5:10 AM
Hi, everybody.
This is pretty cool:

6:09 AM
@ACuriousMind The term "interpretation" can sometimes be used broadly enough that it also includes different predictions
Although usually only for phenomenon which have not yet been tested for

1 hour later…
7:34 AM
@DanielSank Can you explain how cool this is for non-quantum computing people? ;) I sort of understand why "first experimental demonstration where quantum error correction begins to improve performance with increasing qubit number" is neat, but I can't judge the numbers there at all - is this more a proof of concept or are the numbers there close to the values one would need in practice?

8:24 AM
Also one of the author is Tim Burger 🍔

3 hours later…
11:50 AM
German language has such specific words: Hohlraumstrahlung, Bremsstrahlung... In my language you need 3 words for each :P
Also, lately I keep finding new German words on my books gerade, ungerade, ansatz

I am a high school student and I can't think of any reason that why the relation that"SVP=atmospheric pressure" is necessary for boiling? some say bubbles forming in the bulk at this temperature have 1atm pressure inside them and can escape ambient pressure easily they say it because we know at 100 degrees the saturation vapor pressure for water is 1atm...but aren't they two different things?
continuing: the SVP is the vapor pressure "OVER" the liquid and in equilibrium with the liquid,,how does it have anything to do with bubble formation?

4 hours later…
3:37 PM
@Feynman_00 I don't think it's that impressive - it's just that "compositing" in German produces a single word, while e.g. English views its composites as several words. For instance, Hohlraumstrahlung and cavity radiation are essentially formed the same way, just English still leaves a space between the two components.

3:56 PM
@ACuriousMind Thanks a bunch.

4:29 PM
Why is Witten so far ahead of everybody in string theory?

5:17 PM
@ACuriousMind I heard that in general German has words for very specific concepts. What's impressive is that you can look up such words on a dictionary, I suppose

There are some oddly specific words but the two you presented are really just composites

Well yes, in that case they are. With a quick googling I found "Innerer Schweinehund" :P

3 hours later…
8:26 PM
Today's fun fact: a billion-tesla magnetic field has an energy density around 10^4 GeV/Å^3. The empty space around the linked pulsar is heavier than gold in the same ratio that gold is heavier than air. (Still a part-per-trillion correction to the nuclear mass density inside the pulsar.)
4

8:41 PM
@ACuriousMind I was reading old starred messages and an astonishing truth came up. Are you one of those chosen people who can properly write a $\xi$?
Or even worse, a $\zeta$

@Feynman_00 not chosen, trained :P

That makes you a superhuman. I couldn't even write a $\varphi$ before starting my undergrad
My $\xi$ is an $\varepsilon$ with two tails and my $\zeta$ is an abomination even I refuse to write

Nov 7, 2020 at 14:40, by ACuriousMind
@NiharKarve part of me dies every time some physicist or mathematician just draws a random squiggle and calls it xi :P

This was the starred message that revealed the truth
I think "infinitesimals" are way more painful though :P

3 hours later…
11:32 PM
@ACuriousMind Things with a lot of order generally die. Examples include living organisms, low-entropy situations like localized drops of milk in a cup of coffee, and quantum states.
This makes doing quantum computation hard; your quantum information keeps getting entangled with stuff you don't control, causing the information to spread, i.e. the quantum state dies.
You'd think this is unfixable, because any attempt to measure what's going on and correct it involves, well, measurements, which we know collapse quantum states.
However, amazingly there is quantum error correction wherein you measure something about the system which tells you if the information is leaking, but it does this without extracting any information about the quantum state you're trying to protect.
You do this essentially by adding extra qubits, entangling them just so with the actual qubits that hold the data, and measuring those extra qubits. However, this only helps if the operations you do with those qubits have sufficiently low error. Otherwise, adding more qubits just makes things worse.
We seem to have, for the first time, made a system where adding more qubits made the overall errors lower instead of higher.
In other words, we saw evidence that we can in fact preserve the life of Quantum Frankenstein.