Computer scientists prove that heat destroys quantum entanglement
quantamagazine.org
quantamagazine.org
Is this concept debunked by this paper, or could it be that 'destroys entanglement' actually means 'becomes entangled with almost everything else'?
Is this conjecture, do we see this in some specific toy systems, or do we know this is how all 'collapsed' waveforms behave? In other words, to what degree is the many-worlds interpretation just an interpretation of the waveform, or is it also a conjecture about how the waveform behaves?
edit: it also sounds like the 'many worlds' are separate, but the 'real' waveform actually still has the information of all the worlds. That suggests the information in that waveform is huge. It also feels like the 'non-collapsed' things from the different worlds could still interact. How much of what I said here is wrong (I presume it is a lot)?
And yes, in many ways the conjectured real waveform is quite a beast. Though you could also argue that the information content is actually very low, in that it is fully specified by the boundary condition of the big bang (well, at least any quantum-like correct theory of everything, remember gravity isn't explained by QM). Thus it's any given universe that actually represents a lot of information because it's the result of many different 'decisions' as that initial state starts to become very complex as it evolves (in a similar way to which pi can be simply defined but contains infinite digits, and if it's 'normal', you can find any string of digits in there, but it'll almost certainly take more digits to specify the position of the sequence in pi than are in the sequence). There's often similar objections on the basis of energy/mass which can be addressed in a similar way.
And, as far as I understand it the interactions between 'worlds' can only really happen for things that are 'close by', in terms of how much the states have separated (that is, in order to observe quantum effects you need to have isolated the system well enough it hasn't already entangled with you. Once it has you can't undo that). I think one general challenge with conceptualizing it is that in practice the correlations in the waveform are extremely messy: the whole universe is not entangled all at once. The 'splits' suggested in the interpretation are basically creating a potentially infinite amount of universes every time any entanglement occurs, which makes it really hard to reason about (indeed, there are philosophical issues that arise if you try to imagine what you should expect to see as a subjective observer in such a universe)
A very hot cube of metal isolated in a vacuum wouldn't have any less overall entanglement than a cold cube.
The other thing you talk about is true. If you have a system in quantum superposition, to measure it you need to entangle it with some macroscopic system. Macroscopic systems decohere very fast. This concept is well explained in excellent John Preskill's quantum computing lecture notes [1]
Note that the system for which wavefunction collapses is not in equilibrium with the measurements equipment (otherwise it wouldn't be measured), so the claims of the paper do not apply to this case.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231005202201/http://theory.cal...
So designing an experiment to show that a cat is in a superposition of alive and dead is at least as hard as bringing a dead cat back to life (obviously in real life it would be much harder, this is just a lower bound).
Now, the process of atom decay that would be registered by a Geiger counter has some interesting properties and that's where the "quantum magic" happens.
(at least, that's my mental model of it; ask an expert, I'm not an expert)
My understanding of quantum mechanics is pretty shallow so take this with an ocean of salt.
Not at all, the superposition spreads to the interacting particles. What destroys superpositions are measurements and we do not know what measurements really are.
Therefore, the cat observes itself.
Not anymore, not according to this theory.
But nobody knows what "observed" even means.
So in practice the experiment only works with very small systems with a few atoms. Each year there are experiments with bigger systems, but they are usually frozen and very small. Perhaps one day we will be able to do the experiment with tardigrades.
In other words it's not the act of "listening" that collapses the wave function but the interaction of air molecules that creates the sound in the first place, even if no one is there to listen.
A "measurement" or an "observation" doesn't actually require a human, or a living thing. It's just a physical interaction.
In other words, the fact that an observation takes place from within the box and collapses the wave function for an observer in the box does not mean that the wave function for every observer also collapses. A wave function collapse for one observer does not imply a wave function collapse for any other observer.
No it isn't, why do you think this? If it was we wouldn't be able to see it in our experiments, as where the particle ends up would depend on which observer is looking, which would get absurd consequences.
Of course, a second measurement device that's completely isolated from the first measurement device can eventually interact with the first measurement device and the two will converge and share the same wave function. However, until the second measurement device interacts with the first one or with the original quantum system being observed, then from the point of view of the second measurement device, the first measurement device is in a superposition of all the possible states that it could have observed.
This can continue on and on, with a third measurement device which is entirely isolated from the second measurement device having a wavefunction that's a superposition of all the possible observations that the second measurement device will observer...
Wave function collapse is a real measurable phenomena, what you describe is not measurable so just a belief, don't mix in your beliefs with actual results.
There is a different view that the wave function is just an representation of the knowledge someone has about the state of the universe or some part of it, in which case it can collapse for some and not others. On the other hand there is not really any collapse at all in this case, it is just a fancy term for updating once believe about the state of the universe or some system.
It is also important to note that a collapse is not a total collapse into a point. Measuring different things will collapse the wave function along different dimensions, only measuring everything in the universe would collapse the wave function along all dimensions into a point, or as far as the uncertainty principle permits.
There are 5 possible scenarios:
1) The wave function collapsed when the photon colides with the screen. You can calculate the time using distance/c. All the other steps are classic. You just open the box and see where the spot was.
2) When the photon colides with the screen there is no colapse. You get a superposition of two screens. A few milliseconds later when the gas inside the box hits the screen there is a collapse and ow you have a classic spot in a classic screen. Later you just open the box.
3) When the photon colides with the screen there is no colapse. You get a superposition of two screens. A few milliseconds later when the gas inside the box hit the screen, the gas gets entangled and later the walls of the box get entangled. There is no collapse until you open the box. Anyway, when you open the box everything get's classic and you see the usual result.
4) When the photon colides with the screen there is no colapse. You get a superposition of two screens. A few milliseconds later when the gas inside the box hit the screen, the gas gets entangled and later the walls of the box get entangled. There is no collapse. When you open the box your eyes and brain get entangled. There is no collapse! Anyway, each of the versions of you see the expected result because each one is entangled with a screen that has a spot as expected.
5) Shut up and calculate!
I'm a strong proponent of 5 because people pay me to calculate the distribution of the probability of the spot and not to tell weird stories.
The easy way to get the result of 5 is to use the scenario in 1, and that is what is teach, and that is essentially the Copenhagen interpretation and anyone that is not insane will use that scenario to make the calculations because it's "obvious" that all the other add negligidle corrections and are infinitely more difficult.
Here the problem is to define what is a measurement. It's "obvious" that the screen is good enough, but there is no good technical definition of what "obvious" means.
The problem is that the only non magical scenario is 4, where there is no collapse and you get entangled too. There are still many technical details to solve, but if it's real you would see the same experimental results than in 1, 2, 3 and 4, but the advantage is that there is no magic rule of collapse. In this scenario, measurement does not collapse wave functions, it just an illusion when some of the parts is big enough to get decoherence and make all the versions so different that you get (almost) no interference effect.
Anyway we are still not sure, so you can believe any of them until someone solves the problem, probably in 50 or 100 years.
Do note that the result of the experiments is not going to differ, it is guaranteed to be consistent by the fact that both experiments are measuring the same quantum system. It's just that one observer is unsure of what result they will get for a subsequent experiment, while the other observer can know it exactly.
And in the many worlds interpretation, it is indeed believed that apparent wave function collapse is a relative phenomenon, caused by entanglement with the classical environment, which spreads out at the speed of light.
We do know that they can't disagree as collapsed particles behave differently than uncollapsed particles.
> It's just that one observer is unsure of what result they will get for a subsequent experiment, while the other observer can know it exactly.
Quantum systems aren't about knowledge or statistics, the wave function is an actual physical thing that changes how the particle behaves. If the wave function has collapsed it no longer behaves the same as before, so what you said here is wrong.
You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
I imagine you're thinking of the version of the double slit experiment with a detector installed next to one of the slits, which prevents the interference pattern from forming. However, this only applies for a "measurement device" installed at the slits. That is, a classical system interacting with the photon/electron/etc before it hits the classical screen. But this is not mysterious at all: the classical device causes decoherence of the wave function and thus prevents self-interference of the beams traveling through the two slots. That is true even in interpretations that consider that wave function collapse is not a physical phenomenon, such as Many Worlds.
But this doesn't prove much. We already know that a photon hitting an atom doesn't cause wave function collapse, while a photon hitting a detector does. We can say that an atom is not a measurement device and an observer is, but this immediately raises the question of why. Or, we can choose the MWI route and say that the wave function never collapses, and the only difference between an atom and a detector is that we are not entangled with that atom, but we are entangled with the detector. And if so, it immediately follows that if we could get a detector that we are not entangled with, we would not see the same results as we do in the traditional double slit + detector on a slit experiment.
For example, when performing measurements on two entangled particles at very far away places, the wave function collapses instantly, across any distance, even light years away. After that experiment, the result on the other side is 100% determined (if performed in the same basis). But there is no experiment whatsoever that could be done to tell if the collapse has happened or not from the other side.
This is the resolution of the famous EPR paradox: wave function collapse is non-local (instantaneous), but it is probably impossible to send classical information with it faster than the speed of light limit.
This is wrong, they do collapse, you can test this using the double slit experiment. No human has to be there for the wavefunction to collapse and thus break entanglement.
If what you said was true then this wouldn't be a part of physics, physics is only about stuff we can measure not nonsense that has no meaning.
Theoretically, as far as it is known today, it is possible for a quantum system of any size, and at any temperature, to remain in a coherent state, if it could be perfectly isolated from the rest of the world.
Any limits to this process, where a perfectly isolated system would undergo wave function collapse without any outside interference, would be a Nobel-prize worthy discovery and would constitute a new theory of physics: quantum mechanics and QFT allow no such process.
Edit: and the double slit experiment is unrelated - the screen and the slit are noisy classical systems that are not in any way isolated from the rest of the classical world. In principle, if you performed the experiment using a screen and slits made entirely of atoms entangled with the emitter, and isolated perfectly from the rest of the world and the CMB and everything, you'd get a different result: this is what QM predicts.
Double slit experiments shows collapse happens without any outside interference, nothing outside of the room has to do anything for the resulting measurements to show collapse happened. You can then afterwards enter the room, look at the recorded data and see that collapses did happen.
So you must have misunderstood what those theories says about collapses. They don't say exactly when collapses happens or what causes them, that is the unsolved problem, but we can know that they do happen.
But what if instead you had a screen that was itself a quantum system? You'd then use the Schrodinger equation without any collapse (without the Born rule) to describe the results. You'd have to perform other measurements on the quantum screen to obtain a classical result that can be interpreted, of course. But nothing in QM says that there is some size limit, so in principle it should be possible to prepare a quantum system of any size, including the size of a typical double slit experiment screen, that doesn't collapse.
Maybe we will even eventually find the ultimate model, a model that describes every aspect of the world perfectly, even though it is not obviously clear how we would determine that we did not miss some aspect of the universe in our models. But even then the map would not be the territory, the model would not be the universe or a piece of it. Imagine a wave function would perfectly describe an electron, would we be justified to say that an electron is a wave function? No, because for them to be the same thing, it is not sufficient that the wave function has all the properties of the electron, it would also have to have only the properties of the electron. But the wave function is an equation, I can write it down or square it, things I can most certainly not do with the electron.
So the wave function is of course only a mathematical description of a quantum system and not a real thing out there in the universe. But that is not the problem, the problem is that we have two seemingly contradictory descriptions of quantum systems. We have the Schrödinger equation describing the unitary evolution of isolated quantum systems and it works really well. But we also have the Born rule and the collapse postulate which tell us the probability distribution of measurement outcomes and how measurement changes the state into the measured Eigenstate, a non-unitary change, and this also works really well. But there is the problem, on the one hand a measurement - whatever that exactly is - seems to change the state non-unitarily but on the other hand a quantum system together with a measurement device is just a bigger quantum system and should therefore evolve unitarily. Something has to give.
As you say, that is very unsatisfying, but it was also not a complete roadblock, shut up and calculate worked pretty well. But I would not confidently declare that this does not hold us back at all, who knows what progress can be unlocked by solving the issue? It might of course also be mostly inconsequential but I guess that is something we will only find out after the fact.
[1] Or fluids if you want to be pedantic.
In terms of what we may/not be missing out on, I say that because it seems few of the possibilities remaining after a century of investigation (many worlds, relational/information based approaches, etc) contain any new physics or scientific insight.
Eg if we could somehow tell that MW or pilot wave theory is "correct", we would still have nothing to do but shut up and calculate the same things, no?
If unitary evolution continues in some sense, we would still need to throw factors away in order for the theory to remain predictive to us.
Particles are only observed to be in a single place at a single time. My understanding is that it may be that we lose the perspective necessary to see them elsewhere, since we are embedded in the same eigenstate (or something close to it). But the task of science is confined to observables. I question, what are the scientific questions that collapse postulate holds back from being solved?
Unitary evolution can destroy superposition of the small subsystem by introducing negligible amount of superposition into large system.
In Schroedinger cat experiment, the evolution is not thermalization but rather entangling the whole cat with atom state. I don't think we're really puzzled about it now, since we know that macroscopic objects can be in superposition. So cat, theoretically, can be in superposition of alive and dead until measured. I don't think there is any contradiction or confusion here physics-wise.
https://youtu.be/FrTq_m1pLz8?t=2188
Quantum mechanics forces two infinities upon us when attempting to make precise observations. The first is the need for infinitely many measurements, stemming from the probabilistic nature of quantum predictions. To obtain a sharp notion of probability, we must perform an experiment infinitely often, converging to the true probability in the limit. The second infinity involves an infinitely large measuring apparatus. This arises because any finite measuring device is itself subject to quantum fluctuations, introducing an intrinsic imprecision to measurements. The degree of imprecision scales as e^(-n), where n is the number of particles composing the measuring device. While the first infinity is often discussed and practically relevant in experimental settings, the second is less commonly addressed but conceptually significant. These infinities highlight fundamental limitations in our ability to make precise quantum measurements and become particularly problematic when gravity is introduced into the picture.
It is very hard to demonstrate that fact though, the obvious way of doing it is to build a large quantum computer.
Anything, really. There are no "classical devices", after all, all of them are quantum systems, aren't they?
That idea is almost as old as quantum mechanics itself. (von Neumann, 1932 - if not earlier.)
There is also another weird asymmetry. For the spin we say that its superposition exists in my [slice of the] world but for the measurement device we say only half of the entangled state, the outcome I become aware of, is part of [my slice of the] world, what justifies this?
Nothing. It keeps existing, and (1/sqrt(2) * <I think spin is down|⊗<device shows spin is down|⊗<spin was down| + 1/sqrt(2) * <I think spin is up|⊗<device shows spin is up|⊗<spin was up|) keeps evolving, and since QM is linear, the summands evolve independently.
Yes, to the outside observer (the one who could look at the whole of the universe from the side/above without interacting with it) this does look very similar to MWI. But we are not outside of the universe, we exist inside it as a part of it, so for us it looks like spontaneous collapse of the wave function.
The "Copenhagen interpretation" as we understand it, in which some thing "collapses" when measured, trades under the same name but was invented later. As a result the original interpretations of Bohr/Heisenberg and their philosophy of science have somewhat exited the discussion, even though they had the only defensible epistemology -- the rest as you say is just ontology.
It's not so much a question of scale, but of statistical noisiness. Quantum effects are primarily observable in the low-temperature domain (this is not necessarily "thermometer temperature", but a statistical measure)
For some strange reasons [2] it's enough to consider atoms with spin |up> and |down>. But if you put the device sidewide, you would preffer to use |right> and |left> instead. But if you are forced to use |up> and |down> then
|right> = ( |up> + |down> ) / sqrt(2)
|left> = ( |up> - |down> ) / sqrt(2)
The same idea of expressing a state using superposition/sums of states in other base is very fundamental to Quantum Mechanics and appears everywhere.
[1] The idea of using Stern–Gerlach experiment is stolen from Feynman, not a brilliant idea of me.
[2] Too much algebra and the SU(2) group. Just bear with me.
But if measurement basis and spin direction are not aligned, then the measurement result will be random in proportion to the misalignment and the spin state will be non-unitarily changed by the measurement, projected onto the measurement basis.
It the second scenario that lacks proper understanding, the first one seems much less interesting, you measure something that you already know and you get the value that you expect. It is certainly an interesting fact that being in a superposition is not an absolute statement, but it also seems not to uncommon. In additive color mixing magenta is a combination of red and blue, in subtractive color mixing it is one of the base colors.
A) In a molecule with two electrons, the wavefunction of the electrons is written as |aa> + |bb> + ... combining one electron with spin up and one with spin down. [1] [2]
It would be nice to choose the base carefully and write only |aa>. That is the Hartree-Fock method [3] and the result is like 95% or 99% accurate, sometimes you get 100% accurate, but it's not usual.
To get the small difference, you must allow combinations like Sqrt(99%) |aa> + Sqrt(1%) |bb>. [4]
It would be very nice to be able to use the simple form because calculations would be much faster.
B) In a different area, IIUC the neutrino osculation is caused because it's impossible to choose the bases for leptons and neutrinos and their transformations in a way there is no superpositions.
[1] Actually, in some cases you must use |ab> + |cd> + ... , but the simple version is good enough.
[2] And with more electrons it's even worse.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartree%E2%80%93Fock_method
If the cat is not definitely dead (or alive) until you look at it, I think the mainstream consensus is that curiosity killed the cat.
To me that just screams "particle physics are predictable(determinant) as long as the particles are shielded from outside noise, not because they are connected/bound together by some mysterious force or law of physics."
I suppose a thought experiment to prove/disprove that would be to send one of the entangled particles, particle A, around a black hole to slow it's time down and then afterwards measure if the entangled particles still give opposite results but consistent with the time delay.
It proves there's no "local hidden variable"--the state is indeterminate until they are measured. It's proven through some pretty simple probability theory, and is (relatively) easy to follow. There's a great video of Leonard Susskind explaining it somewhere
I send your friend a copy of the same box. I tell you that the result of pressing each button is random but no matter what, if you both press the same button you will see the same result. If you press two different buttons, the results will be uncorrelated.
You ask me to send you and your friend a bunch of these paired boxes and start testing. You then both press random buttons on each box and record your results.
Comparing notes afterward you can see that every time you happened to press the same button you received the same result. You confirm that if you pressed two different buttons, you get uncorrelated results. No problem, you think. I have obviously preprogrammed each box to be one of GGG, GGR, GRG, GRR, RGG, RGR, RRG, or RRR.
But then you notice something strange. If this theory was true, for 2/8 boxes you would have an RRR/GGG box and would see the same answer no matter what. The remaining 6/8 boxes you should get the same answer 2/3 of the time. This means that your answers should agree 3/4 of the time. Even if you surmise that I never send you a box set to the same three values, your results should agree 2/3 of the time.
You crunch the numbers and find that your results agree precisely 50% of the time.
In short, you can never properly describe what happens by assuming the particles states are already determined after being entangled.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment?wprov=sf...
That setting is not known when the particles become entangled, and so in principle cannot affect the state of particle B. However since the setting does in fact correlate with the measured state of particle A, it also correlates with the state of particle B.
Surprisingly, this idea makes many physicists very umcomfortable and they start to object to SD using philosophical arguments about "free will".
According to the SD, this is nothing more than an artifact of splitting an entagled system into an "observer" and an "observed" parts. The linked video covers this part relatively well, the "randomness" of quantum measurment is nothing more than an artifact of artificial split of the Universe done by humans.
A nice thought experiment is the CHSH game. It's a two player game where the players (player A and player B) cooperate to beat the house. It is played as follows:
1. Each player is assigned a referee.
2. The players, accompanied by their referee, go to separate rooms. Before going to the separate rooms the players can confer. They may also bring any equipment with them that they want. The rooms are shielded to block any communication between the players during their time in the rooms. You may assume that the communication blocking is 100% effective.
3. Each referee uses a true random number generator to generate a bit, and tells the player the value of that bit.
4. The player then generates a bit, by any means, and tells it to the referee.
5. The referee records the bit they generated and the bit provided by the player.
6. Steps #3-5 are repeated 999 more times.
7. After both players have gone through #3-5 1000 times, the referees confer and check their records. For each round the players win $100 in these two cases:
The players generated different bits and the referees both generated 1
The players generated the same bit and at least one referee generated 0
In a quantum universe the players can do better. They can generate 1000 pairs of entangled particles and each take one particle from each pair. Let's assume that the particles are linearly polarized photons polarized in the up/down direction.
When player A is given the referee's bit, A sends their particle from the first pair through a polarizing filter and reports a 1 if the particle makes it through the filter, and a 0 if it is blocked.
If the referee's bit was a 0 the player orients their polarizing filter along the up/down axis. If the referee's bit was 1 they orient their filter rotated 45° to the right.
Player B does a similar thing, except their filter is rotated 22.5° to the right if they got a 0 from the referee and 22.5° to the left if they got a 1.
Here's a diagram of their measurement angles, where X0 means player X got a 0 from the referee and X1 means they got a 1:
B1 B0
| | |
| | |
+--------+--------+--------+
|-22.5 |0 |22.5 |45
| | | |
A0 A1
Note that if either player receives a 0 from the referee the angle they use will be 22.5° apart from the angle the other player uses no matter what bit the other player got from the referee.
When the measurements on a pair of entangled particles are taken at an angle θ the results match the result you'd get at a 0° difference cos^2(θ) of the time.
For 22.5° that's 85.4% of the time, so when either referee generates a 0 they players will win 85.4% of the time.
If both referees generate 1, B measures at -22.5° and A measures at 45°. That's 67.5° apart and the player bits only match 14.6% of the time, but when both referees generate 1 the players want to generate different bits so that's good. They players win 85.4% of the time in this case.
That's an 85.4% win rate in all cases, which beats the 75% that they can get in a classical universe.
If you try to make some sort of classical-only thing that can take the place of entangled particle pairs you'll find that you can't make it work. You won't get past 75%.
Another thought experiment that might be clearer (or might just muddle things) involving two mysterious devices that you are trying to reverse engineer is here [1]. That puts it more mechanical/computational terms which may be easier to play around with.
Maybe you know the thing I’m about to say and just consider it to be too pedantic, but:
The question to ask of a system is not [whether it is “in a superposition” or “not in a superposition”], but rather, [whether it is “in a superposition of these different states” or “in a specific one of these states”].
Suppose I have a particle which I know is spin up (ignore the position aspect of things, considering only the spin). Is it “in a superposition”? One might be tempted to say “no, it is spin up.”, but the correct response is “A superposition of what? Anything? If so, then trivially yes.” . Because “spin up” can be regarded as a superposition of “spin left” and “spin right”, or as “spin northeast” and “spin southwest”. Likewise, “spin left” can be regarded as a superposition of “spin up” and “spin down”.
To usefully ask whether something is “in a superposition”, you have to specify what states you are regarding as the basis, as far as the question is concerned (or, alternatively, with respect to what observables, where “in a superposition with respect to those observables” would mean that if those observables were measured, the result would be random* ).
Now, why don’t we observe superpositions of states of macroscopic things which differ according to ordinary observables such as “x coordinate of center of mass”? In don’t know. That may be something still not understood. I don’t really understand these attempts, but I think there are things called “pointer states” and a process known as “einselection” which are supposed to help explain that? (Though it has been argued that this explanation involving einselection may be somewhat circular?)
Right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer
Confusingly, inductive heating is a completely different process involving no heat transfer! You induce a current in material, and this current causes resistive heating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating
You might be wondering: "then what's resistive heating?" Well, electrons are also tiny moving charges. Care to hazard a guess how they interact with their environment?
Interaction doesn't necessarily destroy entanglement, it can also entangle the new particle with the others. Meaning the photon would just get entangled with the rest instead of breaking the entanglement.
This state [rho] is the Gibbs state at infinite temperature, and is in the interior of the convex hull of product states. So, as β tends to zero, ρ will eventually enter the interior of this convex hull, making it separable. This happens at a finite β which depends on system size.
hinting that something different is happening here (from the C&L model mentioned below.)
Indeed the CS guys are probably looking for a way to redefine entanglement (entropy, as you summarized above), to essentially “work” in the same way as what they have in their preprint, but also cover the prethermalized cases..
I have a mental model for entanglement that's probably very wrong, and I would love to devise a proper test to falsify it.
[I]t is easy to show using standard theory that if a system starts in an eigenstate of some observable, and measurements are made of that observable N times a second, then, even if the state is not a stationary one, the probability that the system will be in the same state after, say, one second, tends to one as N tends to infinity; that is, that continual observations will prevent motion. Alan and I tackled one or two theoretical physicists with this, and they rather pooh-poohed it by saying that continual observation is not possible. But there is nothing in the standard books (e.g., Dirac's) to this effect, so that at least the paradox shows up an inadequacy of Quantum Theory as usually presented.
— Quoted by Andrew Hodges in Mathematical Logic, R. O. Gandy and C. E. M. Yates, eds. (Elsevier, 2001), p. 267.
Quanta Magazine always impresses me with the illustrations for each article
The illustration matches the tone and content of the piece, while also being visually consistent with her other Quanta illustrations. Seems like Ms. Armitage is only 2 years out of college, but is literally (illustratively?) crushing it [0].
Knee-jerk criticism like this in response to someone putting out heart-felt praise is so, so unnecessary. There's a time for putting down AI-assisted work, maybe, but this isn't it.
0 - https://www.behance.net/moodboard/179460311/illustration
I find it upsetting that a company can steal the essence of thousands / millions of people's life's work, "transform" it with an algorithm, and then sell it to people without any recognition of the theft whatsoever. I don't like that a generation of creatives is being undercut, all during a time when inequality and wealth capture are rampant due to out-of-control mega-corporations - which immediately make moves to buy and/or copy said company...
Like, I love creativity. I love AI. I think AI will be a part of our future whether we moan about it or not. At the same time, the world is awash with the worst type of scams, to the point where making a living is hard even if you work a steady 9-5. Even if you work two.
Damn near every artist, writer, musician is scrabbling ridiculously hard to stay afloat as it is. Some aren't making it. I can see why they're pissed. And I think that for the most part, being angry at 'AI' is pointless, except as a means to distract from the true parasites of our age.
The point was, it's rude to call someone's work "AI-grade material"; especially in response to a compliment about it, and when it's actually pretty good stuff, and all without making the slightest effort to figure out whose work you're shitting on.
A thing technically impossible for flat earth 'model'. But they just started attacking each other as not reliable enough to go.
Anyhow they would claim time near the edges slows down the time or the whole thing was a virtual 3d future tech used to fool them
Got a link? That sounds hilarious but I couldn't find any articles about it (though I didn't search terribly hard).
"Why don't more physicists worry about
the foundations of Quantum Mechanics?"
"They first say they have no time,
and it doesn't affect their work anyway."
"Then they imply that if they stopped their work
and thought hard for 20 minutes
they could solve all the problems."