On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave >>>> function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of >>>> experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it >>>> does things we cannot. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>> >>> Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both states of >>> a qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the system toggle between those >>> states, yet not be in both simultaneously? Couldn't quantum computing work, >>> or say be conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG >>> >> >> IOW, is the model of superposition you use in quantum computing a >> necessary condition for its success, or could you use the information-only >> model of the superposition and get the same result. AG >> >>> >>>> >>>> > > In order to explain the final result of the computation appearing in the > measured qubits, each of the intermediate states must have existed and > interacted, >
*What are the intermediate states? Isn't a qubit system a two-state system? AG * > all the while remaining in a super position (completely isolated from the > environment that contains the quantum computer) for the duration of the > computation. The computation might have been a very long one, and may have > involved vast numbers of states simultaneously held by the qubits during > the computation. Each of these states is designed by the quantum > computation to interfere in such a way to that in most of the branches the > measured qubits will yield the same result. > > We know we can prepare a quantum computation. We know we can measure the > qubits afterwards to get the final answer. > The big question of "what is going on in the middle?" can only be answered > by resorting to asking what the theory can tell us of what the wave > function is doing to perform and implement the computation while we are not > measuring it. > *Since when does QM tell us what is happening to a wf when the system it represents is not being measured? Are you referring to decoherence theory? AG * > > If one denies the existence of the wave function > *I don't. AG * > however, it leaves no room for talking about these intermediate states > that are necessary to explain how the final result of the computation ends > up in the qubits. > > Jason > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
