|
1168
|
1 2006-07-18.txt:22:59:38: <lament> ihope_: i.e. there's still entanglement
|
|
|
2 2006-07-21.txt:21:58:44: <lament> since it would most likely destroy all entanglement
|
|
|
3 2006-07-27.txt:01:23:50: <AndrewNP> And with QC, you can access some of the weirder parts of quantum physics. Like entanglement.
|
|
|
4 2006-07-27.txt:02:11:09: <AndrewNP> It's a bit weird at first, but it makes sense in terms of entanglement.
|
|
|
5 2006-07-27.txt:06:52:17: <GregorR> Hm, other than entanglement?
|
|
|
6 2006-07-27.txt:06:54:55: <Razor-X> What determines entanglement, though?
|
|
|
7 2006-07-27.txt:06:55:07: <GregorR> Doesn't one of the operations cause entanglement?
|
|
|
8 2006-07-27.txt:06:59:01: <Razor-X> Oh I see, ! is the entanglement one.
|
|
|
9 2006-07-27.txt:07:07:38: <lament> but observing one does not in itself destroy the entanglement of the other two.
|
|
|
10 2006-07-28.txt:04:21:28: * GregorR is trying to find a gate that causes entanglement >_O
|
|
|
11 2006-07-28.txt:04:28:03: <GregorR> I guess any controlled gate where the state of the control qubit isn't 1/0 would cause entanglement.
|
|
|
12 2007-03-17.txt:21:08:45: <SevenInchBread> ...straying back to programming languages for a second, I've got an idea for a language read concurrently by multiple interpreters with different meanings for different symbols... and a bitwise brainfuck with some basic ideas of quantum entanglement.
|
|
|
13 2007-03-17.txt:21:10:25: <SevenInchBread> quantum entanglement with bitwise brainfuck basically makes an event-programming-type thingy.
|
|
|
14 2007-06-20.txt:03:54:52: <ihope> (And isn't Copenhagen many-worlds plus observation, and can't the effects of observation be explained by entanglement?)
|
|
|
15 2007-11-17.txt:03:21:58: <GregorR> I always used to like the many worlds hypothesis, because I like the thought that the apparent collapse of quantum states is simply the entanglement of the matter and energy that define us with other stuff. That way there's no ordained "observer." But this semiparadox could be a deal-breaker >_>
|
|
|
16 2007-12-21.txt:20:41:58: <oerjan> quantum is not the same as random! there needs to be entanglement...
|
|
|
17 2008-01-17.txt:04:09:57: <oklopol> can you recombine, or is there just some serious entanglement?
|
|
|
18 2008-04-18.txt:21:54:22: <kwertii> and there's a strong chance of FTL communications too. quantum entanglement looks promising
|
|
|
19 2008-04-18.txt:21:55:19: <oerjan> in the current theoretical setup, quantum entanglement _very_ carefully disallows FTL communication
|
|
|
20 2008-08-02.txt:00:31:03: <oerjan> SimonRC: well i guess it prevents any effects that could be used to send information backwards in practice, like the usual theory for why you cannot use entanglement to send information faster than light
|
|
|
21 2008-08-02.txt:00:40:46: <moozilla> a sort of version of quantum entanglement
|
|
|
22 2008-08-02.txt:00:41:30: <moozilla> my understanding of entanglement is cloudy so that might be what it already is
|
|
|
23 2008-08-02.txt:00:41:35: <SimonRC> you can't transmit information via entanglement surely?
|
|
|
24 2008-08-16.txt:15:08:18: <Deewiant> ais523: that's some deep funge-intercal entanglement going on there :-P
|
|
|
25 2009-06-25.txt:13:41:11: <ehird> this religion-software entanglement is bizarre
|
|
|
26 2009-07-13.txt:01:02:42: <GregorR> And of course there's entanglement.
|
|
|
27 2010-02-05.txt:20:21:12: <oklopol> Sgeo_: unless you consider them complex entanglements of strings!
|
|
|
28 2010-02-14.txt:06:03:19: <augur> ie entanglement sorts of stuff.
|
|
|
29 2010-03-28.txt:00:31:54: <zzo38> I also reject the law of excluded middle but only in some contexts. You can use tristate logic with quantum superposition/entanglement and with presuppose (so for some proposition P you could make Pre(P)) and a new kind of imply operator, distinct from the old one (but both of which are used, for different purposes).
|
|
|
30 2010-05-16.txt:15:57:15: <alise> Maybe we could do something like quantum entanglement with a very long wire.
|
|
|
31 2010-05-16.txt:15:57:49: <Phantom_Hoover> There is no quantum entanglement...
|
|
|
32 2010-05-16.txt:17:49:08: <alise> Please don't say "quantum entanglement".
|
|
|
33 2010-05-16.txt:18:17:15: <alise> I wonder what would happen if I wrote a Life simulator with entanglement.
|
|
|
34 2010-05-16.txt:18:18:50: <alise> It wouldn't just be entanglement, it would be AWESOME entanglement.
|
|
|
35 2010-05-29.txt:21:57:49: <zzo38> There can still be quantum entanglements which can affect things, however it cannot be used for anything that can be received information it does still has to be the limited by speed of light
|
|
|
36 2010-08-08.txt:00:23:42: <zzo38> Quantum entanglement is unrelated.
|
|
|
37 2010-08-09.txt:19:22:58: <alise> [[The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[5]
|
|
|
38 2010-08-09.txt:19:23:16: <alise> Juxtaposing quantum entanglement with Jesus for the same purpose: Hilarity defined.
|
|
|
39 2010-09-22.txt:22:36:17: <nooga> http://gopherwoodstudios.com/entanglement/
|
|
|
40 2010-09-22.txt:22:40:30: <Vorpal> <nooga> http://gopherwoodstudios.com/entanglement/ <-- fun and just js
|
|
|
41 2010-09-23.txt:15:24:13: <nooga> http://gopherwoodstudios.com/entanglement/ made an esolang based on that
|
|
|
42 2010-09-26.txt:20:19:21: <zzo38> If you say everyone has a reincarnation of your (or a specific person's) line of consciousness, then you have failed to take it into account as the entire universe as a whole. Everything is a part of the entire universe as a whole, including by quantum entanglement and warped spacetime geometry and other things.
|
|
|
43 2010-11-30.txt:15:17:05: <fizzie> Incidentally, I heard a rumour that some researcher that-a-way <-- had done some experiments on unsupervised IRC conversation topic disentanglements; i.e. you take a pile of chatlogs and it separates overlapping conversations. (Probably not very well.)
|
|
|
44 2011-01-04.txt:18:44:27: <j-invariant> e.g. exploiting entanglement, interference etc.
|
|
|
45 2011-01-04.txt:18:56:37: <coppro> entanglement is more fun though
|
|
|
46 2011-01-04.txt:19:03:27: <zzo38> Entanglement is also relevant.
|
|
|
47 2011-01-04.txt:19:05:26: <zzo38> elliott: Entanglement with non-existent phenomena. You use the same equations as normal entanglement, because it *is* normal entanglement; but it an infinite metaphysical mathematical series with things from other possible and impossible universes.
|
|
|
48 2011-01-04.txt:19:05:57: <elliott> zzo38: So, any entanglement with non-existent phenomena is "quantum free will"?
|
|
|
49 2011-01-04.txt:19:06:08: <elliott> Is that the definition of quantum free will? "Entanglement with non-existent phenomena"?
|
|
|
50 2011-01-04.txt:19:07:23: <zzo38> See "Biocentrism (cosmology)" on wikipedia and then double-reverse it into a cosmology loop and write the equation for a entanglement with non-existent phenomena (you can do so using the normal equations for quantum entanglement), and then you might understand slightly.
|
|
|
51 2011-01-04.txt:19:12:38: <elliott> j-invariant: btw can you help me understand this sentence "See "Biocentrism (cosmology)" on wikipedia and then double-reverse it into a cosmology loop and write the equation for a entanglement with non-existent phenomena (you can do so using the normal equations for quantum entanglement), and then you might understand slightly."
|
|
|
52 2011-01-04.txt:19:17:37: <zzo38> elliott: Do you know how to write equation for entanglement?
|
|
|
53 2011-01-04.txt:19:19:45: <zzo38> Write the entanglement equation, and then assume that one part is not part of the universe. And then assume that is also an entanglement with another object in a doubly-non-existing universe, and so on.
|
|
|
54 2011-01-04.txt:19:20:02: <coppro> no, that's not how entanglement works
|
|
|
55 2011-01-04.txt:19:20:15: <j-invariant> zzo38: information can't flow through through an entanglement "channel"
|
|
|
56 2011-01-04.txt:19:21:04: <zzo38> j-invariant: Exactly. Information is not *supposed* to flow through an entanglement "channel".
|
|
|
57 2011-01-05.txt:12:37:40: <elliott> to win, utilise the reverse causality-looped biocentrism article to write the equation for entanglement that doesn't assume the other side is real. that opens the door to happy
|
|
|
58 2011-01-05.txt:12:39:51: <Vorpal> <elliott> to win, utilise the reverse causality-looped biocentrism article to write the equation for entanglement that doesn't assume the other side is real. that opens the door to happy <-- where is that from? the game you discussed? :D
|
|
|
59 2011-01-05.txt:12:40:51: <elliott> Vorpal: 11:07:23 <zzo38> See "Biocentrism (cosmology)" on wikipedia and then double-reverse it into a cosmology loop and write the equation for a entanglement with non-existent phenomena (you can do so using the normal equations for quantum entanglement), and then you might understand slightly.
|
|
|
60 2011-01-09.txt:01:40:11: <elliott> Sgeo: apparently you can understand quantum free will by inverting a wikipedia article on itself to create a causality loop and then writing down the entanglement equation
|
|
|
61 2011-01-12.txt:00:32:54: <Vorpal> you mean entanglement?
|
|
|
62 2011-01-12.txt:00:33:52: <cheater99> entanglement sounds so popular science
|
|
|
63 2011-01-12.txt:00:35:15: <Gregor> IDEA FOR WORST MOVIE EVER: A docudrama/romantic comedy about a quantum scientist and his ENTANGLEMENT with some fru-fru hippy girl that doesn't believe in science.
|
|
|
64 2011-01-12.txt:00:36:42: <elliott> Gregor: I'm assuming you mean: literal entanglement.
|
|
|
65 2011-01-12.txt:00:37:00: <Gregor> elliott: Literal QUANTUM entanglement, that leads to romantic entanglement!
|
|
|
66 2011-04-17.txt:21:40:41: <tswett> I suppose such a computer could consist of some input qubits, some output qubits, and a bunch of intermediate qubits, and a whole lot of entanglement.
|
|
|
67 2011-06-11.txt:12:39:25: <Phantom__Hoover> Sgeo, it does occur to me that they might possibly be talking about that entanglement thing.
|
|
|
68 2011-06-12.txt:23:38:42: <Patashu> for this, entanglement, tunnelling etc
|
|
|
69 2011-06-24.txt:06:11:02: <CakeProphet> message passing queues over quantum entanglement, duh.
|
|
|
70 2011-06-24.txt:06:11:19: <Sgeo> You can't pass messages with quantum entanglement.
|
|
|
71 2011-07-14.txt:16:25:08: <ais523> Vorpal: just put the bits on your hard drive into quantum entanglement
|
|
|
72 2011-08-02.txt:11:44:30: <Taneb> Is it possible to send messages by quantum entanglement?
|
|
|
73 2011-08-02.txt:11:48:07: <elliott> Taneb: it is an incredibly common misconception that quantum entanglement can cause information to be propagated faster than the speed of light.
|
|
|
74 2011-08-09.txt:23:29:54: <zzo38> Some people say, life creates the universe, instead of the other way around. I say, unverse creates life, however, it doesn't mean that it doesn't create each other. Time is just part of the universe, anyways. And the mathematics of quantum physics and quantum entanglement and superposition and all that stuff, describe it as entangled and stuff including states nonexisting due to not directly part of the universe?
|
|
|
75 2011-09-25.txt:20:48:34: <CakeProphet> quantum entanglement = best way to sync clocks
|
|
|
76 2011-10-05.txt:18:25:22: -!- Entanglements has joined #esoteric.
|
|
|
77 2011-10-05.txt:21:19:54: -!- Entanglements has quit ().
|
|
|
78 2011-10-05.txt:21:19:59: <elliott> rip entanglements
|
|
|
79 2011-10-16.txt:22:34:12: <ais523> a bit like quantum entanglement
|
|
|
80 2011-10-16.txt:22:39:14: <zzo38> I think some Perl modules can also make quantum entanglement variables. But a different way would be to represent the state vector.
|
|
|
81 2011-11-17.txt:14:36:48: <elliott> ENTANGLEMENT
|
|
|
82 2011-11-17.txt:14:36:56: <Ngevd> So, entanglement
|
|
|
83 2011-11-22.txt:04:23:52: * elliott googled for: risk of 4-dimensional entanglement while skateboarding
|
|
|
84 2011-12-31.txt:06:36:23: <quintopia> i think it doesnt sound much like the behavior of quantum entanglement
|
|
|
85 2011-12-31.txt:06:40:25: <zzo38> Quantum entanglement is still mathematicall correct, however.
|
|
|
86 2012-01-12.txt:20:30:03: <roper> entanglement
|
|
|
87 2012-05-11.txt:19:43:07: <zzo38> quintopia: Newtonian physics may, but with such new thing as quantum entanglement and wavefunctions and uncertainty and all that stuff, we cannot say it is definitely the same thing.
|
|
|
88 2012-05-11.txt:19:45:52: <zzo38> quintopia: Exactly, it is what I mean by that the mathematics has no way to represent it is, therefore, their exact location doesn't have and if they are switched, you have to antisymmetry (or symmetry) to subtract the states to figure out the result which should be zero if in fact they are the same, but even in that case, uncertainty and entanglement is possible.
|
|
|
89 2012-05-11.txt:19:47:11: <quintopia> zzo38: do you understand what "entanglement" is? do you understand where exactly the uncertainty arises?
|
|
|
90 2012-06-09.txt:06:49:09: <zzo38> Also my opinion, quantum states which are not part of the current point of view may be entangled with ones that are, for possible entanglement across multiverse. Note that I mean the multiverse that is related; not the Ultimate Multiverse.
|
|
|
91 2012-09-14.txt:23:12:10: <hagb4rd> can we use the effect of quantum entanglement in some way to speed up things in some way?
|
|
|
92 2012-11-27.txt:20:52:55: <Fiora> entanglement?
|
|
|
93 2012-11-27.txt:20:53:53: <Fiora> Yeah, you can't send information with entanglement
|
|
|
94 2012-11-27.txt:20:58:10: <oerjan> atriq: oh but you _can_ use entanglement for agreeing on encryption keys, supposedly. but you need to send the actual encrypted data normally.
|
|
|
95 2012-12-16.txt:00:56:34: <hagb4rd> `pastelog entanglement
|
