I think the big questions are how "quantum" (i.e., coherent) their devices actually are and whether this makes them more useful than their classical counterparts. And, if quantum optimization is a good idea to begin with.
Two words: Bertlmann's socks.
case WAN_WISHING:
#ifdef WIZARD
if (!wizard) {
#endif
otmp->spe = (rn2(10) ? -1 : 0);
break;
#ifdef WIZARD
}
#endif
[...]
if (oclass == WAND_CLASS) {
if (otmp->otyp == WAN_WISHING
#ifdef WIZARD
&& !wizard
#endif
) rechrg = 1;
otmp->recharged = (unsigned)rechrg;
}
At least you have a 10% chance to retain your wish.
I'm of the opinion adding more qubits to a superposition is going to be an exponentially hard problem.
The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.
The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork, but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.
They show relatively clear Rabi oscillations, which are a definite proof of the quantumness of the evolution of their system (which has nothing to do with entanglement). So, yes, this is a genuine qubit, albeit not a perfect one.
Do you have a less-intuitive example of a non-Minkowski space-time that allows FTL but does not have causality issues, that does not fit into one of the counterfactual categories I listed?
Read the first link given in the summary.
Also, as a preference, I tend to ignore metrics like h-indices when evaluating a researcher, as they provide very little evidence for his her her capabilities, let alone the quality of the work.
Suppose you have a position to fill and get several hundred applications. What do you do?
People have used metamaterials to achieve results that seem to violate the laws of physics (such as materials having a negative refractive index [wikipedia.org]). Speculating that such an exotic material could be produced is not hand waving. Just because we don't know how to do something today doesn't mean we'll never figure it out.
Your comparison to metamaterials is interesting. These things work by structuring the medium on scales smaller than the wavelength of the light. On these scales, the laws of geometrical optics break down and one has to use a theory that does not rely on the approximation that all features are larger than the wavelength (e.g., solve Maxwell's equations). If your analogy is valid, this means to find negative masses, we would need to go to a scale where the current laws for the description of matter (i.e., the Standard Model of particle physics) break down. This is generally expected to occur at the Planck scale, which is about 10^16 times larger than what the LHC can probe. So yes, this is pretty much as impossible as things can get.
Here is a relatively understandable explanation of why beating a photon to its destination implies time travel, even if you don't locally travel faster than light: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html [theculture.org].
This reasoning is only valid for flat (Minkowski) space-time, and therefore does not apply to the warp drive proposals, which aim to create particular curved (i.e., non-Minkowski) spacetime configurations.
A very intuitive counterexample: suppose you couple a photon into a very long fiber that is wound many times, with the end being at your neighbors desk. Clearly, you can walk over to him and have a chat with him about everything you like before the photon arrives. No laws of physics were harmed in the making of this experiment.
From what read elsewhere, it seems that the Aliyun people are probably not in compliance with the GPL, so they are in direct copyright infringement of code written by Google and others. While this is not too surprising given the sorry state of GPL compliance in the PRC, but this gives Google every right to strong-arm anyone touching this project.
That's nothing, my most recent paper has spin right in the title!
Linux worked well if you picked up a 1-2 year old laptop, because by then you could find support for most of the hardware, but you were in for a world of hurt if you wanted anything new.
If you're buying a Laptop and want to run Linux on it, you should make sure it's certified. Of course, results are best when Linux is already pre-installed.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau
