Username: QuantumMoxie

Name: Ian Durham
University: Saint Anselm College
Occupation: Associate Professor
Discipline: Physics
Website: http://quantummoxie.wordpress.com

Papers SciTed

Scites: 4
1004.3818[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Leggett-Garg inequalities and the geometry of the cut polytope
Authors: David Avis, Patrick Hayden, Mark M. Wilde
Scites: 3
1004.4146[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Looking for symmetric Bell inequalities
Authors: Jean-Daniel Bancal, Nicolas Gisin, Stefano Pironio
Scites: 1
1003.5760[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Efficient Quantum State Preparation
Authors: Martin Plesch, Caslav Brukner
Scites: 4
1003.5765[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: The entropy gain of infinite-dimensional quantum channels
Authors: A. S. Holevo
Scites: 7
1004.0052[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: For quantum information, two wrongs can make a right
Authors: Jonathan Oppenheim
Scites: 5
1004.0458[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: The quantum dynamic capacity formula of a quantum channel
Authors: Mark M. Wilde, Min-Hsiu Hsieh
Scites: 2
1004.0776[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Graph Approach to Quantum Systems
Authors: Mladen Pavicic, Brendan D. McKay, Norman D. Megill, Kresimir Fresl
Scites: 1
1001.5057[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: New Slant on the EPR-Bell Experiment
Authors: Peter Evans, Huw Price, K. B. Wharton
Scites: 1
1001.4304[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Unification and Emergence in Physics: the Problem of Articulation
Authors: Ian T. Durham
Scites: 6
0910.4461[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Quantized Neighbourhoods
Authors: Pablo Arrighi, Vincent Nesme, Reinhard Werner
Scites: 3
0910.2737[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Temperley-Lieb Algebra: From Knot Theory to Logic and Computation via Quantum Mechanics
Authors: Samson Abramsky
Scites: 4
0910.1396[abs pdf who comments(9)]
Title: Sudden Death of Entanglement
Authors: Ting Yu, J. H. Eberly
Scites: 12
0910.0913[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Exact convergence rates for arbitrary statistical moments of random quantum circuits
Authors: Winton G. Brown, Lorenza Viola
Scites: 7
0910.1189[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Non-additivity of Renyi entropy and Dvoretzky's Theorem
Authors: Guillaume Aubrun, Stanislaw Szarek, Elisabeth Werner
Scites: 2
0910.0762[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Machine Learning for Precise Quantum Measurement
Authors: Alexander Hentschel, Barry C. Sanders
Scites: 13
0910.0472[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Random tensor theory: extending random matrix theory to random product states
Authors: Andris Ambainis, Aram W. Harrow, Matthew B. Hastings
Scites: 3
0907.0372[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: A glance beyond the quantum model
Authors: Miguel Navascues, Harald Wunderlich
Scites: 3
0907.0699[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Probing the Quantumness of Channels with Mixed States
Authors: Hauke Häseler, Norbert Lütkenhaus
Scites: 2
0907.0108[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Normal Typicality and von Neumann's Quantum Ergodic Theorem
Authors: Sheldon Goldstein, Joel L. Lebowitz, Christian Mastrodonato, Roderich Tumulka, Nino Zanghi
Scites: 4
0906.3440[abs pdf who comments(0)]
Title: Measuring Measurement: Theory and Practice
Authors: A. Feito, J. S. Lundeen, H. Coldenstrodt-Ronge, J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, I. A. Walmsley
older papers

Comments

0912.2098 QuantumMoxie [2010-01-25 18:57:28]
That would be flame-broiled bacon.

0910.1396 QuantumMoxie [2009-10-16 10:51:11]
Well, despite hyping it in the Quantum Times (you people need to send me more content), I honestly didn't get it either. There are any number of reasons I can think of why entangled states decay in a finite amount of time. I suspect this result is only surprising to someone used to thinking of quantum states in terms of nuclear decay or something like that.

0812.4614 QuantumMoxie [2008-12-31 10:46:52]
Not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it's a potentially interesting problem. On the other hand, "dangerous?"

0812.3058 QuantumMoxie [2008-12-17 08:55:43]
OK foundations people, this should spark interesting debate (I would think) since Nieuwenhuizen generally isn't a total kook.

0811.3171 QuantumMoxie [2008-11-26 18:59:03]
Wow. Now, *this* is cool.

0811.0458 QuantumMoxie [2008-11-05 11:32:59]
cloaktacular! [insert geeky Star Trek reference]

0810.2271 QuantumMoxie [2008-10-14 12:35:26]
But the deviation of the metric component of gxx way out here in a spiral arm can't be all that large. Plus, since the outer portions of galaxies spin faster than the inner portions, how does he know his result is necessarily due to the black hole at the center and not the dark matter that is thought to cause this rotation anomaly?

0809.0008 QuantumMoxie [2008-10-13 13:58:29]
Well, like I said, I'm certainly no expert in this area. Clearly you know more about this than I do.

0809.0008 QuantumMoxie [2008-09-10 18:01:10]
I don't think this is as crazy as you think it is. I looked through it and it is based on a considerable body of existing work by reputable people including Max Tegmark, Roger Penrose, and others. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems more legit than it at first appears.

0708.2515 QuantumMoxie [2008-08-15 10:52:33]
I only just discovered this paper while working on some research. I think the results it presents are immensely profound, particularly from a foundational standpoint, but also from a practical standpoint. Pretty impressive stuff, in my opinion.

0807.3841 QuantumMoxie [2008-08-02 15:11:14]
They missed a key point since they never discussed the operator-based uncertainty relations (i.e. the ones Schrödinger derived) which are a purely classical statement about the behavior of operators. It would seem to have relevance for what they are attempting to do.

0807.4935 QuantumMoxie [2008-08-02 15:02:27]
I love papers like this.

0710.5549 QuantumMoxie [2008-07-09 15:32:34]
I'm not entirely sure that's true (that positive-P is necessarily excluded), though I'd have to ask Rob to be sure. I was under the impression he was explicitly talking about P- and Q-functions, but I could be wrong.

0807.0330 QuantumMoxie [2008-07-04 17:42:06]
Wonder how this compares cost-wise with traditional photon detectors/counters. I'm presently in the market for cheap ones.

0806.1660 QuantumMoxie [2008-06-11 10:24:36]
I need to read this more fully, but if this is correct it might be very useful in understanding the quantum-classical boundary.

0805.1632 QuantumMoxie [2008-05-13 19:06:14]
Might prove useful for studying mixed quantum states in gravitational fields.

0805.1728 QuantumMoxie [2008-05-13 19:02:41]
Is this the first actual simulation of Rob's model (or generalized version of said model) or has someone put his model to the test before?

0804.2182 QuantumMoxie [2008-04-30 06:27:06]
An important step in fully understanding entropy & the second law in relation to quantum theory. The paper could stand to be cleaned up a bit, though.

0804.3054 QuantumMoxie [2008-04-21 16:24:50]
Is this guy really proposing that nucleons are not made up of quarks??

0801.3994 QuantumMoxie [2008-04-08 13:14:38]
Not as nuts as its title suggests. Really a historical/philosophical review paper.

0804.0871 QuantumMoxie [2008-04-08 13:07:51]
Um, what exactly does it mean to be "outside spacetime?" And what's the difference between immaterial and material free will, for that matter?

0803.3447 QuantumMoxie [2008-03-26 08:01:48]
More of a review article, but very interesting nonetheless in light of recent work on entanglement in gravitational fields by Preskill, Fuentes-Schuller, Adesso, Alsing, etc., etc.

0803.3287 QuantumMoxie [2008-03-25 16:30:52]
Hahaha! OK, good point on the "recommend" function. As for citing things non-QI related, I do, but I can't speak for everyone. Personally, I'm more of a foundations sort of guy so my tastes run in that direction (hence, I am frequently the only one who cites some of the more 'bizarre' papers).

0803.3287 QuantumMoxie [2008-03-25 11:24:23]
OK, so how gauche is it to vote for your own paper?

0803.2192 QuantumMoxie [2008-03-18 10:43:53]
I was just wondering what had become of the Afshar experiment and here I see it is alive and well in modified form...

0803.0579 QuantumMoxie [2008-03-10 08:12:31]
I suspect the reason this works is that a number of seemingly disparate problems including these and a few others (see my recent paper quant-ph/0801.0403, for instance) are really just manifestations of a generalized probability theory. I actually suspect much of this will prove useful to artifical intelligence at some point.

0802.4167 QuantumMoxie [2008-03-02 14:53:58]
Two papers on the same day with the same title? This and 0802.4248.

0802.2367 QuantumMoxie [2008-02-20 19:33:02]
Now *this* looks cool. As a teacher, I would still want students to know how to do this kind of thing by hand, but for quick results when doing research or just thinking about things, this looks very useful (though, admittedly, I have not tried any of them yet).

0801.3993 QuantumMoxie [2008-01-30 17:28:53]
Inching closer to an understanding just what it means for a quantum object to be "distinguishable" from another - one of the great unsolved foundational problems... :)

0801.4140 QuantumMoxie [2008-01-30 17:24:00]
Not sure what I make of this. I studied this problem in depth from a historical standpoint while working on my PhD and I'm not sure he correctly characterizes the relation of exclusion to the Dirac sea.

0801.3311 QuantumMoxie [2008-01-23 17:15:58]
Amendment: He actually makes two distinct claims and one hinges on what one considers a true derivation (i.e. in the logic chain, where do the foundational axioms need to be). In any case, I still say that his claim to be the first to do this is incorrect. On the other hand, it is possible he has found an alternate "derivation." [See pp. 236-280 in Max Jammer's Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics (1966).]

0712.3925 QuantumMoxie [2008-01-02 08:57:43]
This is pretty neat. It's curious to see what differences there are between software for quantum and classical computers. I'm sure there have been plenty of papers on this topic. I just don't happen to be that familiar with that area of study.

0712.0730 QuantumMoxie [2007-12-06 04:54:56]
Not sure why, but SciRate truncated his last name. It's Omnès.

0711.4232 QuantumMoxie [2007-12-03 15:15:59]
I think this is going to be my winter break reading material. It is an interesting idea but I'm curious about the exact details.

0711.2973 QuantumMoxie [2007-11-20 18:35:00]
Looks interesting, though the sense in which he uses the word emergence might need to be studied a tad.

0710.2537 QuantumMoxie [2007-10-27 11:07:05]
Yes, but it deserves a Scite since the guy seems to actually be serious (even if the idea is nuts).

0710.4352 QuantumMoxie [2007-10-27 10:59:25]
I'm guessing this isn't the same Earl Campbell that played for the Houston Oilers in the 1970's.

0710.4822 QuantumMoxie [2007-10-27 10:56:33]
This seems to directly relate to something I'm doing. I'll have to read it and find out. But, if so, it could provide another physical explanation of T'sirelson's bound (or more physical than Hilbert spaces, anyway).

0710.2537 QuantumMoxie [2007-10-18 05:09:35]
Deserves a Scite just for it's title.

0709.3666 QuantumMoxie [2007-09-25 19:00:57]
Pretty decent key rate for this protocal.

0709.0936 QuantumMoxie [2007-09-23 17:29:16]
Interesting, but I'm curious how the author overcomes the problem a finite-sized electron generates. I'll have to look this through but it needs to be a calculable solution.

0708.2567 QuantumMoxie [2007-08-26 17:51:09]
Could this be reversed and used to *predict* prime numbers if one found the optimal physics system? Dude, how cool would that be?

0708.2935 QuantumMoxie [2007-08-26 17:43:38]
Now I'm even more curious about TC Ralph's recent paper and the Deutsch-Bacon model. What implications would this have on the propagation of qubits along the timelike curves in the D-B model? Since Jorge Pullin is a coauthor, I would suspect some of this work was born out of the LIGO project.

0708.2201 QuantumMoxie [2007-08-17 07:17:24]
Has some potential for improvement of the analysis of mixed states via density functions (the sums can be used to order the density functions when studying entropy).

0707.3752 QuantumMoxie [2007-08-02 07:31:09]
Critiques of overlooked subtleties are too few in modern science.

0707.2319 QuantumMoxie [2007-07-17 16:37:51]
A Vaxjo paper. How could I not SciTe it?

0707.1829 QuantumMoxie [2007-07-13 16:43:36]
Minor historical point they overlooked: C.G. Darwin was the first to recognize the fact that the original Dirac equation was not written in tensor form. Eddington was the first to write it in some sort of tensor form.

0707.1795 QuantumMoxie [2007-07-13 16:36:49]
I think understanding the limits of Markovian methods is very important for understanding the quantum-classical boundary. My only question is: what's a spin star system? The explain it, sort of, but never seem to say why it's called a "star" model (unless I missed something).

0707.0848 QuantumMoxie [2007-07-08 09:46:48]
Rather timely considering the paper by Barnum, Barrett, Leifer, and Wilce.

0707.0401 QuantumMoxie [2007-07-05 12:33:59]
Again, while I have not read the whole thing in detail, he makes an extremely good point. One of my pet peaves is when something is taken to be obvious but is in fact deeper than assumed (case-in-point: the so-called zeroeth law of thermodynamics, clarified by Ralph Fowler in the 1930s).

0707.0620 QuantumMoxie [2007-07-05 12:29:25]
Admittedly, I have not read this fully yet, but the basic idea is very important.

Statistics

Papers SciTed: 554
Average Scites for those papers: 3.98
Number of comments: 51

Similar Users

UsernameCommon
SciTes
mick146
dabacon138
anthony125
danb122
pak92
jimh89
jt80
patrick76
Anthony58
breic51
kaveh47
toner44
odedr40
aram33
CS31
rieffel26
hillcd24
tobiasosborne23
mwilde8023
aspuru22
Jianxin Chen18
lmagnin17
joshuacombes17
bilalshaw15
jgeraci15
aram.harrow15
rich14
jense14
ashley14
ggiedke12
Steven11
matt.hastings10
sflammia9
yinzhangqi9
Ronya8
bill8
troy8
preskill7
cat7
guillaume7
joe.renes6
fgrosshans6
astephens6
lidar5
briet5
mabellio4
renner4
simon4
prakash4
hkj4
dry3
ayvlasov3
bei3
severini3
piani3
cbeny3
ahamma3
gm3
zyxue3
minhsiuh2
hanckowiak2
wdm2
thant6662
joefitz2
pieter2
alch2
menicu342
Silman2
gregv2
rdv1
jk1
gadzirai1
anonymous1
zori.wiki1
zhengfeng1
Rezn1
Sjsan1
modik1
dnp!f1
fernando.brandao1
elade1
jsharam1
andrec1
hnb1
jdebeaud1
Benni1
carod1
rekniht11
jianxin chen1
diaz-caro1
gojira1
JK1
desertlion1
mcmc21
p.skrzypczyk1
nschuch1
johnbrob1
qudit1
zevans1

History

[2010-04-26 18:53:08] QuantumMoxie voted for 1004.3818
[2010-04-26 18:52:34] QuantumMoxie voted for 1004.4146
[2010-04-07 18:04:01] QuantumMoxie voted for 1003.5760
[2010-04-07 18:03:24] QuantumMoxie voted for 1003.5765
[2010-04-07 18:00:31] QuantumMoxie voted for 1004.0052
[2010-04-07 17:56:19] QuantumMoxie voted for 1004.0458
[2010-04-07 17:55:18] QuantumMoxie voted for 1004.0776
[2010-01-29 04:38:16] QuantumMoxie voted for 1001.5057
[2010-01-26 14:48:48] QuantumMoxie voted for 1001.4304
[2010-01-25 18:57:28] QuantumMoxie commented on 0912.2098
[2009-10-26 09:24:09] QuantumMoxie voted for 0910.4461
[2009-10-16 10:51:11] QuantumMoxie commented on 0910.1396
[2009-10-16 10:26:49] QuantumMoxie voted for 0910.2737
[2009-10-09 16:47:04] QuantumMoxie voted for 0910.1396
[2009-10-08 14:03:38] QuantumMoxie voted for 0910.0913
[2009-10-08 14:03:21] QuantumMoxie voted for 0910.1189
[2009-10-06 18:08:19] QuantumMoxie voted for 0910.0762
[2009-10-06 18:07:23] QuantumMoxie voted for 0910.0472
[2009-07-06 10:44:45] QuantumMoxie voted for 0907.0372
[2009-07-06 10:43:47] QuantumMoxie voted for 0907.0699
[2009-07-02 08:51:45] QuantumMoxie voted for 0907.0108
[2009-06-19 19:22:05] QuantumMoxie voted for 0906.3440
[2008-12-31 10:46:52] QuantumMoxie commented on 0812.4614
[2008-12-17 08:55:43] QuantumMoxie commented on 0812.3058
[2008-11-26 18:59:03] QuantumMoxie commented on 0811.3171
[2008-11-05 11:32:59] QuantumMoxie commented on 0811.0458
[2008-10-14 12:35:26] QuantumMoxie commented on 0810.2271
[2008-10-13 13:58:29] QuantumMoxie commented on 0809.0008
[2008-09-10 18:01:10] QuantumMoxie commented on 0809.0008
[2008-08-15 10:52:33] QuantumMoxie commented on 0708.2515
[2008-08-02 15:11:14] QuantumMoxie commented on 0807.3841
[2008-08-02 15:02:27] QuantumMoxie commented on 0807.4935
[2008-07-09 15:32:34] QuantumMoxie commented on 0710.5549
[2008-07-04 17:42:06] QuantumMoxie commented on 0807.0330
[2008-06-11 10:24:36] QuantumMoxie commented on 0806.1660
[2008-05-13 19:06:14] QuantumMoxie commented on 0805.1632
[2008-05-13 19:02:41] QuantumMoxie commented on 0805.1728
[2008-04-30 06:27:06] QuantumMoxie commented on 0804.2182
[2008-04-21 16:24:50] QuantumMoxie commented on 0804.3054
[2008-04-08 13:14:38] QuantumMoxie commented on 0801.3994