In my post two weeks ago, we completely dismantled one of the core phenomena of quantum mechanics and tried to make sense of all the messy entanglement. By the end of our journey, we began to question the very foundations of reality upon which we perceive the world that we live in. We had discovered some sort of inherent discontinuity between the classical and quantum theories that even the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century could not seem to explain. Today, we venture yet deeper into the chasm of quantum weirdness and attempt to unravel this conflict.Read More »
On a clear night sky you may be able, with little effort, to identify a frying pan. This is, of course, not a literal gigantic frying pan floating around the Earth but in fact a collection of seven stars that form an asterism known more universally as the Plough or the Big Dipper, and are that located such that they coincidentally form a frying pan from the perspective of a humble earthling. This asterism is a subset of the constellation Ursa Major which, as you may know, is the Great Bear.Read More »
Quantum mechanics is extremely weird, not least because of all the hybrid zombie cats involved. However, there is a phenomenon that is even more puzzling for us to understand as macroscopic beings known as quantum entanglement. This topic has been at the very heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics and is one of the primary features that sets the two apart. Despite being completely counterintuitive even to the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, the predictions made by quantum mechanics especially in regards to entanglement have resulted in physicists having to rethink the way in which we perceive our physical reality. Let’s take a quick look, shall we, but try not to get yourself in too much of a tangle…Read More »
We learners of science don’t just spend our time sitting at desks solving maths equations or writing up experimental reports. Neither do we spend all day at the lab in infamous white coats pipetting toxic chemicals. Sometimes, just sometimes, we like to pop over to the ol’ watering hole (Ye Olde Tavern around the corner).Read More »
Ahoy, me hearties! A friend of mine had an interview recently for a data science position during which he was asked to solve, or at least explain his thought processes for, several mathematical logic problems. One of them in particular he found especially confusing and offered it to me to tackle. I realised that I had already come across the same problem a long time before, under the context of infamously difficult out-of-the-box interview questions one was likely to get asked at large tech companies like Google or Microsoft. Upon revealing the answer to him, he was fascinated at how deceptively simple the solution was, as is often the case with logic problems in hindsight. I thought it would be interesting to pose this problem for you to muse over in today’s post, followed by the solution at the end for verification, although I strongly encourage you to have a go first before looking!