Making QM easier : Talk to me like an engineer
« 'I know what "it" means well enough, when I find a thing,' said the Duck: 'it's generally a frog or a worm.'» - Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
As I sit for hours each day reading quantum mechanical and quantum computing articles off the web and practicing the trumpet (talk about entanglement!) the hardest part is getting a picture of the physical aspect of all these physicial theories.
I've found two articles that make things clearer.
CHSH Inequality is a simpler formula than Bell's Theorem but with similar intent, to wit, numerically assessing whether the observation of quantum entaglement is "spooky" or "obeys local realism". The cool thing is that the CHSH exposition is with reference to a conceptual experimental apparatus, the diagram of which is given. We have now left the clouds and are firmly on engineering turf!
Loopholes in Bell test experiments is, again, engineering. The question is, do attempts to prove spooky entanglement include tacit assumptions (yes, of course) and so are those assumptions subject to verification (maybe). Again, this is entirely with reference to apparatus.
Reading these two articles has done more for me (Burp. Grunt. Sorry, me just engineer!) than a lot of the notationally rich mathematical articles.
Yes! I am definitely getting a handle on the engineering question, "How much Quantum Mechanics does a programmer need to grasp Quantum Computing?"