Sean Carroll

How important is it to talk about entanglement? Or how important is it to talk about measurement? How important is it to talk about two-state systems or quantum information research? rather than just solving the Schrodinger equation over and over again for different explicit potentials and things like that. People disagree about these things. And so I'm going to try to, I have a strategy.

We're going to see how it works. You know, I'm teaching it, which is always very, very helpful. So it's really a matter of effectiveness in a very, very tangible way. So the difficulty of writing a textbook is just being as clear and useful as possible. The usefulness is something that I would emphasize there. For a popular book, there's a lot more freedom, right?

We're going to see how it works. You know, I'm teaching it, which is always very, very helpful. So it's really a matter of effectiveness in a very, very tangible way. So the difficulty of writing a textbook is just being as clear and useful as possible. The usefulness is something that I would emphasize there. For a popular book, there's a lot more freedom, right?

The objective of doing it is much less predefined. You can write books for inspiration, for education, to be thought-provoking, to synthesize a whole bunch of different things. There's all sorts of different reasons why you write a popular book. But you still have the challenge of trying to match what you think is cool and interesting with what the audience might be interested in.

The objective of doing it is much less predefined. You can write books for inspiration, for education, to be thought-provoking, to synthesize a whole bunch of different things. There's all sorts of different reasons why you write a popular book. But you still have the challenge of trying to match what you think is cool and interesting with what the audience might be interested in.

Obviously, for the popular book, you don't need to worry about getting all those equations right. But for the textbook where you do have all those equations, the thing is that the equations are either right or wrong, right? You can actually test them as kind of tedious. You better check, you know, when you have problem sets or things like that that you suggest in your book.

Obviously, for the popular book, you don't need to worry about getting all those equations right. But for the textbook where you do have all those equations, the thing is that the equations are either right or wrong, right? You can actually test them as kind of tedious. You better check, you know, when you have problem sets or things like that that you suggest in your book.

You better check that they're doable and they're sensible and all your derivations are correct and you're free of typos, all that stuff. becomes very, very relevant, less so in a popular book. But in a popular book, you really should think carefully about why am I saying this at all? Why do I have a chapter on this? Is this really necessary? Could I do it better?

You better check that they're doable and they're sensible and all your derivations are correct and you're free of typos, all that stuff. becomes very, very relevant, less so in a popular book. But in a popular book, you really should think carefully about why am I saying this at all? Why do I have a chapter on this? Is this really necessary? Could I do it better?

Could I talk about something completely different? Just because it is so much less constrained, it can be trickier to choose how to do it well. Ved Kumar says, priority question. I recently finished your biggest ideas in the universe series and I found it helpful in my understanding of foundational physics. It prompted a thought on the quantum measurement problem I wanted your feedback on.

Could I talk about something completely different? Just because it is so much less constrained, it can be trickier to choose how to do it well. Ved Kumar says, priority question. I recently finished your biggest ideas in the universe series and I found it helpful in my understanding of foundational physics. It prompted a thought on the quantum measurement problem I wanted your feedback on.

The idea involves trying to entangle a superposition into a classical and quantum system while requiring information conservation and considering the implications. A useful case of this is trying to pass a data sequence, which will be a superposition of several definite sequences all equal in length, onto a classical and quantum computer.

The idea involves trying to entangle a superposition into a classical and quantum system while requiring information conservation and considering the implications. A useful case of this is trying to pass a data sequence, which will be a superposition of several definite sequences all equal in length, onto a classical and quantum computer.

Both computers will contain bits and qubits equal in quantity to the length of a definite sequence. So the question goes on. I'm going to stop reading there. But I do not understand what is going on in this question. I know it's a priority question, so I have to address it. But I am not at all clear about the setup that is being proposed to be judged.

Both computers will contain bits and qubits equal in quantity to the length of a definite sequence. So the question goes on. I'm going to stop reading there. But I do not understand what is going on in this question. I know it's a priority question, so I have to address it. But I am not at all clear about the setup that is being proposed to be judged.

when you say entangle a superposition into a classical and quantum system, that makes no sense to me. I mean, I'm sure it could make sense if I understood what you had in mind. Maybe there are some equations or something like that. But entanglement is a purely quantum thing. There's no such thing as—or, yeah, entangle a superposition. I don't even know what entangle a superposition means.

when you say entangle a superposition into a classical and quantum system, that makes no sense to me. I mean, I'm sure it could make sense if I understood what you had in mind. Maybe there are some equations or something like that. But entanglement is a purely quantum thing. There's no such thing as—or, yeah, entangle a superposition. I don't even know what entangle a superposition means.

I know what it means to entangle quantum states, and quantum states— are in superpositions from certain points of view, not in superpositions from other points of view, but classical systems are neither entangled nor in superpositions, so I really don't know what's going on. Sorry about that. I can't really be very helpful. Stephen Moradi has a priority question.

I know what it means to entangle quantum states, and quantum states— are in superpositions from certain points of view, not in superpositions from other points of view, but classical systems are neither entangled nor in superpositions, so I really don't know what's going on. Sorry about that. I can't really be very helpful. Stephen Moradi has a priority question.

I like everyone's using up their priority questions. That's good. You put some thought into what you want these to be. I've heard people say that there is no chaos in quantum processes.