On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, [email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do >>>>>> you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are not >>>>>> there? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both slits >>>>>> in the same world...thus being non-local. >>>>>> >>>>>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a wave >>>>>> of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one world” >>>>>> is >>>>>> well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and Mechanism. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a >>>>> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you >>>>> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in >>>>> woo-woo >>>>> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this >>>>> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG * >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one >>>> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be because >>>> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any >>>> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes us >>>> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG* >>>> >>>> >>>> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits. >>>> If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a >>>> “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in >>>> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by >>>> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all >>>> results obtained in the parallel branches. >>>> >>> >>> *No. It's all nonsense. AG * >>> >>>> >>>> >> No it's something you can already buy and use today: >> >> >> >> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/ >> >> Jason >> > > *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum interpretation > of the superposition of states -- that a system in a superposition is in > ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where that INTERPRETATION is > used in quantum computers.* >
It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit > > * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory. It's > a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be eliminated. > AG* > You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits enter the superposition of all possible states, which is why it becomes exponentially hard to predict what happens with a larger number of qubits in a quantum computer. This is why large scale quantum computers must be built, we can't just simulate them with regular computers because the number of states it is simultaneously in quickly becomes enourmous: 1 qubit: 2 states 5 qubits: 32 states (you can use this quantum computer for free on the link I provided) 10 qubits: 1024 states 20 qubits: 1,048,576 states (you can pay to use this quantum computer today) 30 qubits: 1,073,741,824 states 50 qubits: 1,125,899,906,842,624 states (IBM recently built a quantum computer with 50 qubits <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609451/ibm-raises-the-bar-with-a-50-qubit-quantum-computer/> ) 100 qubits: 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 states 200 qubits: 1,606,938,044,258,990,275,541,962,092,341,162,602,522,202,993,782,792,835,301,376 states 1000 qubits: 10,715,086,071,862,673,209,484,250,490,600,018,105,614,048,117,055,336,074,437,503,883,703,510,511,249,361,224,931,983,788,156,958,581,275,946,729,175,531,468,251,871,452,856,923,140,435,984,577,574,698,574,803,934,567,774,824,230,985,421,074,605,062,371,141,877,954,182,153,046,474,983,581,941,267,398,767,559,165,543,946,077,062,914,571,196,477,686,542,167,660,429,831,652,624,386,837,205,668,069,376 states We know of nothing in principal that can accurately simulate the behavior of a system of 1000 entangled atoms in a reasonable period of time besides a quantum computer. The reason is the number above (2^1000) is so large that ant attempt to simulate it will fail due to physical limits of time, energy, and space within this universe. So if the computational capacity of this universe is insufficient to compute what this system of 1000 qubits will do, what in physics is known which has the sufficiently large state and computational capacity to perform such a calculation? Answer: the wave function At the current time, there is no other known answer nor any hint of another theory that can explain the power of quantum computers. The only answer we have is that the wave function is something that is physically real. > > *WRT the MWI, it's too tortured and extravagant to be in the ballpark of > reality. AG* > Do you have an alternate theory for how quantum computers can be in so many states simultaneously? Jason > If you can explain all this without FTL in one unique physical reality, >>>> then write a paper and publish, you will be famous. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Brent >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> -- > 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. > -- 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.
