We show that the protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. does not allow all possible results of a computation to be obtained counterfactually, as was claimed. It only gives a counterfactual outcome for one of the computer outputs. However, we confirm the observation that the protocol gives some protection against decoherence. In some situations, though, it may be more effective simply to run the computer several times.

Would Ingoing/outgoing states on the horizon would be a wonderfull thing to be able to read?

Maybe a way in which to use the olympics(onion view in calorimetric perspective)? Of course, I tend to think of entangled states but at such energies?

Who has gotten the closest? Glast maybe? LHC?:)Maybe something happens with superfluid states that was unexpected?

The very high radiation output also creates new experimental environments to help validate computer codes responsible for maintaining a reliable nuclear weapons stockpile safely and securely — the principal mission of the Z facility.

However, I just talked to another journalist who put a lot of effort into understanding my work. So I am hopeful…

If, on the other hand, a single photon hits the element, well then by definition there is a loud explosion, and the detective knows that this was a good bomb. There seems to be no way to find the good bombs without always exploding them.

This seems really confusing to me.

In collision processes, “resulting evidence” is from the interactive process, while in consideration above? How would you know the particles inherent state, without making the interactive process, the result?

You assume then, the energy needed, and from that, the emission spectrumally enhanced? You know this, before hand, as an entangled state?

Layman scratching head.

Yes, I think I was thinking of this reference (cited in “Schroedinger’s Rabbits?”)
Kent, A., and D. Wallace. Quantum interrogation and the safer X-ray

Maybe you’re thinking of Schroedinger’s Rabbits? I wouldn’t expect any practical medical applications anytime soon, though …

Does anybody remember an article about this? Or a URL?

My point was not that the journalists were the problem. This is a complex issue. While we all like to believe that science journalism is about reporting the truth, the reality is that it is often about 1)simplifying the often complex and non-intutitive (for example QM) and driven by marketplace factors as well as accuracy. I think one common theme in this blog is that it is vitally important that the public at large be made aware of what is happening in various scientific venues and I would suggest that this is a very challenging objective with myriad hurdles in both the translation from the science to the popular medium and the interpretation by the public at large.

That said, I have had positive interactions with several science writers. Several do have an impressive breadth of knowledge.

Local press offices usually have the time to do a good job. I try to put in extra effort to get these as polished as possible, realizing that others will draw from the press release. Also, popular science publications (e.g., Sky & Telescope, New Scientist) often put in the effort to do a really good job, so I want to help them.

Unfortunately, I have found that some well respected large mass media outlets frequently make simple factual mistakes. Obviously, that affects how much I trust them on non-science topics.

One issue is what Paul alluded to above, the willingness of writers and editors to allow scientists to check what they are writing for factual mistakes. This kind of procedure is antithetical to the tenets of ordinary journalism, as it should be — you don’t want politicians to be reading over everything that is written about them before it gets published. But science is different, and should be treated that way. The subject of the article shouldn’t have veto power over the content or opinions expressed in a news piece, but it’s really helpful to let them check for simple mistakes. It’s important for journalists to be able to take into account the unique nature of science as a subject matter.