Source author record

James Ladyman

James Ladyman appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

nlin.AO physics.hist-ph physics.soc-ph quant-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

4topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2020arXiv

How Quantum is Quantum Counterfactual Communication?

Quantum Counterfactual Communication is the recently-proposed idea of using quantum physics to send messages between two parties, without any matter/energy transfer associated with the bits sent. While this has excited massive interest, both for potential `unhackable' communication, and insight into the foundations of quantum mechanics, it has been asked whether this process is essentially quantum, or could be performed classically. We examine counterfactual communication, both classical and quantum, and show that the protocols proposed so far for sending signals that don't involve matter/energy transfer associated with the bits sent must be quantum, insofar as they require wave-particle duality.

preprint2020arXiv

Measuring complexity

Complexity is a multi-faceted phenomenon, involving a variety of features including disorder, nonlinearity, and self-organisation. We use a recently developed rigorous framework for complexity to understand measures of complexity. We illustrate, by example, how features of complexity can be quantified, and we analyse a selection of purported measures of complexity that have found wide application and explain whether and how they measure complexity. We also discuss some of the classic information-theoretic measures from the 1980s and 1990s. This work gives the reader a tool kit for quantifying features of complexity across the sciences.

preprint2015arXiv

Innovative Science

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.