Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 00:52:30 -0400, Boricua Siempre wrote: Geentoo power first quantum super computer in 2101 and power all galactic cofederation computers. It was first supercomputer to crack secret of time travel in 2307 and become self conchious in 2402. Add this to /usr/portage/profile/packahe.mask now! # Masked due to megalomaniacal bugs app-misc/skynet -- Neil Bothwick Favorite Windoze game: Guess what this icon does? pgpZniiVnmyKn.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
150404 waben...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics is our basic tool to build these theories. A fundamental question is whether the mathematical axioms exist for real and we just discovered them or are they grounded by the functionality of our mind/brain ? In the latter case, it would probably be impossible for us to find the answer (42!;) Kant tried to investigate this in his Critique of Pure Reason. Aristotle also had some scattered observations on the subject. What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote: What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the physical sciences. I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10 years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable. Who wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on? Of course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire department and isn't up to it. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On 04/04/2015 02:50, waben...@gmail.com wrote: The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the question why?, and in fact, true science doesn't even try. Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic workable model. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says according to Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore... or even simplify that to matter bands space so therefore..., all the time understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real underlying truth. This is in no way a problem with science. It is by design. That's exactly the point. Theories are not the reality. They are just tools to predict the processes we are detecting (Plato's Cave). One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption, that there really exists such a rubber cloth like space. A resonant circuit can be described as a spring-mass like mechanism. But nobody would really assume that there exists little springs inside such a circuit. :-) I would say there are two related reasons behind that. Evolution has hard-wired our brains to see, observe and understand the macro world on the same scale as our bodies, so we can't directly deal with quantum or relativistic effects. A ball moving through the air we can catch is seen as a ball, not as an aggregate collection of quantum phenomena that have been observed. Nor do we think it terms of basic laws of motion to catch it - we just put out our hand and catch the ball. This impedes understanding (which is really just a by-product of processes in our brains) so we need models. If relativity successfully describes gravity as a bent space-time model, then we might as well just assume that is how it really is and work with it as such. The analogy of a resonant circuit doesn't hold up well. We can easily understand the concept of resonance as we are familiar with the concept already in nature (brains are wired to deal with it) so we don't need an elaborate model. Our brains are not at all built to deal with relativistic effects in any way, so a model isn't just useful to understand it, it is vital in dealing with it at all. My question is, this thread is fascinating and I like the subject, but what on earth does it have to do with Gentoo? :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On 04/04/2015 13:35, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote: What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the physical sciences. I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10 years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable. Who wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on? Of course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire department and isn't up to it. So it's not any different to how enterprise works then? Like the cobbled-together mush of perl and bash (that does emerge over ssh in a for loop) becomes the one critical app in all of IT that the ISO-9000 and something cert totally depends on? I've written such perl and bash myself... I recently had the pleasure of converting a small version of that to Ansible. That was fun. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Thank for de replies My english so bad because I from the future when english death languaje. Geentoo power first quantum super computer in 2101 and power all galactic cofederation computers. It was first supercomputer to crack secret of time travel in 2307 and become self conchious in 2402. I am send back to give Gentoo Linux tecnical advance. Found you not ready jet. Will revissit in 365 days. On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/04/2015 13:35, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb purs...@ca.inter.net wrote: What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users ! -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists. I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the physical sciences. I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10 years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable. Who wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on? Of course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire department and isn't up to it. So it's not any different to how enterprise works then? Like the cobbled-together mush of perl and bash (that does emerge over ssh in a for loop) becomes the one critical app in all of IT that the ISO-9000 and something cert totally depends on? I've written such perl and bash myself... I recently had the pleasure of converting a small version of that to Ansible. That was fun. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM waben...@gmail.com wrote: Boricua Siempre borikua.197...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-) And there probably never will. An operating system requires deterministic behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an expert) quantum computing can only deal with probabilities so a quantum OS would probably crash :) What we do have is the quantum equivalent of the circuits you may do on a high school computer club to add a few bits. The most complex ones may run simple algorithms but are not much more than that as far as I know. can use particols moving faster than light but on other book particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can destroy universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my english not good, still learning. I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that a quantum computer could be dangerous. :-) In fact, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction (wikipedia). I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can have a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell or a DNA molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in quantum computers. Quantum does there only means that they are using very small entities which can be described by the theories of quantum mechanic, like electron spins or quantum entangled photons. And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster than light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK there are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You probably There is a sort of analogue to a sonic boom for light speed. It happens when a particle travels faster than light in a medium. No massive particle can travel at the speed of light in vacuum but light travels much slower through a medium and particles can be accelerated much faster. It happens in nuclear reactors. Of course it doesn't destroy the universe, it just emits a blue light known a Cherenkov radiation. mean quantum teleportation. But this has nothing to to with the movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of its distance. But if you wanna know the quantum attributes of the second electron you need the information about the measurement of the first one. And because you cannot transmit this information faster than light you also cannot use quantum teleportation to really transmit information faster than light. The best laymen terms explanation I've heard of this is by Murray Gell-Mann in The Quark and the Jaguar. The state is really determined when the particles are entangled. The principle of uncertainty holds because we cannot know the state until we make the measurement but there's no spooky action at a distance. My English as well as my knowledge about quantum physics is not sufficient to explain it better. But you can find many information about the strange and also fascination aspects of quantum mechanics in the internet. Just look at wikipedia. -- Regards wabe -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote: I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly non-deterministic But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the domain of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic behaviour. /me looks over at his handy Plinko board. Just because it looks probabilistic, doesn't mean that it is. Take a cryptographic PRNG. If you know the seed, the output is completely deterministic. If you don't know the seed, you could describe the output as probabilistic, and it might look non-deterministic, but it still is. The biggest problem I have with quantum mechanics is that there is no understanding of underlying mechanisms. We have models that describe experiments, which is great, but not really a satisfying solution. I think a lot of scientists have gone on to argue that it is wrong to look for underlying mechanisms or argue that they don't exist, but I think this is just a result of the fact that nobody has found one. It seems a bit like intellectual pride: why, my and my friends have spent 30 years working hard on this, and none of us have solved it, so the problem must be unsolvable. It is possible they are right, but it is also possible that they are not, and there certainly is no concrete evidence one way or the other, just a lot of hand-waving. The beauty of a good explanation of mechanisms is that it takes behavior that previously relied on complicated models and such, and suddenly causes it to make sense and look simple. We just don't have that for quantum mechanics yet. Absent such an explanation, I am skeptical that we really can claim to know what is truly going on. That doesn't mean the models themselves aren't useful, or that there aren't MANY practical benefits arising from our current understanding of quantum mechanics. I just think that statements like the universe is non-deterministic are reaching a bit further than our current grasp. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:30 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote: waben...@gmail.com wrote: with the movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of its distance. Correction: I meant photons and not electrons. Sorry for this. Since others have done a decent job explaining some of the basics here, I'll just point out that quantum affects apply to all matter and energy, not just photons. It just doesn't tend to be noticeable for anything of significant size except in very unusual situations. Electrons are fundamental particles (as best we know) and are very much subject to quantum effects. In particular the wavelike characteristics of photons are responsible for behavior like the UV absorbance of your suntan lotion, or the fact that just about anything that conducts electricity well tends to look metallic/shiny even if it doesn't contain something you'd consider metal. I remember the first time somebody showed me a conductive polymer and marveling that it looked like a little strip of metal-coated plastic that you might find connecting two circuit boards (this was back in the 90s - conductive polyers are a bit more mainstream now). In truth, the wavelike characteristics of electrons are important for virtually all aspects of their behavior since they are so small, but I'm just pointing out some manifestations that are more visible to the naked eye. I agree with the earlier comment that I doubt you'd ever try to run a general-purpose operating system on a quantum computer. If they ever became truly mainstream the most likely configuration would be as a separate module that would be utilized for certain problems, much like a DSP or a GPU or an FPGA often gets used today. They are non-deterministic in nature (or are at least thought to be and might as well be for practical purposes - I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly non-deterministic). Most quantum algorithms would be paired with conventional computers. If a quantum chip tells you that there is a 95% cumulative chance that somebody's private key is one of these 50 candidates, that is probably more than adequate since you can brute force 50 keys in a millisecond and find the right one. They're going to tend to be used for needle in a haystack problems where once you get rid of 99.% of the haystack the problem is no longer difficult. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote: I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly non-deterministic But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the domain of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic behaviour. -- Rgds Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Friday, April 03, 2015 8:03:12 AM Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote: I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly non-deterministic But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the domain of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic behaviour. /me looks over at his handy Plinko board. Just because it looks probabilistic, doesn't mean that it is. Take a cryptographic PRNG. If you know the seed, the output is completely deterministic. If you don't know the seed, you could describe the output as probabilistic, and it might look non-deterministic, but it still is. There's an explanation for uncertainty that makes common sense. Let's say I throw you a ball, you can catch it because you take many measurements of it's location and your brain tries to predict it's path. But this only works because the ball is so massive and the photons that we use to see it are massless so the effect of them colliding with the ball is neglible. Imagine if the only way you could see the ball was by throwing another ball at it and seeing where it landed, it would then be nearly impossible to predict it's path because everytime you measure it you'll get it of course, so the principle of uncertainty would hold even though the ball was really on a well defined path. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Heisenberg.27s_microscope Some claims still boggle my mind (superposition in macroscopic objects), like the tunning fork (probably a quartz crystal) experiment on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition#Experiments_and_applications But that's just one sentence stating that the tuning fork can be in a superposition of the vibrating and non-vibrating state but I'm sure if you find more info about the experiment is not as fantastic as it sounds. If we ever figure this to be wrong it'll probably just obsolete quantum physics so instead of deterministic quantum computing we'll have something else. The biggest problem I have with quantum mechanics is that there is no understanding of underlying mechanisms. We have models that describe experiments, which is great, but not really a satisfying solution. I That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. Take gravity as an example. We got really good models for it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than anything else we've come up with so far. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:06:30PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote: I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly non-deterministic But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the domain of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic behaviour. Example... Young's double slit experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment The classical wave explanation gives the characteristic interference fringes as per... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Classical_wave-optics_formulation Quantum mechanics gives the same output, but uses an extremely ugly probability equation the get the result. So what happens when you have an extremely weak light source such that only one photon is present in the device at any time? Surely it won't have anything to interfere with and cause a diffraction pattern? Wrong. The exact same interference fringe pattern shows up, although it obviously takes longer for the photographic film to expose. This effect even works when sending electrons 1-at-a-time through a double slit filter (Taylor's Experiment) http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/QuantumMechanics.html -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Saturday 04 April 2015 00:02:02 Peter Humphrey wrote: Its job is to explain show this is how the world works. s/show// -- Rgds Peter.
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to physics. Science does not answer the question why?. That isn't its job. Its job is to explain show this is how the world works. I think the ultimate goal though is to get down to root cause. I can have a model that does a great job explaining the behavior of a magnet without ever mentioning what a photon or electron is. However, compared to our current understanding of electromagnetism such a model is rather poor. This is how science has worked for hundreds of years. It has really only become a fashion in the last few decades to lower the bar and say well, we'll probably never understand how this works - that isn't science's job - my theory predicts the results of most of the experiments we can do within some realm of precision and that is good enough. As I said, I think this is hubris. We think that the fact that we haven't figured out the answer means that nobody can figure out the answer. It seems to me that prodigious amounts of time, energy and money are being squandered on trying to find a graviton when no such beast is required to exist. Gravity, as Einstein taught us, is an emergent effect of mass in space-time. It isn't a force; it's an effect. Yet how many theorists and experimenters are thrashing themselves trying to find this imaginary particle which is supposed to moderate this imaginary force? It might have something to do with the fact that gravity as described by relativity doesn't account for the behavior of matter at small scales and high densities, or for the overall structure of the universe. Clearly SOMETHING is missing. Maybe that something is something other than gravity, but you can't rule out gravity not working the way we think it works. Plus, warping of space is a great concept, but what is it about massive objects that causes space to warp? Is there some underlying mechanism at work? No mechanism is required because no process is operating. You have no proof of this assertion at all. Certainly there is no proof to the contrary either, but we know that our understanding of gravity is incomplete at best, so it seems a bit odd to stop investigating on the basis that we have it all figured out already. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. Take gravity as an example. We got really good models for it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than anything else we've come up with so far. The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the question why?, and in fact, true science doesn't even try. Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic workable model. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says according to Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore... or even simplify that to matter bands space so therefore..., all the time understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real underlying truth. This is in no way a problem with science. It is by design. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Friday, April 03, 2015 7:30:09 PM Rich Freeman wrote: Well, the quantum mechanic would say that the position of the ball was indeterminate until it was measured. The probability of it being in any particular position is given by some function that agrees with experiment very well. And indeed he would be right, in the sense that we cannot determine it. If you measure it many times even though each measurement affect the trajectory you'll learn that some positions are more likely than others and you may even catch it sometimes :) The problem is that it is really hard to distinguish that reality from a reality where the ball followed a well-defined trajectory the whole time, and we just don't know what it is until we measure it. As others have pointed out, the classic quantum mechanics explanation relies heavily on the concept of an observer which is a bit odd. Should the behavior of a particle depend on whether anybody is watching it? I agree. And it is especially hard to tell what they mean by those words (just like in technology we use common words with a different meaning) or if they even know what they mean themselves :). Sometimes they use misleading terms in order to make the theory popular (and get funded). -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
on Thursday 02 April 2015 18:33:06，Boricua Siempre wrote： From: Boricua Siempre borikua.197...@gmail.com To: gentoo-user gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Date: Yesterday 06:33:06 Hello I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers can use particols moving faster than light but on other book particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can destroy universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my english not good, still learning. particols are not faster than light. when you mesure quantum A to have state A, then you can assume quantum B is in state B. but there is no information transfer, because the one that mesure the remote quantum B don't know your mesurement, you have to pass the result by ordinary method, which is still slower than light.
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Saturday, April 04, 2015 1:57:19 AM Alan McKinnon wrote: On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. Take gravity as an example. We got really good models for it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than anything else we've come up with so far. The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the question why?, and in fact, true science doesn't even try. Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic workable model. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says according to Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore... or even simplify that to matter bands space so therefore..., all the time understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real underlying truth. This is in no way a problem with science. It is by design. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Should've read more like If that's a problem with quantum physics then it's a problem with science in general... -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:50:37 AM waben...@gmail.com wrote: One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption, that there really exists such a rubber cloth like space. I think it's because he did believe that (and he may be right, it is so far the best explanation we have despite it shortcommings). The words he uses on the book to describe it IIRC is shape shifting mollusk, which probably sounds better in German. Most of the models built on it depend on it being a very real thing and it does explain a lot of things: expansion, red/blue shift, background radiation, etc. The big bang as we understand it today requires no only that space can bend but that it expanded faster than light. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
waben...@gmail.com wrote: We should not forget that the lasers that can be found in CD drives, the magnetic heads in modern hard disks, and also every FET are working with technology that is based on quantum effects. I never Correction: I meant TFET and not FET. -- Regards wabe
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote: On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM waben...@gmail.com wrote: Boricua Siempre borikua.197...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-) And there probably never will. An operating system requires deterministic behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an expert) quantum computing can only deal with probabilities so a quantum OS would probably crash :) I think that I first misunderstood you. I thought you mean that an OS will crash on a computer that is partially based on quantum components. But now I realized that you probably mean that there will never be a computer that is completely based on quantum technology. But if some well known proprietary OS is using quantum technology, it would explain its sometimes unpredictable behavior. ;-) -- Regards wabe
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote: There's an explanation for uncertainty that makes common sense. Let's say I throw you a ball, you can catch it because you take many measurements of it's location and your brain tries to predict it's path. But this only works because the ball is so massive and the photons that we use to see it are massless so the effect of them colliding with the ball is neglible. Imagine if the only way you could see the ball was by throwing another ball at it and seeing where it landed, it would then be nearly impossible to predict it's path because everytime you measure it you'll get it of course, so the principle of uncertainty would hold even though the ball was really on a well defined path. Well, the quantum mechanic would say that the position of the ball was indeterminate until it was measured. The probability of it being in any particular position is given by some function that agrees with experiment very well. The problem is that it is really hard to distinguish that reality from a reality where the ball followed a well-defined trajectory the whole time, and we just don't know what it is until we measure it. As others have pointed out, the classic quantum mechanics explanation relies heavily on the concept of an observer which is a bit odd. Should the behavior of a particle depend on whether anybody is watching it? If we ever figure this to be wrong it'll probably just obsolete quantum physics so instead of deterministic quantum computing we'll have something else. Absolutely true. Quantum mechanics could possibly be a theory that gives the right answer for the wrong reasons. I'm not knocking it, because it is the best theory we have. It is just incredibly unsatisfying as a theory. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote: On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM waben...@gmail.com wrote: Boricua Siempre borikua.197...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-) And there probably never will. An operating system requires deterministic behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an expert) quantum computing can only deal with probabilities so a quantum OS would probably crash :) But isn't the stability of Linux and BSD running on a non deterministic hardware not proofed some years ago by the Pentium FDIV bug? ;-) More seriously, I don't think that in the forseeable future computers will be based only on quantum components. They probably will only be used as an additional arithmetic unit for some specific calculations. Therefore I don't think that the stability of an OS will be disturbed by the fact that these components are based on non deterministic quantum physics. We should not forget that the lasers that can be found in CD drives, the magnetic heads in modern hard disks, and also every FET are working with technology that is based on quantum effects. I never heard that any OS has problems with these components. Ok, maybe I'm wrong regarding CD players/writers. Their non deterministic behavior sometimes has driven me crazy. ;-) What we do have is the quantum equivalent of the circuits you may do on a high school computer club to add a few bits. The most complex ones may run simple algorithms but are not much more than that as far as I know. can use particols moving faster than light but on other book particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can destroy universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my english not good, still learning. I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that a quantum computer could be dangerous. :-) In fact, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction (wikipedia). I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can have a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell or a DNA molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in quantum computers. Quantum does there only means that they are using very small entities which can be described by the theories of quantum mechanic, like electron spins or quantum entangled photons. And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster than light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK there are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You probably There is a sort of analogue to a sonic boom for light speed. It happens when a particle travels faster than light in a medium. No massive particle can travel at the speed of light in vacuum but light travels much slower through a medium and particles can be accelerated much faster. It happens in nuclear reactors. Of course it doesn't destroy the universe, it just emits a blue light known a Cherenkov radiation. That's right and I'm aware of this phenomenon. But when I spoke about light speed, I meant the light speed in vacuum of course. mean quantum teleportation. But this has nothing to to with the movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of its distance. But if you wanna know the quantum attributes of the second electron you need the information about the measurement of the first one. And because you cannot transmit this information faster than light you also cannot use quantum teleportation to really transmit information faster than light. The best laymen terms explanation I've heard of this is by Murray Gell-Mann in The Quark and the Jaguar. The state is really determined when the particles are entangled. The principle of uncertainty holds because we cannot know the state until we make the measurement but there's no spooky action at a distance. That would maybe be a solution for this problem and Einstein would probably be glad to hear about it. :-) But I think that it is very difficult to proof this theory. Damn language barrier. I can't really express what I'm thinking. But I will try. :-) If our universe is just a part of something
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. Take gravity as an example. We got really good models for it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than anything else we've come up with so far. The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the question why?, and in fact, true science doesn't even try. Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic workable model. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says according to Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore... or even simplify that to matter bands space so therefore..., all the time understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real underlying truth. This is in no way a problem with science. It is by design. That's exactly the point. Theories are not the reality. They are just tools to predict the processes we are detecting (Plato's Cave). One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption, that there really exists such a rubber cloth like space. A resonant circuit can be described as a spring-mass like mechanism. But nobody would really assume that there exists little springs inside such a circuit. :-) -- Regards wabe
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to physics. Science does not answer the question why?. That isn't its job. Its job is to explain show this is how the world works. I think the ultimate goal though is to get down to root cause. I can have a model that does a great job explaining the behavior of a magnet without ever mentioning what a photon or electron is. However, compared to our current understanding of electromagnetism such a model is rather poor. This is how science has worked for hundreds of years. It has really only become a fashion in the last few decades to lower the bar and say well, we'll probably never understand how this works - that isn't science's job - my theory predicts the results of most of the experiments we can do within some realm of precision and that is good enough. As I said, I think this is hubris. We think that the fact that we haven't figured out the answer means that nobody can figure out the answer. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm tending to assume that we can't figure out what's really behind the scene as a matter of principle. I think that all we can do is making theories which are able to predict the processes that we are detect. Mathematics is our basic tool to build these theories. A fundamental question is, whether the mathematical axioms are existing for real and we just discovered them or are they grounded by the functionality of our mind/brain. In the latter case it would probably be impossible for us to find the answer. (42!;) Nevertheless we always should try to get a deeper understanding of the underlaying mechanisms. But I really have my doubts that we ever will reaching the ground, if there is one at all. And even if there is something like a absolute reality or a reason for everything, we maybe are not able to really understand it. -- Regards wabe
Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Saturday, April 04, 2015 12:02:02 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: No, it's stronger than that. Einstein showed us how it works. The consequence of having a certain concentration of mass /here/ is to distort space-time just /so/ in the region of /here/. No mechanism is required because no process is operating. Einstein probably heard something very similar. No, Newton showed us how it works. The idea of matter bending space was considered so ridiculous that it made him a laughing stock. Even later when when experimental data showed that his equations worked so well the general idea was still not accepted and he didn't get a Nobel Prize for it. The math also had to be revised several times to succeed where Newton's failed most obviously, to plot the orbit of Mercury and it still breaks down at the quantum level and inside black holes as Rich mentioned. The point being that science is always a work in progress. -- Fernando Rodriguez
[OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able to answer is why?. I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to physics. Science does not answer the question why?. That isn't its job. Its job is to explain show this is how the world works. Take gravity as an example. We [have] really good models for it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than anything else we've come up with so far. No, it's stronger than that. Einstein showed us how it works. The consequence of having a certain concentration of mass /here/ is to distort space-time just /so/ in the region of /here/. No mechanism is required because no process is operating. It seems to me that prodigious amounts of time, energy and money are being squandered on trying to find a graviton when no such beast is required to exist. Gravity, as Einstein taught us, is an emergent effect of mass in space-time. It isn't a force; it's an effect. Yet how many theorists and experimenters are thrashing themselves trying to find this imaginary particle which is supposed to moderate this imaginary force? Of course it's natural to wish to fill in the blanks in the standard models, but it's too easy to lose sight of what's beyond the end of one's nose. Just look at that other profligate waste of resources: string theory. It has beauty, but it does not correspond to reality in any practical way. So why are whole university faculties around the world staffed with nobody other than string theorists? -- Rgds Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Friday 03 April 2015 01:33:45 Ivan Viso Altamirano wrote: As far as i know , there isnt any Quantum os out there Not only no OS, but no hardware either. I don't see Gentoo having a quantum version any time soon ;-) -- Rgds Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
I forgot again . As far as i know , there isnt any Quantum os out there . Just qcpus performing a very simple algorythm. Because the particles still cant hold their state for long enough.
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Boricua Siempre borikua.197...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-) can use particols moving faster than light but on other book particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can destroy universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my english not good, still learning. I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that a quantum computer could be dangerous. :-) In fact, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction (wikipedia). I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can have a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell or a DNA molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in quantum computers. Quantum does there only means that they are using very small entities which can be described by the theories of quantum mechanic, like electron spins or quantum entangled photons. And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster than light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK there are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You probably mean quantum teleportation. But this has nothing to to with the movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of its distance. But if you wanna know the quantum attributes of the second electron you need the information about the measurement of the first one. And because you cannot transmit this information faster than light you also cannot use quantum teleportation to really transmit information faster than light. My English as well as my knowledge about quantum physics is not sufficient to explain it better. But you can find many information about the strange and also fascination aspects of quantum mechanics in the internet. Just look at wikipedia. -- Regards wabe
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Ii think it is about Quantum bonds . In wich 2 particles share the same State at any distance .
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
On Friday, April 03, 2015 1:25:59 AM Ivan Viso Altamirano wrote: Ii think it is about Quantum bonds . In wich 2 particles share the same State at any distance . And about PhDs extracting research funds from politicians :) -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
Btw . If the universe where that easy yo destroy ,it would already be destroyed. Is just an estadistic question . Is just very improbable that we are the most advanced lifeform in it . All if this written bi phone El 03/04/2015 01:25, Ivan Viso Altamirano ivanviso...@gmail.com escribió: Ii think it is about Quantum bonds . In wich 2 particles share the same State at any distance .
Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer
waben...@gmail.com wrote: with the movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of its distance. Correction: I meant photons and not electrons. Sorry for this. -- Regards wabe
