David Nadlinger

Got trust issues? (…regarding your quantum devices?) Our demo of device-independent quantum key distribution (#diqkd) is now out in Nature: "Experimental quantum key distribution certified by Bell's theorem", nature.com/articles/s4158… ("free" link: rdcu.be/cSvl4) 1/4

@emmamiggy Sure, please feel free to use the picture with an unobtrusive credit line in your explainer – thanks for getting in touch!

Dear @dnadlinger, can I use your photograph of the single atom of the metal strontium for a science explainer on atoms for the IAEA website (with a credit)?

@HyperboIeva If you'll indulge me: We've managed to get decent-enough remote entanglement to for the first time demonstrate fully device-independent QKD last year (nature.com/articles/s4158…). Quite neat from a foundational perspective, still far removed from something easily deployable.

@MariosRichards Wait, this should be "Orange box- preferring a bit more imm and a lot *more* redist", right?

@AndreasAtETH @Nature @ETHBibliothek @qudev @ETHQuantumCntr @ETH_en @ETH_physics Congratulations! I was wondering how much the coax latencies were going to eat into your "light-cone budget"; the side-entry ports are a nice touch. Love the gorgeous figures in the supplement as well – for somebody not in the field, it's always nice to have that level of detail!

Would you have thought that it is possible to do a loophole-free Bell test with superconducting circuits? We did it! Read about it in todaÿs issue of @Nature: nature.com/articles/s4158… Thanks to the @ETHBibliothek, the article is free to read for all.

@pcwalton Yep, this is a nifty fact about exponential decays: they are self-similar at all times (after the initial onset).

I had a hunch and verified: of the typical animation easing functions at easings.net, exponential ease-out is the only one you can evaluate without knowing the start position of the object being animated.

@StartsWithABang Ouch, looks potentially neat, but the subtitle and tweet are wrong and misleading. Entanglement e.g. between atoms and photons (entirely different particles!) was explicitly shown almost 20 years ago (Blinov et al., Nature, 2004), implicitly much longer. Many other demos too.

Quantum entanglement just got a whole lot weirder Quantum entanglement was awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics. For the first time, in 2023, we've just seen it not for identical particles, but for different, distinct ones. (And wow, is it useful!) bigthink.com/starts-with-a-…

@QuantaMagazine @nattyover No.

@DrGBuckingham The paw print to me is stably convex if I flip the image upside down, but stably concave in the original orientation (+sideways). Can't get it to flip.

This is a strange 'sticky' bistability. Hard to flip to the other percept. Hard to flip back to original percept. A new one for me

(Oxford colleagues here on Twitter: @gaaraneda @BethNichol5 @dougal_main)

A huge thanks to everyone on our experimental team at @OxfordPhysics, and our theory collaborators at @EPFL_en, @ETH_physics, @unige_en and @CEAParisSaclay – it was greatly rewarding to collaboratively push the state of the art in such an interdisciplinary effort! 4/4

Got trust issues? (…regarding your quantum devices?) Our demo of device-independent quantum key distribution (#diqkd) is now out in Nature: "Experimental quantum key distribution certified by Bell's theorem", nature.com/articles/s4158… ("free" link: rdcu.be/cSvl4) 1/4

@OxfordPhysics @EPFL_en @ETH_physics @unige_en @CEAParisSaclay If you are unsure what this #qkd business is all about, might I suggest this brief explanation which I put together when we first released a pre-print version of this manuscript? x.com/dnadlinger/sta…

Going to be in the US for the first time in a long while for DAMOP end of May. If any quantum/CS/generally awesome people would like to meet up in NYC end of next week (~27th), or in Florida the week after, let me know!

@cahollenbeck Is this Zion National Park? Beautiful – enjoy the respite from UK weather!

@hbkirb Thanks; I can see your point now, and partially agree – playing a role in shaping the future does require being willing to sit at the table in the first place. But then, I'm not sure to what extent it was always going to happen on the corps. terms anyway, with the FSF or without.

@dnadlinger It’s like FSF were paralysed in confusion when the game switched from “Linux is a cancer”/Windows Refund Day, to big tech embracing open source projects and even releasing their own open source. They had the opportunity to set the scene for the next 15+ years and they blew it.

It’s frustrating to see effects of GPLv3 like this. Open source has been a net positive on humanity, especially through the digitisation of government and private services, and Android helping the disadvantaged reach those services. IMO, all v3 did was punish those doing good.

@Ion_busters @IQT_group But they are only using "fidelity" in the title/intro – in a qualitative sense, and in conjuction with motional excitation (-> two-qubit gate fidelity) and qubit coherence. For the loss p. number, they e.g. write "combining all losses implies a transport success [p.] of […]". :)

@dnadlinger @IQT_group Also agreed, the reference you pointed out to don't use this term. Here is the articles I was mentioning where the term is used: Blakestad et al. (2009, 2011) in reference to the work around the X-junction. 🙂

Scaling quantum computers is hard. But what if ion qubits were transported between trap microchip modules? Simple enough! Right?🤔 Our work with @IQT_group demonstrates just that Coherent connections at *kHz* rates 💢💨⚛️💨💢 Feedback most welcome! bit.ly/3LeFTcu

@Ion_busters @BobNiffenegger @IQT_group Looking forward to heating results as well – will be interesting to see!

@BobNiffenegger @IQT_group Thanks 🙂! Currently our trusty ions are only jumping 10 um, but we are currently training them to see how far they can really go! Ion heating rates also under investigation 🧐. Hopefully more results in a not so distant future. Stay tuned!