On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >> >
On the Google quantum computer, I posted this: *The hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman algorithm *(in the quantum supremacy experiment) https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/V6MDNmcFIxs/WKV_eQm_CgAJ The SFA (above) has whatever "interpretation" is needed, one would presume. @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/77fad922-bde7-4f34-9ef3-ba8484f8aaa5%40googlegroups.com.
