For the snark was a boojum, you see
Scientists from NIST and the University of Copenhagen have persuaded a handful of atoms to get into a tangle by shedding their heat into the outside world. What's odd about this – if there's anything in the world of quantum computing that can't be described as “odd” – is that in doing so, their qubits were leaking information …
Tuesday 26th November 2013 08:43 GMT Dave Horn
>> Typically, NIST explains, quantum entanglement experiments do whatever they can to avoid
>> noise, because noise can destroy entangled states (or, The Register supposes, can make
>> it impossible to measure the entangled state, but don't hold us to this).
Noise would effectively perform an independent, random, measurement on the system, making the carefully designed one you were about to do to pointless. The measurement both simultaneously performs the calculation and reveals the result, so in the "noisy" case, there is no entangled state to measure at all.
Tuesday 26th November 2013 09:15 GMT phear46
Tuesday 26th November 2013 12:17 GMT Martin Huizing
Tuesday 26th November 2013 13:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Martin Re: Reminds me of this somehow;
I think the Christian objection to some forms of stem cell research is around the creation of embryos which have their stem cells taken and are then destroyed/killed. The argument, I believe, turns around when a living being becomes a living being having a right to not be killed.
While people have differing opinions on the above I have never heard of any Christian group who object to quantum mechanics, in fact many seem to see it as an exciting secret God has put there for them to discover. It seems fair to say that this line of thinking applies to several other religions as well.
The whole "you can't believe in science and religion" idea seems to be based on ignorance.
Saturday 30th November 2013 13:00 GMT beep54
Re: @Martin Reminds me of this somehow;
"While people have differing opinions on the above I have never heard of any Christian group who object to quantum mechanics..."
Give them time. Apparently some groups have finally started to grasp some of Cantor's theories of infinity and found that they do not, nosiree, like that at ALL! Different sizes of infinity?? Bah! Humbug!!
Tuesday 26th November 2013 13:58 GMT Andy The Hat
Wednesday 27th November 2013 09:57 GMT t.est
Science even prove you wrong on that last statement. Scientists pursue their theses, even when science shows that it can't be so. One example is the search for life on Mars with our probes. We know enough to say that Mars is and has been lifeless. No need to send any probes looking for life, just waste of money and resources. Note, I'm not against missions to outer space, I just don't like it when they waste their time on futile tasks. They should know better than that.
We all believe in something, and many are willing to fight for their beliefs, just look at Richard Dawkins. He has a religious belief in that science will show that there exist no God. He is probably much excited about the tasks the probes to mars have been given.
Most of the atheists commenting here believes in the evolution theory, even to the point that they dismiss part's of the evolution theory, e.g. on the subject of adaptation while discussing with a theist.
Quite often the atheist says adaptation is not random, though the evolution theory in it's current state says adaptation comes through random mutations, where one in thousands/millions/billion/whatever mutations happens to be beneficial. Then natural selection after that would do it's work.
Last time I had this discussion here quite a few rejected the idea of random events that would lead to adaptation. In fact by doing so giving their God the name "the evolution theory". It's a religious behaviour, not one based on science or reason. They simply said it's not based on random events, but it's adaptation.
Now an adaptation not based on random mutations, would be an adaptation to either be based on a "mind" (note the citation marks) of the creature of itself to adapt to a certain situation, or be based on a pre programmed code for adaptation by a creator.
Both of those statements are contrary to the evolution theory itself, so an atheist who does not acknowledge this part of the evolution theory is simply religious in his belief, though he's an atheist.
Religion is not necessarily equal to a belief in a God or Gods.