219 reputation
16
bio website faculty.washington.edu/sidles/…
location Seattle, WA
age
visits member for 1 year, 11 months
seen Nov 17 '12 at 18:50

I am a medical researcher and quantum systems engineer, whose experimental research interests focus upon quantum spin metrology, and whose theoretical interests focus upon large-scale quantum simulation, in service of applications in regenerative medicine. For a non-technical overview, see the (open-source) PNAS article "Spin Microscopy's Heritage, Achievements, and Prospects." For in-progress research see the Soldier Healing Seminar "Green Sheet Notes" for 2013.


Aug
30
comment Reversing gravitational decoherence
@John Preskill , with a view toward clarifying the various subtleties and imprecisions associated to notions like "dressed particles" and "mirrors", the literature survey below has been augmented to show how modern ideas from quantum information theory serve to naturalize and universalize the 20th century understanding of global conservation and local transport processes that is due to Dirac, Onsager, Casimir, Callen, Landau, Green, Kubo, etc. Even today, there is plenty that we do not understand about "dressed particles" and "mirrors."
Aug
30
revised Reversing gravitational decoherence
Added references to Nielsen and Chuang operator-sum representation theory
Aug
29
revised Reversing gravitational decoherence
Reference to article by Dereziski et al., plus minor fixes
Aug
29
comment Reversing gravitational decoherence
When account for all of the known physical processes by which particles are "dressed" by zero-mass bosonic vacuum excitations (whether electromagnetic or gravitational) then it becomes less evident that we should be entirely confident that high-order quantum decoherence is reducible to scalably-low levels. In particular, collective ("superradiant") dynamical decoherence is ubiquitous; e.g., the teaching of the Casimir effect (Landau and Lifshitz, Theory of Continuous Media) is that no mirror is decoherence-free. Some physical idealizations (e.g., perfect mirrors) are just plain wrong!
Aug
29
comment Reversing gravitational decoherence
Still more concretely, all quantum experiments/observations accomplished to date, and all accurate quantum chemistry/physics simulations (known to me) can be accurately unravelled (AFAICT) on state-spaces whose stratification rank is $r \sim \mathcal{O}(nd(2j+1))$, where $n$ is the number of particles, $d=3$ is the spatial dimension, and $j$ is the spin. Needless to say, there are considerable nuances associated to this poly-dimension state-space scaling law ... presumably Nature "knows" the natural basis for minimal-rank/high-fidelity state-space stratifications, but we have to guess at it.
Aug
29
comment Reversing gravitational decoherence
Scott, your comment is like "Your arguments seem to give no concrete guidance about the magnitude of the radius of the universe." To answer concretely, I'd have to specify (for example) the rank-indexed stratification of the universal state-space. In this regard, the lowest rank that I'm comfortable asserting is ... uhhh ... maybe 137? Seriously, experiments to bound the rank and/or curvature of quantum state-spaces surely will prove comparably challenging to general relativity experiments. Well heck, that's GOOD!
Aug
29
comment Reversing gravitational decoherence
LOL ... maybe I'd better say too, that I told Aram Harrow yesterday that I'd let these ideas lie fallow for a few days ... on the grounds that some tricky practical considerations regarding the efficient simulation of quantum transport are associated to them! And so, there is a pretty considerable chance that in the next week or so, some of the above points will be reconsidered (by me) and extended or rewritten. Therefore Scott, please consider your question to be answered in the same spirit it was asked. That is why both your question and your comments (above) are greatly appreciated. :)
Aug
29
comment Reversing gravitational decoherence
Scott, I think we may even agree, though we prioritize our main points differently. For me, the main point is that any quantum theory that provides thermodynamically consistent descriptions of localized transport of globally conserved quantities must entail non-unitary flow on a non-flat low-dim Kahlerian state-space. Your point too is valid --- even equivalent! -- namely Zeilinger-type buckyball experiments succeed iff transport of the conserved quantity (mass) is not spatially localizable. And this accords with our everyday experience that QM is locally Hilbert, globally not, eh?
Aug
28
revised Reversing gravitational decoherence
minor latex fixes
Aug
28
answered Why did Einstein get credit for formulating the theory of special relativity?
Aug
28
revised Reversing gravitational decoherence
One final cosmesis
Aug
28
answered Reversing gravitational decoherence
Aug
27
awarded  Supporter
Aug
27
comment An example of non-Hamiltonian systems
@Yrogirg, in the macroscopic equations, there is no friction. At the microscopic level, you have asked a deep question! Namely, can quantum mechanics encompass rolling/sliding mechanical constraints that have zero entropy gain? I do not know the answer to this question, and I suspect that no one does.
Aug
25
awarded  Teacher
Aug
25
comment An example of non-Hamiltonian systems
@Ron, I have added a some definitions and a reference that makes the point more clear.
Aug
25
awarded  Editor
Aug
25
revised An example of non-Hamiltonian systems
Better notation
Aug
24
answered An example of non-Hamiltonian systems
Aug
24
awarded  Autobiographer