{"id":1160,"date":"2005-12-28T10:18:38","date_gmt":"2005-12-28T17:18:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=1160"},"modified":"2005-12-28T10:18:38","modified_gmt":"2005-12-28T17:18:38","slug":"quantum-magic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2005\/12\/28\/quantum-magic\/","title":{"rendered":"Quantum Trickery"},"content":{"rendered":"

A nicely written article in the New York Times about entanglement: Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein’s Strangest Theory<\/a> by Dennis Overbye (author of “Einstein in Love”.) Interestingly, the article claims that the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper is now Einstein’s most cited paper. Of course a lot of this is because this is one of Einstein’s most controversial papers. But I think quantum information science has got a lot to do with this as well. Take a look at this plot from S. Redner’s physics\/0407137<\/a> “Citation Statistics From More Than a Century of Physical Review”:
\nRise of EPR
\nIn 1994 Peter Shor showed quantum computetrs could factor and EPR hasn’t been the same since. Well and certainly those working in electron paramagnetic resonance have had a tougher time finding their own literature!
\nOn a related note, for an interesting take on Einstein’s own view of the EPR paper you might be interested in reading The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory <\/a>\"\" by Arthur Fine (who is in the philosophy department here at UW.) One thing which Fine reveals is that it seems that Einstein wasn’t really that happy with the argument in the EPR paper. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A nicely written article in the New York Times about entanglement: Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein’s Strangest Theory by Dennis Overbye (author of “Einstein in Love”.) Interestingly, the article claims that the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper is now Einstein’s most cited paper. Of course a lot of this is because this is one of Einstein’s most … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Quantum Trickery”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[53,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-physics","category-quantum"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1160\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}