network profile
| bio | website | faculty.washington.edu/sidles/… |
|---|---|---|
| location | Seattle, WA | |
| age | 61 | |
| visits | member for | 9 months |
| seen | Nov 17 '12 at 18:50 | |
| stats | profile views | 84 |
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 in-progress research relating to the Günther Laukien Prize for 2011, see the web page associated to our 52nd ENC poster Quantum Spin Microscopy's Emerging Methods, Roadmaps, and Enterprises.
For further information, see the (open-source) PNAS article "Spin Microscopy's Heritage, Achievements, and Prospects", and see also my MathOverflow answer to the topic "A Book You Would Like to Write" ... most of my questions and answers are conditioned upon these (mainly medical) interests.
|
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 |
