On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> >>>>>>> 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 >
*But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG > > > >> >> * 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, > *See above. I am not questioning the existence and utility of the superposition itself, but the assumption that a system in a superposition is simultaneously in all component states of the superposition. AG* > 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? > *I am not convinced of the simultaneous claim. Where is it actually applied? It isn't in standard QM. AG * > > > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
