Optical cavities provide fast and non-destructive readout of individual atomic qubits; however, scaling up to many qubits remains a challenge. In a new preprint, we demonstrate site-selective cavity readout across a 10-site array using locally addressed excited-state Stark shifts

Thanks for sharing Zlatko. Looking at the mapping needed to realize an all-to-all connected system on the heavy-hex grid, it looks like about ¾ to 5/6 of the qubits are being sacrificed for connectivity, depending on the degree of parallelism desired. Is this fraction expected to stay constant as one scales up to larger heavy-hex systems?

RT @QuantumAephraim: Great pic of Daniela in this latest shot at explaining what we mean by negative time (unfortunately, we're a bit delay…

@michael_nielsen What did you think of The Origins of Political Order?

@tatsuhiro_onod Congratulations!

I enjoyed your analogy with classical mechanics and agree we always need to “interpret” our mathematical models, but I don’t agree that if we model the system and the measurement apparatus quantum mechanically all the problems go away. Von Neumann pointed out how to do this 90 years ago and it hasn’t resolved any of the confusion. What you get, as you point out, is entangled states of the measurement device and the system of interest. But that’s not what we observe. We observe the measurement apparatus and system to be in a particular state. Decoherence doesn’t help either, as it gives you a probability distribution of different states, whereas we observe a single one. What mechanism explains why we always observe a single outcome rather than a superposition over outcomes or a probability distribution over outcomes.

Well look, I agree that arguing about how much the modern practice precisely resembles some traditional practice is not really particularly important. What I think is important is that land acknowledgements originate from indigenous people themselves, can be a part of reconciliation, and therefore serve a purpose beyond being a moral claim about right ownership of land as Noah claimed. I used the oft-repeated claim about them being an ancient practise to try and sum all that up, but its not the main point I wanted to make. Does that make sense?

@DukeItAll @Noahpinion I think maybe a better answer to this question would be in the Canadian TRC report where they explain why they recommended this.

@DukeItAll @Noahpinion So let me get this straight. You want a source on a historic American Indian practise, but you don't consider the Museum of the American Indian to be credible on this topic?

Well its obviously the practise that is old, not the precise wording... I wasn't aware this was really a contacted fact about land acknowledgements. You will read it pretty much everywhere if you google “what are land acknowledgements”. For instance: Do you have any sources to back up your skepticism?

I would maybe add that I agree completely with your criticism of land acknowledgements as they seem to be understood by, for example, the DNC. If the DNC is gonna show up in Chicago for a weekend and throw out a land acknowledgement, then their understanding of land acknowledgements would seem to be entirely based on the condemnable ethnonationalist sentiments you fairly criticize.

@aryehazan No Bose-Einstein Condensation in d<3

@JamesHarrisinVA I would love to see that plot with an added comparison to how well the us economy was actually going. Could be some weighted combination of unemployment and inflation, or maybe just a derivative of GDP?

@davidkuenzi It’s hard to resist

@michael_nielsen Have you read Malcom X’s biography? It’s a stunningly honest portrayal of religious conversion, moral conviction and certainty, and then in the final chapters, a complete overturning of his worldview and he conveys it all with breathtaking honestly and clarity.

How big is Hilbert space? Do we truly understand quantum measurement? Is unitary evolution in quantum mechanics completely linear? Is decoherence controllable? Is the universe a quantum computer or something even more powerful? Is it fair to say that building a quantum computer is one of the best ways that we know of to tackle these fundamental questions?

He doesn't address directly address or even name precisely the question you asked, but he does indirectly address it along with nearly all the antecedents that you mentioned. He analyzes the shift from an Aristotelian metaphysic to a modern scientific metaphysic, explaining how we went from understanding the world in terms of scholastic categories (substance+essence, idea+matter+form, potentiality+actuality) to understanding the world in terms of mathematical laws, mechanical causality, spatial and temporal relations. Without these notions, as you point out, the idea of a theory of everything can barely be formulated. Burtt’s book seeks to understand the origins of these metaphysical ideas by analyzing the writings of influential early scientists (that was what I meant by receipts). In your question you unpacked what you see as several related topics including the notion of completeness, the nature of space-time, the belief that mathematics Is the language of the universe. All of these ideas represent gigantic departures from the Aristotelian metaphysic and Burtt goes to great lengths to explain the origins of these ideas and how they were able to transplant the older scholastic ones. I don't know, I think you will find a tremendous amount of original scholarship here that addresses your question and really digs into its antecedents, but there certainly might also be a more narrowly focused work that does the same thing more efficiently. I like your original question a lot, agree that it's complicated, and will be following in the replies to see what others propose.