I wasn't try to relate it to your first question. The evidence that
degenerate states exist is that SQUID-based quantum computers can and do
generate them.
On 5/22/19, 5:02 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" wrote:
OK. Well, I thought I could've digested the two papers by this time. But
Bah! My dad was a pilot. So we flew on "passes" from the time I was born. I've
been flying (as mostly a passenger) in 2 seater T-38s, 4 seater excursion flights over
glaciers, etc. for my entire life. We even veered off and jumped a couple of runways at
SAF with ... a pilot who will remain unna
ssage-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 5:02 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "I have no idea what's going on." -- Towelie
OK. Well, I thought I could've digested the two papers by this time. But I've
OK. Well, I thought I could've digested the two papers by this time. But I've
failed and will probably give up for now. It's still entirely unclear to me how
the 3 level system's dark states facilitate the finer-than-diffraction-limited
resolution. So, I can't place the OR gate example into the
Glen writes:
"What evidence is there of degenerate ground states?"
The Hamiltonians for a logical operator like an OR gate need ground-state
degeneracies for non-trivial applications.
Configuration Input0 Input1 -> Output
A 0 0 -> 0
B 0 1 -> 1
C 1 0 -> 1
D 1 1 -> 1
P(A) = P(B) = P(C) = P(D) =
Glen writes:
< To what extent is "energy" a reductive projection of what's actually
(ontologically) extant? >
In the case of the physics of a crystal or a restricted Boltzmann machine (a
neural net), it could be a sufficient description...
< Given all that, and what you say ("... not the deta
This is interesting. To what extent is "energy" a reductive projection of
what's actually (ontologically) extant? What details are being reduced out? If
it helps, maybe it would be useful to avoid the concept of energy and rely
instead on "probability" or superposition.
In the wake of Eric's po
Glen writes:
< An additional basic question would be whether or not there are "lateral
states of different kind" (that's my own nonsense phrase). I.e. maybe an atom
can be in an energy state X that is (reductively) the same energy level as
another state Y, but with or without the ability to m
Right. That's why I qualified it with "if not a strict hierarchy". A basic
question that demonstrates my ignorance of physics is: Can an atom jump, say, 2
energy levels with 1 photon of 2x the energy, where it would otherwise jump 2
levels with 2 photons of 1x the energy? I.e. what I (probably m
Glen writes:
"mumbling about how energy quantification does imply a ground state"
I didn't trace through all this, but what about degenerate states (with large
Hamming distances)?
Marcus
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets
Step 1) Get confused by: https://phys.org/news/2019-05-atomic-function.html
Step 2) Find the actual article:
https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.021002
Step 3) Get irritated by the phrase "three-level system".
Step 4) Find ref 14:
http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/
11 matches
Mail list logo
