On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:11:41 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:40:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the >>>>> decoherence >>>>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a >>>>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead >>>>> > during any duration? Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG >>>>> >>>>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period >>>>> seconds. >>>>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the >>>>> cat >>>>> is both alive and dead. >>>>> >>>>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with >>>>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was >>>>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the >>>>> cat >>>>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was >>>>> closed until someone looked in. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of >>>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened >>>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short >>>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead> >>>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was >>>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just >>>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not >>>> resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or >>>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the >>>> radioactive >>>> source. AG >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum >>> computer)? >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> I am not familiar with the theory on which quantum computers are based, >> so I >> cannot answer this question. AG >> > > > > > My point i really that quantum computers with actual (physical) qubits are > running in labs (IBM, Google, ...) as we speak. >
The issue is whether the interpretation of superposition I object to, is somehow necessary for quantum computers to function. Is it? AG They are real things manifesting all the basic questions about quantum > phenomena being posed. So it makes more sense to answer the questions about > real things than thought-experiment examples. > > In an OpenQASM program, what is happening (superpositions?, > entanglements?) in the physical quantum computer when it runs? > > @philipthrift > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58c2403b-0efe-4621-bed1-84ea5767789e%40googlegroups.com.
