{"id":27785,"date":"2015-05-21T13:58:29","date_gmt":"2015-05-21T11:58:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=27785"},"modified":"2021-10-17T17:06:22","modified_gmt":"2021-10-17T15:06:22","slug":"bizzarria-quantistica","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2015\/05\/21\/bizzarria-quantistica\/","title":{"rendered":"Bizzarria quantistica"},"content":{"rendered":"

Vivace discussione<\/a><\/strong> su Nature<\/em>, a proposito della “realt\u00e0” in fisica quantistica: doppia natura onda-particella, entanglement e azione a distanza, gatto di Schroedinger vivo e morto, misure “lasche” in cui l’osservatore turba ma di poco il sistema osservato, insomma tutte le interazioni probabilistiche che si dovrebbero verificare con esperimenti, sennonch\u00e9 i loro risultati dipendono dall’interpretazione scelta e dalla sua matematica.<\/p>\n

L’azione a distanza \u00e8 stata verificata, ma senza eliminare le ambiguit\u00e0:<\/p>\n

To illustrate the idea behind the test, imagine two stacks of playing cards. One contains only red cards; the other contains only aces. \u201cYou’re given a card and asked to identify which deck it came from,\u201d says Martin Ringbauer, a physicist also at the University of Queensland. If it is a red ace, he says, \u201cthere’s an overlap and you won’t be able to say where it came from\u201d. But if you know how many of each type of card is in each deck, you can at least calculate how often such ambiguous situations will arise. <\/em><\/p>\n

La realt\u00e0 non dovrebbe essere “ambigua”, \u00a0invece se ne discute da un secolo senza venirne fuori:<\/p>\n

A similar ambiguity occurs in quantum systems. It is not always possible for a single measurement in the lab to distinguish how a photon is polarized, for example. \u201cIn real life, it’s pretty easy to tell west from slightly south of west, but in quantum systems, it’s not that simple,\u201d says White. According to the standard Copenhagen interpretation, there is no point in asking what the polarization is because the question does not have an answer \u2014 or at least, not until another measurement can determine that answer precisely. But according to the wavefunction-as-ignorance models, the question is perfectly meaningful; it is just that the experimenters \u2014 like the card-game player \u2014 do not have enough information from that one measurement to answer. As with the cards, it is possible to estimate how much ambiguity can be explained by such ignorance, and compare it with the larger amount of ambiguity allowed by standard theory.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n

Questione di \u00e9tiquette<\/strong><\/p>\n

Si pu\u00f2\/si deve fare la post-peer review sui social media o vale solo un commento sulla rivista dove sono usciti? Su Twitter Gilad Yoav <\/a>ha messo una rianalisi dei dati Encode, pubblicati nei PNAS:<\/p>\n

Gilad was intrigued by the paper, because he says that its conclusions run counter to those of many other studies that have compared gene expression in human and mouse tissue. So he asked for the raw data from the Mouse ENCODE authors and took a closer look. In an April Twitter post that included graphs and a table, Gilad made the case that the team had not accounted for \u2018batch effects\u2019, a potential source of bias<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Bum! Per\u00f2 il topo \u00e8 l’animale modello pi\u00f9 usato nella ricerca biomed e non \u00e8 la prima volta che i risultati di ENCODE vengono criticati.<\/p>\n

Sull’interpretazione del data-mining in genetica con software bioinformatico “segreto” perch\u00e9 protetto da brevetto, c’\u00e8 anche un intervento di Mauno Vihinen<\/a> a favore dell’open source.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

\u00a0Gli attrezzi di Lucy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Su Science<\/em>, Michael Balter<\/a> commentava il paper<\/a> <\/strong>richiamato in copertina di Nature <\/em>oggi, anticipato in una conferenza di paleontologi all’inizio di aprile: la scoperta sul sito Lomekwi 3, vicino al lago Turkana,\u00a0di strumenti risalenti a 3,3 milioni di anni fa, prima della comparsa del genere Homo<\/em>. Solo 150 schegge e alcuni sassi<\/a> dai quali provengono, emozionanti per le loro implicazioni:<\/p>\n

Although very recent research has now\u00a0pushed back the origins of the genus\u00a0Homo\u00a0to as early as 2.8 million years ago<\/a>, the tools are too old to have been made by the first fully fledged humans, Harmand said in her talk. The most likely explanation, she concluded, was that the artifacts were made either by australopithecines similar to Lucy or by Kenyanthropus. Either way, toolmaking apparently began before the birth of our genus. Harmand and her colleagues propose to call the new tools the Lomekwian technology, she said, because they are too old and too distinct from Oldowan implements to represent the same technology.<\/em><\/p>\n

Tonf! Enzo Pennetta \u00e8 svenuto un’altra volta.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

Su\u00a0Oggi Scienza<\/em>, prosegue la discussione<\/a> con Hermano Tobia sulla validit\u00e0 dell’articolo di Villanova & Bach e del “metodo Stamina”. Mi sorprende sempre che qualcuno creda alle scoperte fortuite di dilettanti senza neppure un esperimento, quando la ricerca biomed \u00e8 un gigantesco cimitero di risultati promettenti in vitro<\/em> e in animali, che non si riescono a replicare.<\/p>\n

Per esempio oggi su\u00a0Nature<\/em> esce <\/a><\/strong>“Wild-type microglia do not<\/strong> reverse pathology in mouse models of Rett syndrome” (una forma di autismo).<\/p>\n

Mi sembra che le riviste pi\u00f9 importanti comincino a pubblicare risultati negativi, sarebbe una bella novit\u00e0.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Vivace discussione su Nature, a proposito della “realt\u00e0” in fisica quantistica: doppia natura onda-particella, entanglement e azione a distanza, gatto di Schroedinger vivo e morto, misure “lasche” in cui l’osservatore turba ma di poco il sistema osservato, insomma tutte le interazioni probabilistiche che si dovrebbero verificare con esperimenti, sennonch\u00e9 i loro risultati dipendono dall’interpretazione scelta… Continua a leggere Bizzarria quantistica<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,16,17],"tags":[883,1810,4034,5475,5757,5951],"class_list":["post-27785","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antropologia","category-fisica","category-genetica","tag-bioinformatica","tag-data-mining","tag-lomekwi-3","tag-post-peer-review","tag-realta-quantistica","tag-risultati-negativi","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27785","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27785"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27785\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43085,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27785\/revisions\/43085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27785"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27785"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27785"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}