We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!
A Pressbutton (252219) writes "PJ wrote...
So this is the last Groklaw article. I won't turn on comments. Thank you for all you've done. I will never forget you and our work together. I hope you'll remember me too. I'm sorry I can't overcome these feelings, but I yam what I yam, and I tried, but I can't.
This is in response to the ongoing Snowden debacle. Please go to groklaw and read the full article.
Her response to the 'if you have nothing to hide...' argument is ' I don't like uninvited strangers looking through my stuff' and that not being watched is a key human freedom.
I would add, if you are a us taxpayer, you are paying for this.
A sad day." Link to Original Source top
A Pressbutton (252219) writes "I have been following the incredibly long and tortuous SCO / Novel saga on this site since 2004 (ish) The jury is in Justice prevailed My thanks to PJ for providing the quality research and balanced views" Link to Original Source top
Abstract. We implemented a joint weak measurement of the trajectories of two photons in a photonic version of Hardy's experiment. The joint weak measurement has been performed via an entangled meter state in polarization degrees of freedom of the two photons. Unlike Hardy's original argument in which the contradiction is inferred by retrodiction, our experiment reveals its paradoxical nature as preposterous values actually read out from the meter. Such a direct observation of a paradox gives us new insights into the spooky action of quantum mechanics.
Basically things do happen when no-one is looking. We now know that is a tree falls and no-one is in the wood, it does make a sound.
I have not read many papers, but managed to pore through this one — it is quite readable. The Economist (and other sites) mention that some observations indicated that there were negative numbers of photons observed. I think they gathered the point from this comment on page 7 — perhaps overstating what the paper says.
Then, in Hardy's set-up, the same measurement presents a contradictory statement in figure 4 that the probability of finding a photon in arm O1 approaches 1 and so does the probability for arm O2, whereas the joint probability of photons being in both of the arms stays at about 0. Moreover, the readout points to a negative value for the joint probability for arms NO1 and NO2. Unlike Hardy's original argument, our demonstration reveals the paradox by observation rather than inference.