Talk:Seth Lloyd

He shows that there are limits to exponential growth in a finite universe
This happens to be true, but it is calculus 101 and even an attention-seeking so and so like this fellow cannot possibly have pretended to be the first to "show" this. Piss-poor writing by a six-former, this article.137.205.183.114 (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seth Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607195224/http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloyd_thesis.pdf to http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloyd_thesis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This page underwent extended changes by an anonymous user
I think it should be emphasized that what a person deserved by her work should not be arbitrarily removed by some incompetent guy just by a matter of hatress. Seth Lloyd yielded a ton of contributions to quantum physics and notably quantum sensing with a classical paper on quantum illumination. Lloyd's papers were published in journals like Nature and Science and this should not be underestimated. What is wrong in a life of a person should not let us forget what she did in her professional activity. I would like to point out the case of Philipp Lenard that was a Nazi physicist but he was awarded a Nobel prize and his discovery of the photoelectric effect is not forgotten by the life's choices of the author. I do not think that what Seth Lloyd did deserves a damnatio memoriae more than Lenard.--Pra1998 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This article should be slimmed down significantly or deleted all together
Pra1998 There is absoletely no doubt that you have very good intentions and aim at fairness. However, how did you judge that the guy or lady proposed deletion was incompetent or shall we assume all anonymous edits are incompetent? You should have assume good faith as a Wikipedia Editor. You made ad homoniem attack discarding legitimate concerns. I question your neutrality. As you know very well, having published in Science and Nature journals do NOT warrant an automatic entry to Wikipedia. You know this very well. We can NOT write wikipedia aricle for every good publishing professor a Wikipedia article. This article contains a lot of wild unproven claims and conjectures attributed to him, such as "...we could have the whole universe simulated in a computer in 600 year..". These are absurd claims and though it is situmulates interest in field for sure for popularity. He is defintely a good scientist but I do not think, he has any strong game changing contributions to the field to warrant wikipedia entiry. I do know so many living scientist having published in Nature/Science or Annals der Physik that they dont' have any entry in Wikipedia. This article should be slimed down significantly or deleted all together, if not maybe you can make article more objective adding his Nobel prize level contributions in the field with large documentated evidence. But I would suggest an emphesis on his ability of popularizing a field should take precedence. --2001:16B8:684B:C00:183C:3200:283F:A70A (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You are obviously incompetent and in bad faith about him, I guess for the Epstein's affair. The concept of quantum illumination and quantum radar are very hot fields with large investments by several countries aiming to realize this technology. This field of research has been started by Seth Lloyd. In the area of quantum technologies, Lloyd gave longstanding contributions. It is evident that you are not a physicist otherwise all this will be well-known to you. I invite you to avoid to further editing this article and leave this matter for more competent people.--Pra1998 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pra1998. Seth Lloyd is notable and passes that criterion, so your suggestion that this article be deleted is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pra1998. You are incompetent. You said "..This field of research [quadum radar and illumunation] has been started by Seth Lloyd..". This is not true. You are spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:68ea:dd00:b04d:5fd3:e89c:5328 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lloyd is unambiguously notable. His work has been highly cited and heavily covered by the media. Fiske (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Lloyd is not the inventor of quantum radar or quantum illumination
Pra1998 Viriditas You are obstructing justice. He did not start any field from scratch. Llyod is not the inventor of quantum radar nor quantum illumination. Edward Allen of Lockheed Martin developed quantum radar in the early 2000s, EPO Patent EP1750145B1 Radar systems and methods using entangled quantum particles. Similarly, quantum illumination is developed in 2003 by Zheshen Zhang while he was in MIT with the work titled Entanglement’s Benefit Survives an Entanglement-Breaking Channel. Llyods works on quantum radar and quantum illumination are actually derivative and contributed the field in later stages. This does not entitle him to take entire credit on both topics and have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:68ea:dd00:b04d:5fd3:e89c:5328 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Zhang's work came in 2013 not in 2003. However, the underlying concept of quantum illumination, which noise inducind on entegaled states pre-dates Llyod, Classical capacity of a noiseless quantum channel assisted by noisy entanglement. --2001:16B8:68CF:AF00:4983:546F:F36E:F71B (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)