Tweets

You blocked @michael_nielsen

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @michael_nielsen

  1. Pinned Tweet

    A meta-thread of some of my favourite Twitter threads!

    Show this thread
    Undo
  2. I am quite puzzled by this. I half wonder if I've simply messed up in relating Q and S, but I've checked the calculation twice, and I don't see it.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  3. Show this thread
    Undo
  4. This is well short of the maximal violation (Q = 2 sqrt(2) ~ 2.8). But AFAICT the Aspect experiment uses polarization angles that should give the maximal violation What gives? Have I goofed? Or am I missing something? Is it the cryptic remark about solid angles & efficiencies?

    Show this thread
    Undo
  5. The more commonly stated form of the CHSH inequality is Q := E(AC)+ E(BC) + E(BD) - E(AD) <= 2, where A, B etc are the observables for the polarization (values +- 1). By my calculation, Q = 2+4S, so the experimental value in Aspect corresponds to Q ~ 2.404.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  6. A question for people who know about Bell inequalities: in the 1982 Aspect paper they present them in this form (a version of the CHSH inequality), with an experimental value (& violation) of S = 0.101

    Show this thread
    Undo
  7. Feb 1

    A few days ago someone DM'ed me, then immediately deleted their account. Since then, Twitter randomly does this (despite the fact that I've read the DM). Anyone know how to get this bug fixed? Small, but irritating.

    Undo
  8. Feb 1

    Of course, in 1992 it was reasonable publishers hadn't yet figured out new business models. Nowadays, things have changed s'what, due to the work by open access & science advocates, but scientific publishing is still slow-moving for reasons described here:

    Show this thread
    Undo
  9. Feb 1

    (ht Scott Aaronson)

    Show this thread
    Undo
  10. Jan 31

    The great John McPhee, when asked about his experience as an environmental writer. (I find this passage extremely striking, & reread it at least once or twice every year. It's from a much longer interview: )

    Undo
  11. Jan 31

    A wonderful little fact about the maximum power density inside the sun (spoiler: about the same as inside a compost pile!) ht

    Undo
  12. Jan 29

    Postscript: a thoughtful thread and essay on this question:

    Show this thread
    Undo
  13. Jan 29

    A thoughtful thread and essay on this question:

    Show this thread
    Undo
  14. Jan 29

    Lovely thread and essay on what people can do individually to address climate change:

    Undo
  15. Jan 29

    A little example from a couple of days ago: (What's important here is what is omitted: almost everything. Or, to put it another way: you gain some sense of what a top climate expert thinks is really important. Priceless.)

    Show this thread
    Undo
  16. Jan 29

    Reflecting on Rota's characterization of Alonzo Church as "logic incarnate". It's shocking how much and rapidly one can learn from people in deep communion with their subject. Often without noticing what one is learning, including what is felt, what is omitted, & what is asked

    Show this thread
    Undo
  17. Jan 29

    A true psychic would have ideal flexible work: they could just show up 30 seconds before clients walked in I often think of this when I see "Open" signs on psychic shopfronts, but no apparent custom. Yes, it's a joke, I understand the issues..

    Undo
  18. Jan 27

    Quite a few people have pointed out that maybe the Economist implicitly meant "... and then using those taxes to fund negative emissions technologies, renewable energy, other new regs etc." In which case, fair enough. It wasn't my reading, but it's plausible.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  19. Jan 27

    Fascinating little tidbit: no WTO case law on carbon leakage:

    Show this thread
    Undo
  20. Jan 27

    ... but very unlikely to be the full solution, since net zero or negative emissions is the goal. At some price point, negative emission technologies must become a much better solution.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  21. Jan 27

    This is a fascinating comment in the Economist. It seems obviously wrong, and (they claim) an opinion held by an entire profession. A carbon tax seems like a very good way of partially solving the problem...

    Show this thread
    Undo

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

    You may also like

    ·