet, of course.
      • rowjimmy, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3i think what dgaspard means, though, is that it is as if the same red car is both here and outside of nairobi at the same time. i turn on my lionel ritchie cassette, and some guy in karen starts dancing to "All Night Long (All Night)". it's not going faster than the speed of light because it isn't traveling between the two - it is the two.
        (not at all up to date on modern physics, but i think this is what dgaspard was getting at)
      • sockpuppets, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Lionel Ritchie?
      • effingham, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3Cassette?
    • kirakun, on 08/24/2008, -6/+10You cannot past beyond the speed of light if you try to do so in a CONTINUOUS manner, e.g., start below the speed of light and increase your speed without gaps.

      However, quantum mechanics says otherwise, that states of particles, such as position and speed, do not vary continuously at all but instead takes jumps in quanta.

      • sfazzio, on 08/24/2008, -0/+6Comments like this one really worry me. It's one thing to make educated guesses about how things work, but it's totally not ok to crudely stitch together a few basic facts, draw an incorrect conclusion, and present it as the truth.
      • kirakun, on 08/25/2008, -0/+2Comments like yours worry me even more---plainly saying someone is wrong without even mentioned a bit of what is wrong or what you thought the truth is.

        At least I gave my arguments.

    • sfazzio, on 08/24/2008, -2/+6You're a little bit off with your understanding of relativity. It only states that classical information cannot go faster than the speed of light. This means that anything that can be used to send messages (matter being one example) cannot go faster than the speed of light. Other phenomena (like wave velocities and shadows) are free to go faster than c.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Things ...
    • regfree, on 08/24/2008, -2/+3Einstein proposed it to disqualify quantum physics. He kinda said, "look here quantum nerds, you have all been ***** about your quantum *****. But in reality, it contradicts one of my axioms and so you are all wrong. Coz' I am always right."
    • lamiaconfitor, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1I think we they be suggesting that we utilize the nothing, in that case.
    • slowboiled, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2Doesn't entanglement kind of imply the possiblility that they're not so much two separate particles as they are two separate instances of the same particle. Making speed irrelevant. Just a thought.
      • NathanielJ, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2...but particles can be entangled without being the same. If you have the state |01> + |10> (normalized), then it is entangled but the two particles are not in the same state.
    • JayD16, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2What I don't like about all these quantum entanglement articles is that they are very sensationalist.

      From what I understand of the subject the particles are linked in that they always have the opposite state. The articles would usually have you believe that one article is controlling the other.

      If you look at as two particles that change state at the same time according to some predetermined(but currently unpredictable) progression it removes a lot of the mysticism.
      • phronko, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1The tricky part is that it has been proven mathematically and empirically that the states are NOT predetermined. Until one is measured, neither has a state. That puts the mysticism back in.
      • JayD16, on 08/25/2008, -1/+1But what the ***** does that mean? You don't know whats under a box until you check. Does that mean there could be gold bars under all overturned boxes?

        Just because you can't determine what the next state will be doesn't mean it isn't predetermined.
      • NathanielJ, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1@JayD16 - What phronko was saying is that it's mathematically proven that the states AREN'T predetermined. If you want to learn a bit about why this is, look up Bell's Inequality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequality
      • YourDoom123, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1@JayD16: that's the fundamental thesis of quantum mechanics and what makes it so ***** weird: there are gold bars under all the unopened boxes and none at the very same time, there's no way to know until you check. In fact, the act of checking is what forces the gold bar to decide where it is...
    • Murphious, on 08/25/2008, -0/+2"You're just not thinking 4th dimensionally!"
      "Right, I've got a real problem with that.."
    • yor1001, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1Space is but just an illusion created by light.....(I heard the first part somewhere but I tacked on the light part)...
  • Jyaif, on 08/24/2008, -16/+9I am pretty sure 2*0 equals 0...
  • NathanielJ, on 08/24/2008, -3/+8Hey, I know both Patrick Hayden and Graeme Smith! Is this what normal people feel when they meet celebrities?
  • calmdownppl, on 08/24/2008, -5/+8bcedc450f8481e89b1445069acdc3dd9 !
    • humanerror, on 08/24/2008, -4/+289b908d0e00dc0a0dc9d9775720?
      • calmdownppl, on 08/24/2008, -3/+21bc29b36f623ba82aaf6724fd3b16718 6050ce63e4bce6764cb34cac51fb44d1
      • cvxdes1, on 08/25/2008, -1/+1yeah, what he said. "md5 please"

        your MD5 attempt is malformed.
    • Zdorab, on 08/24/2008, -7/+2430jsoiu402pmn1jmf094.
    • bosoxrock, on 08/24/2008, -2/+3809-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
    • Bartboy919, on 08/24/2008, -2/+601010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100111 01110101 01111001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00111111
      • jessenoob, on 08/24/2008, -0/+201101101 01110101 01100100 01101011 01101001 01110000 01111010 00101110 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101100 01101001 01100101 01101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 00111111
      • p3dr4m, on 08/24/2008, -2/+101000110 01010101 01000011 01001011 01001001 01001110 01000111 00100000 01000110 01000001 01000111
      • IareKEVLAR, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1"What are you guys talking about?" = "01010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100111 01110101 01111001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00111111"
    • cvxdes1, on 08/25/2008, -1/+1yes, md5("wow") indeed.
  • NathanielJ, on 08/24/2008, -1/+3Anyone have a link to the paper? It doesn't seem to be up on arXiV or Hayden's website.
  • bdsams, on 08/24/2008, -3/+12way to early/hungover to attempt to read something of this levle
    • bureksir, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3to early or not to early, that is the question...
    • tech42er, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Are you kidding? That article used the most idiot-friendly analogies possible. It wasn't even close to a high level of intelligence.
  • fenderjazz, on 08/24/2008, -1/+59Quantum mechanics: ***** up everything you ever thought you knew about our world since 1900.
  • Snarfy, on 08/24/2008, -2/+52http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Principia_Mathe ...

    1+1=2
    • ThatDeadDude, on 08/24/2008, -0/+17One day I will learn how to read that...
    • xaeon, on 08/24/2008, -2/+6Someone just made that ***** up, and no one has ever had the balls to actually come out and say "hang on a second, buddy, that's total bullcrap."

      The same happened for modern art.
    • centinall, on 08/25/2008, -1/+1Go back to reddit ;-)
  • calmdownppl, on 08/24/2008, -9/+20 + 0 = PROFIT!
  • k3rfuffl3, on 08/24/2008, -10/+3Title is stupid and inaccurate.
  • Synova, on 08/24/2008, -2/+5http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1323/1433529629_4c1 ...
  • tossayo, on 08/24/2008, -17/+100 = 0 + 0 + ...
    0 = (1 -1 ) + (1 - 1) + ...
    0 = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - ...
    0 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) ...
    0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + ...
    0 = 1

    I failed math :(
    • useful, on 08/24/2008, -2/+18because 0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + ... should be

      0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + ... - 1
      0 = 0
      • NathanielJ, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1The fact that this comment has +13 diggs makes me sad for the mathematical knowledge of digg.

        Newsflash: there is no end to an infinite sequence. 1 + 0 + 0 + ... + -1 makes no sense whatsoever. Much less does it actually have a value.
    • ElAmo, on 08/24/2008, -0/+6Yeah, step three you added a positive 1 and somehow forgot to add a negative one. And then you just went with it to create a straight up faulty equation.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3shhh... you are ruining his fun.
      • NathanielJ, on 08/24/2008, -3/+1He didn't add a positive one, he just changed the order in which he summed the terms.

        Newsflash: Even the equation 0 = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - ... is faulty.
    • k0tiak, on 08/24/2008, -1/+5Hehe, there was actually something similar to this in my Integral Calculus book last semester as an extra problem...the guy who came up with that "proof" said that it showed the existence of a God, for that "something has been created from nothing." And empirically you find that it is incorrect... :)
    • Krissam, on 08/24/2008, -2/+1a = 0.9¨
      10a = 9.9¨
      9a = 9
      a = 1 = 0.9¨

      also

      0.9¨ -1 = 1/-infinity = 0
      -0.9¨ + 1 = 1/infinity = 0

      hence

      1/infinity = 1/-infinity

      giving us that

      infinity = -infinity =>
      1 = -1
  • Zdorab, on 08/24/2008, -2/+9GET AWAY FROM ME BIG BROTHER YOU AND YOUR DOUBLE THINK!
    2+2=4!
    • ultraJesus, on 08/24/2008, -1/+62.4 rounded is 2

      2.4 + 2.4 is 4.8, rounded to 5.

      2+2=5
      • DoTheFandango, on 08/24/2008, -2/+4but 2.4 =! 2, so ***** off.
      • tribble222, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1This is why you need to round only once at the very end of the calculation so as not to exacerbate rounding errors.
    • kefkaantakrist, on 08/24/2008, -1/+9Wait... 2 plus 2 equals 24?
  • proficient, on 08/24/2008, -3/+1Oh lawd.
  • Metasquares, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3Argh, nothing makes sense anymore!
  • yairagat, on 08/24/2008, -3/+14For all of you guys who are interested in the concepts of quantum mechanics but are just starting out, i suggest watching this nice animated double slit experiment video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA
    • BabaRamDass, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3Maybe someone can explain this to me.

      In the video, he says that when the electron was "observed" it only created two lines of light. How does the instrument observe the electron? Does it require physical contact? He said that by "merely observing" the electron, it changed its behavior like it knew it was being watched; what, if anything, did the instrument physically do to the electron?

      If a link to an article is more appropriate for an answer, that's fine.
      • YourDoom123, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1Electrons are the basis for current. By firing a large stream of electrons, all of which are forced through one of the two slits, you can determine where the electrons strike the plate behind to an arbitrary precision (just depends on the size of your sensor), and measure the frequency via the strength of the current. Probably sounds complicated, but the idea is pretty simple.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 08/24/2008, -6/+2Wow, the eyeball made the experiment change. Not. too bad you don't observe electrons with eyeballs. Inaccurate/half truth.
      • hinchb, on 08/24/2008, -1/+6It was a metaphor you tard
      • lamiaconfitor, on 08/25/2008, -2/+1Thanks, but you can keep your ***** metaphors out of science. *****, keep it in religion, where it belongs. If you are explaining physics, I don't need you to tell me I just need to have faith that you are telling me the truth.
      • yairagat, on 08/25/2008, -1/+2Wow, you really are an idiot lamiaconfitor. Yes , it was a metaphor, becasue that video comes to explain quantum mechanics in lament's terms. the eye just symbolises measuring the position of the electron. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal states that knowing a particle's energy comes at the expense of knowing its location. when you know one with certainty (which is never quite possible) the other one is almost unknown at all. you can read more on it here:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
  • geedots, on 08/24/2008, -0/+13myself, i'm more of an english guy.
  • Oscar92, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2i fell asleep after the second paragraph...
    • Murphious, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1You actually physically fell asleep?
      Wow.. Dude, that's not a boring article. That's narcolepsy.
      You should get that checked out :S
  • DeFex, on 08/24/2008, -0/+5so bush was right all along!
  • Papajohn56, on 08/24/2008, -0/+7Pseudoscience comments are pseudoscience.
  • Straylit, on 08/24/2008, -10/+0"While strictly theoretical..."

    Then why should we care? Theories arn't news.
    • NathanielJ, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3Er... all that means is that it hasn't been replicated in a lab yet. Half of all quantum phenomena are discovered mathematically before being observed in a lab. Learn what science is.
  • kb29, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2...
  • 0biKwiet, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Sounds like the quantum equivalent of metastability. Meh. I'd rather not do the math.
  • twertyto, on 08/24/2008, -0/+12It's because on a quantum level zero is actually

    0 ± random quantum noise
  • wissler, on 08/24/2008, -1/+4When somebody says 2*0 != 0 (sometimes) then it's safe to dismiss everything else they say. They're obviously a crackpot/snake-oil salesman.
    • rowjimmy, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2or, they are using it as a metaphor to try to explain quantum weirdness...
      not everybody is kevin trudeau
      • wissler, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1If all they know how to do is talk in metaphors then they don't know what they are talking about.
      • rowjimmy, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1there's no way to describe quantum mechanics except very high level maths or metaphor.
  • Cheeseburgers, on 08/24/2008, -7/+2math sucks.
  • thedinomeister, on 08/24/2008, -8/+11. 0
    2. +
    3. 0
    4. ????
    5. profit
  • tommq, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Sounds like Huckamath to me!
  • degol, on 08/24/2008, -6/+01+1 = a window you bitches
  • MrViklund, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3Then it's not zero.
  • ninjan, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3Mr. Blu - Mr. Blutarsky... zero point zero.
  • theparaiba, on 08/24/2008, -8/+32*0 != 0
    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    • thunderclap, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1does this mean that riches is poverty?
  • MidnightRIder77, on 08/24/2008, -2/+3In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.

    Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
    • kilewithani, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0I love these 1984 references makes me feel all giddy
  • HookmasterCH47, on 08/24/2008, -0/+6.9 repeating = 1
  • antonio97b, on 08/24/2008, -1/+7My life is a failure.
    • muleskinner, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry.
      Want a cookie?
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2Your ability to identify your failure in life was successful.
    • chaosblade77, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1So if you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
  • UNDERSTAR, on 08/24/2008, -0/+20/0=
  • GovernmentsGun, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1What I don't get about the "quantum entanglement" is that they don't detail how one bit would affect the other if it is observed. I'd like to find that out.
  • elie195, on 08/24/2008, -0/+41 + 1 = 11
  • Chexjc, on 08/24/2008, -2/+2I read two sentences and then closed the browser window..anyone else?
  • freekylaugh, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2Well if Albert Einstein was confused by it, I don't think I stand a chance.
  • DrShotgun, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2Entangled particles cannot be used to send information.
    Thus they do not violate Einstein's law that nothing can travel faster than light, as no information is being sent or could be using entangled particles.
  • Regulator980, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Beware, that this has been proven as psuedo-science and has no validity in the scientific community.
  • Maurik, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0Theoretical Quantum Physics != Mathematics
  • FishHammer, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1These are the same people that make fun of religion for being absurd. Everything they're coming up with is 100% theory. It takes a pretty decent amount of faith to believe any of this quantum *****.
    • Digggthis, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1You must remember that in scientific circles the word theory has a very different meaning!! Im fairly sure that infact there is nothing more definitive than theory.

      someone correct me if im wrong..
      neways i'll add a definition:
      Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole.
  • Unzorn, on 08/24/2008, -0/+22+2 = 5
    For very high values of two.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.