I have hypothese that Pauli matrices don't exist. fermion only have two quantized magnetic moments and spin up and spin down. And it can have phase only if it moving like photon. So according to my teory electron is like photon and to it can't be added pauli matrices. Electron is reletivized photon and don't have any pauli matrices, but can made phase shift if he flying like in double slit experiment, interferencing. Photon reflecting changing him phase. electron maybe also can change his phase by reflecting from some medium. So electron is just probabilistic particle which spin aligning according local magnetic field. And have probabilistic properties. I don't understand how scientist found that electron have phase properties when it's don't moving? Of course it moving along it orbit and around itself axis, but how phase relate with this? And if nobody can't nothing change or creat from pauli matrices then i can think that they don't exist. And how scientists in ~1950 esstimate that pauli matrices exist. They don't have at that time any precisly nanodevices for experiments.
If pauli matrices realy wrong and don't exist then all protein folding and molecules all reactions can be explained without pauli matrices. Proteins flods, becouse electrons goes to lower energy levels and so becoming coloumb force and atoms becoming fold in spiral... Deasise why protein misfold can be explained what some DNA mutation was or alcohol atom kick out protein atom, etc. Why for nature need pauli matrices if it can work without pauli matrices properties?
And that if entanglement don't exist at all? Becouse GRAD, where not 90 degrees but 100 grad... So then maximum diferent between classic and quantum is when si 78 grad: (sin78)^2-0.78=0.105256621. So only ~10 grads maximum possible diferent between classical entanglement matching and quantum faster than light. So maybe only single photon superpositio is posible like single electron and maybe entanglement between electrons don't exist?
So electron having spin which can be detected only with some probability and having quantum values 1/2 and -1/2. Electron is a wave only in two slit experiment and in don't moving conditions he behaving like probabilistic "spinor". Entanglement between two photons or electrons possible only if they are or go from the same condition. In over ways entanglement is imposible. Mutching probability is not classicaly and depending on amplitude physics, becouse in hiden phorm entagnlement rotation amplitudes weights, whats a little bit diferent than just probability. And similar to superposition this probabilistic weights.
Not exist any reletivized pauli matrices (dirac matrices), only exist reletivized mass and time. If supose was particle-electron an if turn on field he align to this field if this field change than it becoming in superposition to be aligned with one or with another side of magnetic moment. If to add aditional magnetic field then it's rapidly aligning to sumarized field in superposition and no any phase shift and interference. Demn how they check does realy exist pauli matrces effects?
So electron having spin which can be detected only with some probability and having quantum values 1/2 and -1/2. Electron is a wave only in two slit experiment and in don't moving conditions he behaving like probabilistic "spinor". Entanglement between two photons or electrons possible only if they are or go from the same condition. In over ways entanglement is imposible. Mutching probability is not classicaly and depending on amplitude physics, becouse in hiden phorm entagnlement rotation amplitudes weights, whats a little bit diferent than just probability. And similar to superposition this probabilistic weights.
Not exist any reletivized pauli matrices (dirac matrices), only exist reletivized mass and time. If supose was particle-electron an if turn on field he align to this field if this field change than it becoming in superposition to be aligned with one or with another side of magnetic moment. If to add aditional magnetic field then it's rapidly aligning to sumarized field in superposition and no any phase shift and interference. Demn how they check does realy exist pauli matrces effects?
So rotation at most can be 0.1 diferent from 1. I am now thinking, can this 10% diferent be from imperfect measurment? Then it's proofs that in entangled photons not exist any superfaster than light iliusion, communication.
Here some results with gratients:
(sin10)^2-0.1=0.0245-0.1=-0.0755528258
(sin20)^2-0.2=-0.104508497
(sin30)^2-0.3=-0.093892626
(sin40)^2-0.4=-0.054508497
(sin50)^2-0.5=0
(sin60)^2-0.6=0.054508497
(sin70)^2-0.7=0.093892626
(sin78)^2-0.78=0.105256621
(sin80)^2-0.8=0.104508497
(sin90)^2-0.9=0.075528258
So maybe this maximum 0.105 diferent is error, I mean 10% measurment is error?
Similary to Enstein reletivistic teory. It's almost nothing changing if I will write enstein formula like this:
mreletivistic=m/(1-v/c).
In original reletivisti formula:
mrel=m/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5
Only roughly two digits is farhter than in my formula. So this two digits may be error of low precision measurment by scientist maybe? So my formula can be wright.
in my formula x*10^7.
If x is 1, then answer is 1.034482759;
If x is 2, then answer is 1.071428571;
If x is 9 then answer is 1.428571429.
In enstein forumla x*10^7:
If x is 1 then 1.0005561019;
If x is 2 then 1.002229657;
If x is 9 then 1.048284837.
If speed of object very big then also about two orders of magnitude diferent.
In my formula v=x*10^8:
if x is 1 then answer is 1.5;
If x is 2 then answer is 3;
If x=2.9 then answer is 30;
If x=2.999 then answer is 3000.
In enshtein formula x*10^8:
if x=1 then answer is 1.060660172;
If x=2 then 1.341640787;
If x=2.9 then 3.905667329;
If x=2.999 then mass increasing 38.73306137 times.
So about two orders of magnitude diferent maybe my formula is correct and enshteins wrong? Or maybe correct this: 1/(1-(v/c)^2) - how much times increasing mass.?
Here some results with gratients:
(sin10)^2-0.1=0.0245-0.1=-0.0755528258
(sin20)^2-0.2=-0.104508497
(sin30)^2-0.3=-0.093892626
(sin40)^2-0.4=-0.054508497
(sin50)^2-0.5=0
(sin60)^2-0.6=0.054508497
(sin70)^2-0.7=0.093892626
(sin78)^2-0.78=0.105256621
(sin80)^2-0.8=0.104508497
(sin90)^2-0.9=0.075528258
So maybe this maximum 0.105 diferent is error, I mean 10% measurment is error?
Similary to Enstein reletivistic teory. It's almost nothing changing if I will write enstein formula like this:
mreletivistic=m/(1-v/c).
In original reletivisti formula:
mrel=m/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5
Only roughly two digits is farhter than in my formula. So this two digits may be error of low precision measurment by scientist maybe? So my formula can be wright.
in my formula x*10^7.
If x is 1, then answer is 1.034482759;
If x is 2, then answer is 1.071428571;
If x is 9 then answer is 1.428571429.
In enstein forumla x*10^7:
If x is 1 then 1.0005561019;
If x is 2 then 1.002229657;
If x is 9 then 1.048284837.
If speed of object very big then also about two orders of magnitude diferent.
In my formula v=x*10^8:
if x is 1 then answer is 1.5;
If x is 2 then answer is 3;
If x=2.9 then answer is 30;
If x=2.999 then answer is 3000.
In enshtein formula x*10^8:
if x=1 then answer is 1.060660172;
If x=2 then 1.341640787;
If x=2.9 then 3.905667329;
If x=2.999 then mass increasing 38.73306137 times.
So about two orders of magnitude diferent maybe my formula is correct and enshteins wrong? Or maybe correct this: 1/(1-(v/c)^2) - how much times increasing mass.?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 15 2007, 04:27 PM)
(sin50)^2-0.5=0
Wrong.
Wrong.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 15 2007, 04:27 PM)
It's almost nothing changing if I will write enstein formula like this:mreletivistic=m/(1-v/c).
You can't just randomly change equations like that.
Besides, if I put in v=-c your equation if finite, while the physics is symmetric under v->-v.
Besides, if I put in v=-c your equation if finite, while the physics is symmetric under v->-v.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 15 2007, 04:27 PM)
Only roughly two digits is farhter than in my formula. So this two digits may be error of low precision measurment by scientist maybe? So my formula can be wright.
Experiments are much more accurate than 2 decimal places!
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 15 2007, 04:27 PM)
maybe my formula is correct and enshteins wrong?
You don't even have to do any experiments you know your equation is wrong.
And as for your original post, I'm certain you know nothing about quantum spin algebras.
And as for your original post, I'm certain you know nothing about quantum spin algebras.
(sin50)^2 - 0.5 = 0 is right! Becouse everything there is in GRAD! 2pi in grad is 400.
I also think that precision is more precisly than two orders of magnitude, but at all big diferents no between my and enshtein formula.
Yes I nothing know about pauli matrices algebra, but it's don't removing possibility of not existion of pauli matrices. How scientist do experiment to obtain pauli matrices?
I also think that precision is more precisly than two orders of magnitude, but at all big diferents no between my and enshtein formula.
Yes I nothing know about pauli matrices algebra, but it's don't removing possibility of not existion of pauli matrices. How scientist do experiment to obtain pauli matrices?
Here I found some realations, but first some operations:
(1)
(0)=|0>;
(0)
(1)=|1>;
Pauli X matrice is:
(0 1)
(1 0)=X;
(0 -i)
(i 0)=Y;
(1 0)
(0 -1)=Z.
Operations on bit:
X|0>=|1>; X|1>=|0>;
Y|0>=i|1>; Y|1>=-i|0>;
Z|0>=|1>; Z|1>=-|1>.
So what realations I found?
Let's look on bloach sphere:
cosA|0>+(cosB+isinB)sinA|1>,
where 0<A<90; 0<B<360.
(cosA)^2+(sinA)^2=1
and (cosB+isinB) descrobing |1> phase.
Bloch sphere can be written in another way:
n=xcos(B)sin(A)+ysin(B)cos(A)+zcosA,
0<A<90; 0<B<360;
where x, y and z is projection on x, y and z axis in Bloch sphere.
And (cos(B)sin(A))^2+(sin(B)cos(A))^2+(cosA)^2=1.
So Pauli X matrix is rotation about y axis on Bloch sphere 90 degrees and then need imagine that x axis is |0> and z axis is |1>: cosA=cos90 for |1> and sinA=sin90 for |0>. sin90 to rotate from |0> to |1>.
Pauli Z matrix is rotation about z axis, where you need imagine that x axis is |0> and z axis represent |1>, so then phase of |0> don't changing and phase of |1> changing 180 degrees, becouse rotation is 180 degrees on bloch sphere about z axis: cosB+isinB=cos180+isin180.
Rotation of pauli Y matrix in bloch sphere don't want fit in!
A little bit correction.
For pauli X matrix correction don't need, becouse it's rotatio about y axis 90 degrees to flip between two ortoganal states.
Correction for Z pauli matrix saying that somthing wrong...
Here I can say, that on sphere |0> and |1> are on opposite sides of sphere, but rotating need rotate two times more to change phase, but the same amount to change from |0> to |1> or visaversa.
How those scientists estimate that pauli matrices exist it's unclear to me until now...
So I am sceptical about pauli matrices properties existation, becouse can found any experiment, which prove it.
(1)
(0)=|0>;
(0)
(1)=|1>;
Pauli X matrice is:
(0 1)
(1 0)=X;
(0 -i)
(i 0)=Y;
(1 0)
(0 -1)=Z.
Operations on bit:
X|0>=|1>; X|1>=|0>;
Y|0>=i|1>; Y|1>=-i|0>;
Z|0>=|1>; Z|1>=-|1>.
So what realations I found?
Let's look on bloach sphere:
cosA|0>+(cosB+isinB)sinA|1>,
where 0<A<90; 0<B<360.
(cosA)^2+(sinA)^2=1
and (cosB+isinB) descrobing |1> phase.
Bloch sphere can be written in another way:
n=xcos(B)sin(A)+ysin(B)cos(A)+zcosA,
0<A<90; 0<B<360;
where x, y and z is projection on x, y and z axis in Bloch sphere.
And (cos(B)sin(A))^2+(sin(B)cos(A))^2+(cosA)^2=1.
So Pauli X matrix is rotation about y axis on Bloch sphere 90 degrees and then need imagine that x axis is |0> and z axis is |1>: cosA=cos90 for |1> and sinA=sin90 for |0>. sin90 to rotate from |0> to |1>.
Pauli Z matrix is rotation about z axis, where you need imagine that x axis is |0> and z axis represent |1>, so then phase of |0> don't changing and phase of |1> changing 180 degrees, becouse rotation is 180 degrees on bloch sphere about z axis: cosB+isinB=cos180+isin180.
Rotation of pauli Y matrix in bloch sphere don't want fit in!
A little bit correction.
For pauli X matrix correction don't need, becouse it's rotatio about y axis 90 degrees to flip between two ortoganal states.
Correction for Z pauli matrix saying that somthing wrong...
Here I can say, that on sphere |0> and |1> are on opposite sides of sphere, but rotating need rotate two times more to change phase, but the same amount to change from |0> to |1> or visaversa.
How those scientists estimate that pauli matrices exist it's unclear to me until now...
So I am sceptical about pauli matrices properties existation, becouse can found any experiment, which prove it.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 11:20 AM)
So I am sceptical about pauli matrices properties existation, becouse can found any experiment, which prove it.
Matrices are mathematical concepts, they are not physical entities. There isn't a 2x2 complex matrix hidden under a rock somewhere in the universe, waiting to be found, it's a concept.
What brings them to the attention of physicists is their structure. The Pauli matrices form a Lie algebra, with the property :
[X_a,X_b] = 2i ε_abc X_c
In other words, the difference between the applying two spin matrices in one order compared to the reverse order is actually a linear combination of single matrices.
Suppose I've got a state |Ψ>. Doesn't matter what, it's true in general. I'll get another state by applying X_1 to it, (X_1)|Ψ>. If I apply X_2 to that, I get (X_2)(X_1)|Ψ>. Suppose I do it in reverse, to get (X_1)(X_2)|Ψ>. Are these two the same? Well I juse have to work out (X_2)(X_1)|Ψ> - (X_1)(X_2)|Ψ>. Turns out, this is exactly the same as -2i (X_3)|Ψ>.
When we measure and examine the spins of quantum systems, particular things like angular momentum, this is exactly the property we see! Rotations of the system are not independent of the order you perform them.
The Pauli matrices are a representation of the Lie algebra of SU(2). There are higher dimensional versions of this or extensions. For instance, SO(3,1) is the symmetry of Minkowski space-time. The Lie algebra of SO(3,1), L(SO(3,1)) is the sum of two set of Pauli matrices. This is seen by the physics of spinors. Dirac 4-spinors decompose into two sets of Weyl 2-spinors. The properties of these lead directly through into experimental results.
Why don't you bother to learn about the matrices from a book rather than skim reading Wikipedia and making a load of BS up?
Matrices are mathematical concepts, they are not physical entities. There isn't a 2x2 complex matrix hidden under a rock somewhere in the universe, waiting to be found, it's a concept.
What brings them to the attention of physicists is their structure. The Pauli matrices form a Lie algebra, with the property :
[X_a,X_b] = 2i ε_abc X_c
In other words, the difference between the applying two spin matrices in one order compared to the reverse order is actually a linear combination of single matrices.
Suppose I've got a state |Ψ>. Doesn't matter what, it's true in general. I'll get another state by applying X_1 to it, (X_1)|Ψ>. If I apply X_2 to that, I get (X_2)(X_1)|Ψ>. Suppose I do it in reverse, to get (X_1)(X_2)|Ψ>. Are these two the same? Well I juse have to work out (X_2)(X_1)|Ψ> - (X_1)(X_2)|Ψ>. Turns out, this is exactly the same as -2i (X_3)|Ψ>.
When we measure and examine the spins of quantum systems, particular things like angular momentum, this is exactly the property we see! Rotations of the system are not independent of the order you perform them.
The Pauli matrices are a representation of the Lie algebra of SU(2). There are higher dimensional versions of this or extensions. For instance, SO(3,1) is the symmetry of Minkowski space-time. The Lie algebra of SO(3,1), L(SO(3,1)) is the sum of two set of Pauli matrices. This is seen by the physics of spinors. Dirac 4-spinors decompose into two sets of Weyl 2-spinors. The properties of these lead directly through into experimental results.
Why don't you bother to learn about the matrices from a book rather than skim reading Wikipedia and making a load of BS up?
I don't think that in book would be somthing more than algebra... I want know in what conditions electron behave according to pauli matrices? What need experimentaly to do to electron that it behave according this algebra?
It's looking like two mixtured pauli matrices in diferent sequence are diferent by phase shift 180 degrees. And what a hell meaning pauli matrices multiplication? It's projection on some axis? I found only one that with bloch sphere it's don't commutes.
To me it's looks like physics pauli matrices undestnding only matematicaly and how to make it's physicaly nobody have any idea. And since operation with pauli matrices are very sensitive to noise I am doing prediction that pauli matrices can't don't exist at all in pysical world and such algebra in physical world don't exist. 
It's looking like two mixtured pauli matrices in diferent sequence are diferent by phase shift 180 degrees. And what a hell meaning pauli matrices multiplication? It's projection on some axis? I found only one that with bloch sphere it's don't commutes.
To me it's looks like physics pauli matrices undestnding only matematicaly and how to make it's physicaly nobody have any idea. And since operation with pauli matrices are very sensitive to noise I am doing prediction that pauli matrices can't don't exist at all in pysical world and such algebra in physical world don't exist.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
What need experimentaly to do to electron that it behave according this algebra?
The behaviour of fermions always follows the Pauli and Dirac matrices. The Dirac matrices can be represented as tensor products of the Pauli matrices, if you write Dirac spinors (which electrons are) as the sum of two Weyl spinors.
The behaviour of fermions always follows the Pauli and Dirac matrices. The Dirac matrices can be represented as tensor products of the Pauli matrices, if you write Dirac spinors (which electrons are) as the sum of two Weyl spinors.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
t's looking like two mixtured pauli matrices in diferent sequence are diferent by phase shift 180 degrees.
No, it doesn't look like that at all. If you bothered to read the books which talk about such algebra you'd know that.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
And what a hell meaning pauli matrices multiplication?
You do know how to multiply matrices.... right?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
It's projection on some axis?
No, they aren't. If they were projections, they would satisfy P²=P, which any projection must. They don't. Yet more basic algebra you should know if you're going to talk about them.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
I found only one that with bloch sphere it's don't commute
None of the Pauli matrices commute with each other. That's evident from the fact it's a non-trivial algebra.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
And since operation with pauli matrices are very sensitive to noise
Noise? How does noise come into [X_a,X_b] = 2i ε_abc X_c ? It's like saying "Noise comes into 1+1=2".
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
To me it's looks like physics pauli matrices undestnding only matematicaly and how to make it's physicaly nobody have any idea.
You're unwilling to read books on the subject and then you complain you don't understand and you're stupid enough to think that because you don't understand noone else does?!
How stupid are you?
How stupid are you?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 02:28 PM)
I am doing prediction that pauli matrices can't don't exist at all in pysical world
Noone claims they do. However, there are physical things which have the same kind of structure. That's an experimental fact. Why don't you bother to learn some quantum mechanics before making a bunch of ignorant claims?
I know how multipilicate pauli matrices but what a hell this means?
Dirac matrices? I thought it's reletivized pauli matrices
Can you detaly tell how you doing somoe experiment in which then experiment result is multiplication or sumation pauli matrices?
Noise exist becouse electron is very small thing and envirnoment surounding electron and measuring electron devices if electron don't moving are also like environment, so electron is in hypernoisy conditions and it's according to my understanding can't be precisly measured and maybe at all can't be measured...
I was remember, but now forget what is mean [X_a,X_b] = 2i ε_abc X_c , Does it's means X*Y=iZ ?
Can you precisly write this experimental fact how it's was tested?
Dirac matrices? I thought it's reletivized pauli matrices
Can you detaly tell how you doing somoe experiment in which then experiment result is multiplication or sumation pauli matrices?
Noise exist becouse electron is very small thing and envirnoment surounding electron and measuring electron devices if electron don't moving are also like environment, so electron is in hypernoisy conditions and it's according to my understanding can't be precisly measured and maybe at all can't be measured...
I was remember, but now forget what is mean [X_a,X_b] = 2i ε_abc X_c , Does it's means X*Y=iZ ?
Can you precisly write this experimental fact how it's was tested?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 05:31 PM)
Dirac matrices? I thought it's reletivized pauli matrices
They are 4x4 matrices which work on 4 component spinors. The Pauli matrices are 2x2 matrices which form subalgebras within the Dirac one. As I said, their Lie algebras are related.
If γ^i is a Dirac matrix and σ^i a Pauli matrix, then you have
The Pauli matrices form seperate sections within the Dirac matrices.
They are 4x4 matrices which work on 4 component spinors. The Pauli matrices are 2x2 matrices which form subalgebras within the Dirac one. As I said, their Lie algebras are related.
If γ^i is a Dirac matrix and σ^i a Pauli matrix, then you have
The Pauli matrices form seperate sections within the Dirac matrices.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 05:31 PM)
Can you detaly tell how you doing somoe experiment in which then experiment result is multiplication or sumation pauli matrices?
SU(2) algebras form the basis for isospin and Electroweak theory, both of which are enormously well measured in physics.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 05:31 PM)
Noise exist becouse electron is very small thing and envirnoment surounding electron and measuring electron devices if electron don't moving are also like environment, so electron is in hypernoisy conditions and it's according to my understanding can't be precisly measured and maybe at all can't be measured
Some things can't be measured precisely. Other things can. This is one of those things. You sometimes cannot measure two different spin states at the same time, but you can measure one of them as accurately as you like.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 05:31 PM)
I was remember, but now forget what is mean [X_a,X_b] = 2i ε_abc X_c , Does it's means X*Y=iZ ?
'Remember' implies you once knew. I doubt that.
[X_a,X_b] is the commutator of two Lie algebra elements. [A,B] = AB-BA. ε_abc is the rank 3 antisymmetric tensor. If you cannot understand that notation and relate it to basic matrix theory than you are not well enough equiped with mathematical knowledge to understand Pauli and Dirac matrices and their algebras.
[X_a,X_b] is the commutator of two Lie algebra elements. [A,B] = AB-BA. ε_abc is the rank 3 antisymmetric tensor. If you cannot understand that notation and relate it to basic matrix theory than you are not well enough equiped with mathematical knowledge to understand Pauli and Dirac matrices and their algebras.
But how experimentaly somthing describe of pauli matrices or dirac matrices?
I imagining that say electron flying and from up is north magnetic field and from dow is south magnetic field and electron will fire on screen in two point or closer to north or to south magnet. So okey electron having some castrat spin, which generate only south or north magnetic field. and thus electron flying closer to one or another field with 50% probability if spin orentated randomly or not? Anyway electron only striking in two possible points and only probability changing. And now what supose to must to be pauli or dirac matrice? Aditional field from some over side or some resonanse or spin/orbitmagneticmoment preceslion? And what scientist measure then after adition of another fields/shmilds? Electron with some phase or then they know more about probability or what?
How quarks relate with experiments of electron spin? Or electroweak interaction?
That imposible to measure two spin states at same time and one of them very precisly I it's knew very long! So I am not saying that spin don't exist, I am saying that spin phase don't exist and pauli matrices then. Becouse of quantized spin experiments I know enough, how atoms bounce only in quantized points (some number) or what I'm just say about electron. So I am saying that spin fermions spin just is like probabilitic dice and they don't have any phase and can't intefere with inside or outside in entangled states with each over, but can only interfere in double slit experiment similar like photons. So photon I guess don't playing with pauli and diracs matrices. So according to my teory, electron is more similar like photon, but just have magnetic moment probablistic properties and have phase if spliting in double slit experiment and don't having phase if is in static state.
I nowhere hear that somewhere somebody get success in some phase estimation or changing/measurment or some phase interference with electron or atoms or excided states or over quantum things realated with pauli matrices. SO if nobody can't esstimate this things then naturaly becoming question does this pauli matrices exist. Maybe this pauli matrices teory only is teory and not hapaning in real world? Maybe pauli or dirac doing his matrices was creating teory which deals with quarks, but nobody can's see quarks so maybe similar with those matrices? - It's just matrices and algebra teory, which can't be proved experimentaly like can't be proved quarks existation. And maybe this matrices teory just want to explain and combine two teories in one: electromagnetic and weak forces, but this is only teory without real experiment, I think
I imagining that say electron flying and from up is north magnetic field and from dow is south magnetic field and electron will fire on screen in two point or closer to north or to south magnet. So okey electron having some castrat spin, which generate only south or north magnetic field. and thus electron flying closer to one or another field with 50% probability if spin orentated randomly or not? Anyway electron only striking in two possible points and only probability changing. And now what supose to must to be pauli or dirac matrice? Aditional field from some over side or some resonanse or spin/orbitmagneticmoment preceslion? And what scientist measure then after adition of another fields/shmilds? Electron with some phase or then they know more about probability or what?
How quarks relate with experiments of electron spin? Or electroweak interaction?
That imposible to measure two spin states at same time and one of them very precisly I it's knew very long! So I am not saying that spin don't exist, I am saying that spin phase don't exist and pauli matrices then. Becouse of quantized spin experiments I know enough, how atoms bounce only in quantized points (some number) or what I'm just say about electron. So I am saying that spin fermions spin just is like probabilitic dice and they don't have any phase and can't intefere with inside or outside in entangled states with each over, but can only interfere in double slit experiment similar like photons. So photon I guess don't playing with pauli and diracs matrices. So according to my teory, electron is more similar like photon, but just have magnetic moment probablistic properties and have phase if spliting in double slit experiment and don't having phase if is in static state.
I nowhere hear that somewhere somebody get success in some phase estimation or changing/measurment or some phase interference with electron or atoms or excided states or over quantum things realated with pauli matrices. SO if nobody can't esstimate this things then naturaly becoming question does this pauli matrices exist. Maybe this pauli matrices teory only is teory and not hapaning in real world? Maybe pauli or dirac doing his matrices was creating teory which deals with quarks, but nobody can's see quarks so maybe similar with those matrices? - It's just matrices and algebra teory, which can't be proved experimentaly like can't be proved quarks existation. And maybe this matrices teory just want to explain and combine two teories in one: electromagnetic and weak forces, but this is only teory without real experiment, I think
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 08:16 PM)
But how experimentaly somthing describe of pauli matrices or dirac matrices?
The Pauli and Dirac matrices are used to constuct every physical prediction of quantum field theory involving fermions. Every experiment which verifies a prediction of QFT verifies the use of those matrices.
If you bothered to learn about how they are used in quantum mechanics, you'd know that.
The Pauli and Dirac matrices are used to constuct every physical prediction of quantum field theory involving fermions. Every experiment which verifies a prediction of QFT verifies the use of those matrices.
If you bothered to learn about how they are used in quantum mechanics, you'd know that.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 16 2007, 08:16 PM)
And maybe this matrices teory just want to explain and combine two teories in one: electromagnetic and weak forces, but this is only teory without real experiment, I think
The unification of weak and electromagnetic forces into the electroweak force is experimentally validated. Has been for more than 20 years.
It would seem that you are adament in learning nothing about how these matrices are used by physicists. You continue to just spout bull**** about a topic you just don't want to read. Why do you bother starting threads like this when you ignore everything I say, and I'm an actual physicist! You don't want to discuss things, you just want to continue making things up about a topic you know nothing about.
It would seem that you are adament in learning nothing about how these matrices are used by physicists. You continue to just spout bull**** about a topic you just don't want to read. Why do you bother starting threads like this when you ignore everything I say, and I'm an actual physicist! You don't want to discuss things, you just want to continue making things up about a topic you know nothing about.
Nobody can create two entangled electrons or atoms, except maybe in GHZ state (0.707|00>+0.707|11>). I think that this formula ben=xcos(B)sin(A)+ysin(B)cos(A)+zcosA possible can be rotation electron spin with two magnetic fields, which are ortogonal to each over (one say from left and one from top and need rotate them on bloch sphere, one on (x; y) coordinates and one with (z, x) coordinates - rotation in 3D).
HOW quantum furier transform is related with this matrices? And it verify only in teory!
Becouse real experiments with quantum computer nobody make already and like I am saying nobody don't create even two entangled electrons!
And to me is very strange how possible rotate phase of |1>, without rotating phase of |0>. I think it's can be some misconception about this.
And very strange thing is that two entangled atoms rechanging with each over photon, which are in superposition, but why those photons must ravel exactly to some atom and not in arbitrary random direction in 3D space in direction oposit to nearborth atom.
HOW quantum furier transform is related with this matrices? And it verify only in teory!
Becouse real experiments with quantum computer nobody make already and like I am saying nobody don't create even two entangled electrons!And to me is very strange how possible rotate phase of |1>, without rotating phase of |0>. I think it's can be some misconception about this.
And very strange thing is that two entangled atoms rechanging with each over photon, which are in superposition, but why those photons must ravel exactly to some atom and not in arbitrary random direction in 3D space in direction oposit to nearborth atom.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 11:35 AM)
Becouse real experiments with quantum computer nobody make already and like I am saying nobody don't create even two entangled electrons!
Quantum computers have been made. They just are not very powerful at the moment.
Besides, there's more than one way to verify the validity of the use of Pauli and Dirac matrices, as I've already explained to you. Do you know anything about the formalism of QED or Electroweak theory? Both of them make enormous use of those matrices and both of them are extensively tested in experiments.
Are you even bothering to read anything about Pauli matrices? Or is the only think you can understand about them the very short section on Bloch sphere on the Wikipedia page?
Quantum computers have been made. They just are not very powerful at the moment.
Besides, there's more than one way to verify the validity of the use of Pauli and Dirac matrices, as I've already explained to you. Do you know anything about the formalism of QED or Electroweak theory? Both of them make enormous use of those matrices and both of them are extensively tested in experiments.
Are you even bothering to read anything about Pauli matrices? Or is the only think you can understand about them the very short section on Bloch sphere on the Wikipedia page?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 18 2007, 12:28 PM)
Quantum computers have been made. They just are not very powerful at the moment.
Besides, there's more than one way to verify the validity of the use of Pauli and Dirac matrices, as I've already explained to you. Do you know anything about the formalism of QED or Electroweak theory? Both of them make enormous use of those matrices and both of them are extensively tested in experiments.
Are you even bothering to read anything about Pauli matrices? Or is the only think you can understand about them the very short section on Bloch sphere on the Wikipedia page?
Wrong. They are or exponetionaly hard for computation or fake.
Why so hard to write some experiment where directly used pauli matrices?
I don't know nothing about electroweak, except that this is for holding nucleons together.
It can be that bloch spere is more fundamental than pauli matrices or that equation, which I provide in previouse post.
Why pauli matrices are multiplicated and not sumated?
Here some my sugestions:
X*Z=-iY=
(0 -1)
(1 0)
-iY|0>=|1>
-iY|1>=-|0>,
where
|0>=
(1)
(0)
and
|1>=
(0)
(1)
So X*Z matrices fliping bit and phase at same time.
And Z*X=iY=
(0 1)
(-1 0)
iY|0>=
(0 1)(1)
(-1 0)(0)=
=-|1>;
iY|1>=|0>.
So it's possible look how will be if one matrices multiplicate after another:
Z|0>=
(1 0)(1)
(0 -1)(0)=
(1)
(0)=
|0>
And then X matrix fliping |0> to |1>. So Z|0> and then that get multiplicate to X equal X*Z|0>, becouse nearest matrix to |0> multiplicating first.
And Z|1>=-|1>=
(0)
(-1)
And so then X(-|1>)=
(0 1)(0)
(1 0)(-1)=
(-1)
(0)=
-|0>.
So this equal to XZ|1>=-Y|1>=-|0>.
So with X and Z matrices possible multiplicate without stupid unclear Y matrix.
I found that pauli matrices used even in optical quantum computer, but which is with polarized photons and not with single photon devided in many parts. Wit single photon optical QC is proved that is hypercomputer, becouse need exponentionaly many gates with linar number of qubits. NMR QC also is hypercomputer or at least behaving like hypercomputer. About over quantum computer I even don't wnat talk...
Besides, there's more than one way to verify the validity of the use of Pauli and Dirac matrices, as I've already explained to you. Do you know anything about the formalism of QED or Electroweak theory? Both of them make enormous use of those matrices and both of them are extensively tested in experiments.
Are you even bothering to read anything about Pauli matrices? Or is the only think you can understand about them the very short section on Bloch sphere on the Wikipedia page?
QUOTE
Quantum computers have been made. They just are not very powerful at the moment.
Wrong. They are or exponetionaly hard for computation or fake.
Why so hard to write some experiment where directly used pauli matrices?
I don't know nothing about electroweak, except that this is for holding nucleons together.
It can be that bloch spere is more fundamental than pauli matrices or that equation, which I provide in previouse post.
Why pauli matrices are multiplicated and not sumated?
Here some my sugestions:
X*Z=-iY=
(0 -1)
(1 0)
-iY|0>=|1>
-iY|1>=-|0>,
where
|0>=
(1)
(0)
and
|1>=
(0)
(1)
So X*Z matrices fliping bit and phase at same time.
And Z*X=iY=
(0 1)
(-1 0)
iY|0>=
(0 1)(1)
(-1 0)(0)=
=-|1>;
iY|1>=|0>.
So it's possible look how will be if one matrices multiplicate after another:
Z|0>=
(1 0)(1)
(0 -1)(0)=
(1)
(0)=
|0>
And then X matrix fliping |0> to |1>. So Z|0> and then that get multiplicate to X equal X*Z|0>, becouse nearest matrix to |0> multiplicating first.
And Z|1>=-|1>=
(0)
(-1)
And so then X(-|1>)=
(0 1)(0)
(1 0)(-1)=
(-1)
(0)=
-|0>.
So this equal to XZ|1>=-Y|1>=-|0>.
So with X and Z matrices possible multiplicate without stupid unclear Y matrix.
I found that pauli matrices used even in optical quantum computer, but which is with polarized photons and not with single photon devided in many parts. Wit single photon optical QC is proved that is hypercomputer, becouse need exponentionaly many gates with linar number of qubits. NMR QC also is hypercomputer or at least behaving like hypercomputer. About over quantum computer I even don't wnat talk...
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
Wrong. They are or exponetionaly hard for computation or fake.
So you're just denying reality now?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/09/quantum_first_demo/
So you're just denying reality now?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/09/quantum_first_demo/
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
Why so hard to write some experiment where directly used pauli matrices?
The properties of angular momentum directly involves the Pauli matrices and quantum mechanical angular momemtum is well measured. And as I said EVERY quantum field theory experiment makes use of the Pauli and Dirac matrices!! Every one of them!
Is that too hard for you to grasp? Too complicated?
Is that too hard for you to grasp? Too complicated?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
I don't know nothing about electroweak, except that this is for holding nucleons together.
Then you know nothing, since that's not what it's for.
You complain you don't know any experiment which uses the Pauli matrices and then admit you don't know anything about Electroweak theory, whose gauge group is precisely the Pauli matrices!! It's your fault you're ignorant and you blame it on other people?!
You complain you don't know any experiment which uses the Pauli matrices and then admit you don't know anything about Electroweak theory, whose gauge group is precisely the Pauli matrices!! It's your fault you're ignorant and you blame it on other people?!
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
It can be that bloch spere is more fundamental than pauli matrices or that equation, which I provide in previouse post.
You do realise there's more to the Pauli matrices than [i]just[/] the Block sphere?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
Why pauli matrices are multiplicated and not sumated?
They are both summed and multiplied, that's what a Lie algebra is!
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
Here some my sugestions:
X*Z=-iY
X*Z=-iY
That isn't a Lie algebra. The FUNDAMENTAL property of a Lie algebra is that [A,B] = AB-BA = (summation of other elements). NOT that A*B = C. That would be a group, which is a different kind of thing. Lie algebra elements are the generators of Lie groups.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
So with X and Z matrices possible multiplicate without stupid unclear Y matrix.
You aren't even trying to understand, are you?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 06:14 PM)
About over quantum computer I even don't wnat talk...
Just like everything else in this thread, you can't accept you're wrong.
By the way, is English not your first language because you have the spelling and grammar of a 3 year old! Seriously, it's terrible! Did you fail English in school or something? Or, as seems more likely, do you just have a very low intelligence?
By the way, is English not your first language because you have the spelling and grammar of a 3 year old! Seriously, it's terrible! Did you fail English in school or something? Or, as seems more likely, do you just have a very low intelligence?
Isn't some simplier way than some stupid pauli matrices?
So what [X, Z]=XZ-ZX ? Then from my previous post:
XZ-ZX=-iY-iY=
(0 -1)_(0 1) (0 -2)
(1 0) (-1 0)=(2 0)
This is lie algebra?
"So you're just denying reality now?"
No, it's you denying reality.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/jobtalk4.ppt
So what [X, Z]=XZ-ZX ? Then from my previous post:
XZ-ZX=-iY-iY=
(0 -1)_(0 1) (0 -2)
(1 0) (-1 0)=(2 0)
This is lie algebra?
"So you're just denying reality now?"
No, it's you denying reality.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/jobtalk4.ppt
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 07:36 PM)
Isn't some simplier way than some stupid pauli matrices?
Noone has found one which works. Besides, the Lie algebra of SU(2) is pretty much as simple as it gets, without being trivial, which is the U(1) Lie algebra, in that [A,B]=0, which is another way of saying A*B = B*A. In matrices this usually isn't true.
Noone has found one which works. Besides, the Lie algebra of SU(2) is pretty much as simple as it gets, without being trivial, which is the U(1) Lie algebra, in that [A,B]=0, which is another way of saying A*B = B*A. In matrices this usually isn't true.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 07:36 PM)
So what [X, Z]=XZ-ZX ? Then from my previous post:
XZ-ZX=-iY-iY
XZ-ZX=-iY-iY
You have assumed something you can't do in general. You've assumed that X*Z = -Z*X. That's only true for Grassman algebras.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 07:36 PM)
This is lie algebra?
No. When I wrote [X_a,X_b] = 2i e_abc X_c it means that if you have a triple of matrices, A, B and C, then you have the following results :
[A,B] = 2iC
[B,C] = 2iA
[C,A] = 2iB
Also, [A,B] = -[B,A] and essentially you have the Jacobi Identity [A,[B,C]]+[C,[A,B]]+[B,[C,A]] = 0
Any set of 3 matrices which satisfy this will be equivalent to the Pauli matrices. Infact, they are the Pauli matrices in a particular choice of bases.
[A,B] = 2iC
[B,C] = 2iA
[C,A] = 2iB
Also, [A,B] = -[B,A] and essentially you have the Jacobi Identity [A,[B,C]]+[C,[A,B]]+[B,[C,A]] = 0
Any set of 3 matrices which satisfy this will be equivalent to the Pauli matrices. Infact, they are the Pauli matrices in a particular choice of bases.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 18 2007, 07:36 PM)
"So you're just denying reality now?"
No, it's you denying reality.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/jobtalk4.ppt
No, it's you denying reality.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/jobtalk4.ppt
That file doesn't say quantum computers are impossible, it says they have limits, which is obvious. My limit proves someone had made a working quantum computer. How can you deny that?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 18 2007, 08:21 PM)
Noone has found one which works. Besides, the Lie algebra of SU(2) is pretty much as simple as it gets, without being trivial, which is the U(1) Lie algebra, in that [A,B]=0, which is another way of saying A*B = B*A. In matrices this usually isn't true.
You have assumed something you can't do in general. You've assumed that X*Z = -Z*X. That's only true for Grassman algebras.
No. When I wrote [X_a,X_b] = 2i e_abc X_c it means that if you have a triple of matrices, A, B and C, then you have the following results :
Also, [A,B] = -[B,A] and essentially you have the Jacobi Identity [A,[B,C]]+[C,[A,B]]+[B,[C,A]] = 0
Any set of 3 matrices which satisfy this will be equivalent to the Pauli matrices. Infact, they are the Pauli matrices in a particular choice of bases.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/mlinsiam.pdf
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=266
Nobody have working quantum computer, except optical quantum computer with 2-3 qubits!
"Limitations
The problem with this optical implementation of the search algorithm is that the number of optical paths equals number of elements in database. It would be prohibitive to build a large search engine by this method. This is the scalability problem. For this reason it is called a simulator of a quantum computer. See the section Qubit Systems for different approaches that avoid this problem."
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/sim.html
About NMR quantum computer:
"4 Limitations and problems
From the beginning there has been a strong current of concern regarding the
usefulness of NMR QCs; indeed there has been some debate as to whether
NMR QCs are in fact real QCs. Initial criticism focussed on the question
of scalability[23, 24], and it is now widely accepted that current NMR imple-
mentations are probably not scalable for a variety of reasons[25, 26], including
the exponential ine±ciency in the preparation of pseudo pure states, the lim-
ited number of operations which can be carried out before decoherence sets in,
and the experimental di±culties involved in implementing logic gates in multi-
spin systems.
More recently, it has been suggested[30] that NMR might not be a quantum
mechanical technique at all!"
http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/torino2.pdf
If sombody have working quantum computer then why nobody can't see results of this work?
http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/mlinsiam.pdf
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=266
Nobody have working quantum computer, except optical quantum computer with 2-3 qubits!
"Limitations
The problem with this optical implementation of the search algorithm is that the number of optical paths equals number of elements in database. It would be prohibitive to build a large search engine by this method. This is the scalability problem. For this reason it is called a simulator of a quantum computer. See the section Qubit Systems for different approaches that avoid this problem."
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/sim.html
About NMR quantum computer:
"4 Limitations and problems
From the beginning there has been a strong current of concern regarding the
usefulness of NMR QCs; indeed there has been some debate as to whether
NMR QCs are in fact real QCs. Initial criticism focussed on the question
of scalability[23, 24], and it is now widely accepted that current NMR imple-
mentations are probably not scalable for a variety of reasons[25, 26], including
the exponential ine±ciency in the preparation of pseudo pure states, the lim-
ited number of operations which can be carried out before decoherence sets in,
and the experimental di±culties involved in implementing logic gates in multi-
spin systems.
More recently, it has been suggested[30] that NMR might not be a quantum
mechanical technique at all!"
http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/torino2.pdf
If sombody have working quantum computer then why nobody can't see results of this work?
[A,B] = 2iC
[B,C] = 2iA
[C,A] = 2iB
Does this means
[X,Y] = 2iZ
[Y,Z] = 2iX
[Z,X] = 2iY
?
Then
XY-YX=iZ-(-iZ)=2iZ;
YZ-ZY=iX-(-iX)=2iX;
ZX-XZ=iY-(-iY)=2iY.
So this is simple matrices multiplication and minusation tricks, but what this all teling about some quantum fields or spin properties or whatever?
How pauli matrices dealing with electroweak teory?
I know that there is some rotation properties about x, y and z axis, but I am don't sure with what it's realate with pauli matrices or bloch sphere?
For example rotation about z axis is this:
for |0> rotation about z axis is (cosA-isinA)|0>. For |1> rotation about z axis = (cosA+isinA)|1>. So rotation for |0> and |1> about z axis is very simple, becouse rotating only phase. And need rotate 720 degrees to go back, becouse rotation 180 degrees is/means rotation 90 degrees.
Next, rotation about y axis is much more complicated:
There also if you rotating 360 degrees it's means, that you rotate 180 degrees, but you also need imagine, that |0> or |1> is on oposite sides so they becoming changing after you rotate normal angle... So rotation about y axis rule is that: say there is |0> state, then rotating about y axis 90 degrees, you acctualy rotating 45 degrees and becoming superposition: 0.707|0>+0.707|1>. After rotating one more time 90 degrees it's rotates 45 degree and becoming |1>. If you farther rotating 90 degrees it's rotates one more time 45 degrees and at all from initial point it's rotates 135 degrees and becoming -0.707|0>+0.707|1>. If you one more time rotating about y axis then it's means 180 degrees and becoming -|0>. If you farther rotating the same angle then it would be -0.707|0>-0.707|1> and if you rotating one more time the same angle it would be -|1>. If you one more time rotating the same angle then it would be 0.707|0>-0.707|1>. And if you one more time rotating the same angle it would be initial state |0>. For one rotation is backfoward. Matrix rotating about y axis looks:
Ry(A)=
[cos(A/2) -sin(A/2)]
[sin(A/2) cos(A/2)],
where 0<A<720.
http://jquantum.sourceforge.net/jQuantumApplet.html (need chose x-register "1" and cklick on symbol Rz to check how rotate about each axis).
Rotation about x axis matrix is:
Rx(A)=
[cos(A/2) -isin(A/2)]
[-isin(A/2) cos(A/2)]
where 0<A<720.
Rotation about z axis:
Rz(A)=
[cos(A/2)-isin(A/2) 0]
[0 cos(A/2)+isin(A/2)]
where 0<A<720.
You have assumed something you can't do in general. You've assumed that X*Z = -Z*X. That's only true for Grassman algebras.
No. When I wrote [X_a,X_b] = 2i e_abc X_c it means that if you have a triple of matrices, A, B and C, then you have the following results :
Also, [A,B] = -[B,A] and essentially you have the Jacobi Identity [A,[B,C]]+[C,[A,B]]+[B,[C,A]] = 0
Any set of 3 matrices which satisfy this will be equivalent to the Pauli matrices. Infact, they are the Pauli matrices in a particular choice of bases.
QUOTE
That file doesn't say quantum computers are impossible, it says they have limits, which is obvious. My limit proves someone had made a working quantum computer. How can you deny that?
http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/mlinsiam.pdf
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=266
Nobody have working quantum computer, except optical quantum computer with 2-3 qubits!
"Limitations
The problem with this optical implementation of the search algorithm is that the number of optical paths equals number of elements in database. It would be prohibitive to build a large search engine by this method. This is the scalability problem. For this reason it is called a simulator of a quantum computer. See the section Qubit Systems for different approaches that avoid this problem."
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/sim.html
About NMR quantum computer:
"4 Limitations and problems
From the beginning there has been a strong current of concern regarding the
usefulness of NMR QCs; indeed there has been some debate as to whether
NMR QCs are in fact real QCs. Initial criticism focussed on the question
of scalability[23, 24], and it is now widely accepted that current NMR imple-
mentations are probably not scalable for a variety of reasons[25, 26], including
the exponential ine±ciency in the preparation of pseudo pure states, the lim-
ited number of operations which can be carried out before decoherence sets in,
and the experimental di±culties involved in implementing logic gates in multi-
spin systems.
More recently, it has been suggested[30] that NMR might not be a quantum
mechanical technique at all!"
http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/torino2.pdf
If sombody have working quantum computer then why nobody can't see results of this work?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That file doesn't say quantum computers are impossible, it says they have limits, which is obvious. My limit proves someone had made a working quantum computer. How can you deny that? |
http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/mlinsiam.pdf
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=266
Nobody have working quantum computer, except optical quantum computer with 2-3 qubits!
"Limitations
The problem with this optical implementation of the search algorithm is that the number of optical paths equals number of elements in database. It would be prohibitive to build a large search engine by this method. This is the scalability problem. For this reason it is called a simulator of a quantum computer. See the section Qubit Systems for different approaches that avoid this problem."
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/sim.html
About NMR quantum computer:
"4 Limitations and problems
From the beginning there has been a strong current of concern regarding the
usefulness of NMR QCs; indeed there has been some debate as to whether
NMR QCs are in fact real QCs. Initial criticism focussed on the question
of scalability[23, 24], and it is now widely accepted that current NMR imple-
mentations are probably not scalable for a variety of reasons[25, 26], including
the exponential ine±ciency in the preparation of pseudo pure states, the lim-
ited number of operations which can be carried out before decoherence sets in,
and the experimental di±culties involved in implementing logic gates in multi-
spin systems.
More recently, it has been suggested[30] that NMR might not be a quantum
mechanical technique at all!"
http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/torino2.pdf
If sombody have working quantum computer then why nobody can't see results of this work?
[A,B] = 2iC
[B,C] = 2iA
[C,A] = 2iB
Does this means
[X,Y] = 2iZ
[Y,Z] = 2iX
[Z,X] = 2iY
?
Then
XY-YX=iZ-(-iZ)=2iZ;
YZ-ZY=iX-(-iX)=2iX;
ZX-XZ=iY-(-iY)=2iY.
So this is simple matrices multiplication and minusation tricks, but what this all teling about some quantum fields or spin properties or whatever?
How pauli matrices dealing with electroweak teory?
I know that there is some rotation properties about x, y and z axis, but I am don't sure with what it's realate with pauli matrices or bloch sphere?
For example rotation about z axis is this:
for |0> rotation about z axis is (cosA-isinA)|0>. For |1> rotation about z axis = (cosA+isinA)|1>. So rotation for |0> and |1> about z axis is very simple, becouse rotating only phase. And need rotate 720 degrees to go back, becouse rotation 180 degrees is/means rotation 90 degrees.
Next, rotation about y axis is much more complicated:
There also if you rotating 360 degrees it's means, that you rotate 180 degrees, but you also need imagine, that |0> or |1> is on oposite sides so they becoming changing after you rotate normal angle... So rotation about y axis rule is that: say there is |0> state, then rotating about y axis 90 degrees, you acctualy rotating 45 degrees and becoming superposition: 0.707|0>+0.707|1>. After rotating one more time 90 degrees it's rotates 45 degree and becoming |1>. If you farther rotating 90 degrees it's rotates one more time 45 degrees and at all from initial point it's rotates 135 degrees and becoming -0.707|0>+0.707|1>. If you one more time rotating about y axis then it's means 180 degrees and becoming -|0>. If you farther rotating the same angle then it would be -0.707|0>-0.707|1> and if you rotating one more time the same angle it would be -|1>. If you one more time rotating the same angle then it would be 0.707|0>-0.707|1>. And if you one more time rotating the same angle it would be initial state |0>. For one rotation is backfoward. Matrix rotating about y axis looks:
Ry(A)=
[cos(A/2) -sin(A/2)]
[sin(A/2) cos(A/2)],
where 0<A<720.
http://jquantum.sourceforge.net/jQuantumApplet.html (need chose x-register "1" and cklick on symbol Rz to check how rotate about each axis).
Rotation about x axis matrix is:
Rx(A)=
[cos(A/2) -isin(A/2)]
[-isin(A/2) cos(A/2)]
where 0<A<720.
Rotation about z axis:
Rz(A)=
[cos(A/2)-isin(A/2) 0]
[0 cos(A/2)+isin(A/2)]
where 0<A<720.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 10:44 AM)
If sombody have working quantum computer then why nobody can't see results of this work?
So you admit they exist.
Do you have any published sources? A PPT presentation from someone's personal web page doesn't really cut it.
So you admit they exist.
Do you have any published sources? A PPT presentation from someone's personal web page doesn't really cut it.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 10:44 AM)
Then
XY-YX=iZ-(-iZ)=2iZ;
YZ-ZY=iX-(-iX)=2iX;
ZX-XZ=iY-(-iY)=2iY.
XY-YX=iZ-(-iZ)=2iZ;
YZ-ZY=iX-(-iX)=2iX;
ZX-XZ=iY-(-iY)=2iY.
NO. I told you, XY is NOT -YX. If it was, they'd not need to use commutators!
XY and YX can be two very different matrices! Try it with some random examples, if you actually know anything about matrices.
XY and YX can be two very different matrices! Try it with some random examples, if you actually know anything about matrices.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 10:44 AM)
So this is simple matrices multiplication and minusation tricks, but what this all teling about some quantum fields or spin properties or whatever?
Because the spin operators in quantum mechanics S_1, S_2 and S_3 have EXACTLY the same properties,
[S_1,S_2] = 2i S_3
[S_3,S_1] = 2i S_2
[S_2,S_3] = 2i S_1
Therefore they have a representation within the Pauli matrices. Dear god, read a book!
I admit that they can exist like hypercomputers only. But I doubt that they can be even like hypercomputers and can be just random probabilistic computers, becouse I can't understood pauli matrices...
I admit that they can exist like hypercomputers only. But I doubt that they can be even like hypercomputers and can be just random probabilistic computers, becouse I can't understood pauli matrices...
Do you have any published sources? A PPT presentation from someone's personal web page doesn't really cut it.
How much sources you need? I give you pdf there black on white is writen that there is exponentionaly unefecient NMR QC and which even can be not quantum computer, but some probabilistic bullsheet. Everywhere you don't look everywhere is some problems with runing quantum computer and those problems scals exponentionaly with number of qubits
So I guess S_1 is X pauli matrix, S_2 is Y pauli matrx and S_3 is Z pauli matrix?
So if [X,Y]= XY-YX, then that's is all I want to know. It's seems that you missleading yourself. Why XY-YX=2iZ is not equal for pauli matrices?
I think you only understand algebra of pauli matrices and nothing understand how they realate in physical world with spin or electrweak teory.
[S_1,S_2] = 2i S_3
[S_3,S_1] = 2i S_2
[S_2,S_3] = 2i S_1
Therefore they have a representation within the Pauli matrices. Dear god, read a book!
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 10:44 AM)
How pauli matrices dealing with electroweak teory?
SU(2), whose Lie algebra the Pauli matrices are the generators of, is the gauge group in electroweak theory.
I'd bother to explain what that means if I thought you weren't going to just ignore it anyway.
The rest of your post is your usual incoherent rambling. Why don't you stop trying to learn physics from Wikipedia and read a book. I know contact with textbooks makes your skin burn, like all nutty cranks, but at least try.
I'd bother to explain what that means if I thought you weren't going to just ignore it anyway.
The rest of your post is your usual incoherent rambling. Why don't you stop trying to learn physics from Wikipedia and read a book. I know contact with textbooks makes your skin burn, like all nutty cranks, but at least try.
QUOTE
So you admit they exist.
I admit that they can exist like hypercomputers only. But I doubt that they can be even like hypercomputers and can be just random probabilistic computers, becouse I can't understood pauli matrices...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So you admit they exist. |
I admit that they can exist like hypercomputers only. But I doubt that they can be even like hypercomputers and can be just random probabilistic computers, becouse I can't understood pauli matrices...
Do you have any published sources? A PPT presentation from someone's personal web page doesn't really cut it.
How much sources you need? I give you pdf there black on white is writen that there is exponentionaly unefecient NMR QC and which even can be not quantum computer, but some probabilistic bullsheet. Everywhere you don't look everywhere is some problems with runing quantum computer and those problems scals exponentionaly with number of qubits
QUOTE
Because the spin operators in quantum mechanics S_1, S_2 and S_3 have EXACTLY the same properties,
[S_1,S_2] = 2i S_3
[S_3,S_1] = 2i S_2
[S_2,S_3] = 2i S_1
[S_1,S_2] = 2i S_3
[S_3,S_1] = 2i S_2
[S_2,S_3] = 2i S_1
So I guess S_1 is X pauli matrix, S_2 is Y pauli matrx and S_3 is Z pauli matrix?
So if [X,Y]= XY-YX, then that's is all I want to know. It's seems that you missleading yourself. Why XY-YX=2iZ is not equal for pauli matrices?
I think you only understand algebra of pauli matrices and nothing understand how they realate in physical world with spin or electrweak teory.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 11:16 AM)
becouse I can't understood pauli matrices...
So if you don't understand something, you don't think it exists?
So if you don't understand something, you don't think it exists?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 11:16 AM)
How much sources you need?
One which is published and actually says "Quantum computers don't exist". Of course no such paper exists since quantum computers do exist.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 11:16 AM)
So I guess S_1 is X pauli matrix, S_2 is Y pauli matrx and S_3 is Z pauli matrix?
Actually they can be any of them in any basis.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 11:16 AM)
So if [X,Y]= XY-YX, then that's is all I want to know.
That's the definition of a commutator in an algebra. In group theory it's not.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 11:16 AM)
It's seems that you missleading yourself.
No, you just don't understand what I'm talking about. 'Lie Algebras in Particle Physics' by Georgi is an excellent book for this stuff.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 11:16 AM)
Why XY-YX=2iZ is not equal for pauli matrices?
That is true for the Pauli matrices. I just told you it was.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 11:16 AM)
I think you only understand algebra of pauli matrices and nothing understand how they realate in physical world with spin or electrweak teory.
Who do you think will believe such a comment? I'm the one explaining the Pauli matrices to you! You don't even know about spin or the electroweak model (by your own admission!).
"This procedure is sensitive to temperature. It turns out that the total signal that can be obtained this way decreases exponentially with the number of qubits. This problem can be alleviated by cooling the sample. Yet, there is a limit on the total number of qubits that even a super-cooled NMR computer can work with effectively."
http://beige.ucs.indiana.edu/M743/node82.html
So you still don't enough sugestions, that only D-wave quantum computer is pseudosuper good?
If you think that hypercomputer and quantum computer is the same thing then you are wrong! Hypercomputer can do somthing better but to him need more energy. For dwave quantum computer also need very much energy to cool down they superconductor based pseudoquantumhypercomputer. So nothing faster than hypercomputer now don't exist even in teory with such huge energy consumption! 28 qubits is very small number for such huge energy consumpotion. So you are looser becouse quantum computer now exist in best case only like hypercomputer
To me don't need any dirac and over matrices to understood, becouse it's just reletivized shmidized pauli matrices.
I think pauli matrices can be 3 magnetic field in 3D space. X matrix is say from left; Y pauli matrix say is rotated from X pauli matrix 90 degrees counterclockwise, so Y matrix is magnetic field from y axis (don't know ho explain). And Z matrix is from top and Z pauli matrix is magnetic field from top. And spin is in center (0; 0; 0). X magnetic field is (1; 0; 0). Y magnetic field is (0; 1; 0). And Z magnetic field is (0; 0; 1). How you think does it's possible that pauli matrices can be in physical world 3 magnetic field for 3 axis in 3D?
About quantum computer nobody don't have proves that it's imposible, but it's clear like imposible nuclear fusion. Becouse for nuclear fusion need very hight temerature (1000000 kelvins). Such temperature possible do only with big electric potencials diferent and fire between those potencials and this calling plasma. But such plasma will burn everything around so nothing can hold this plasma except magnetic field, which holding somehow electrons or protons, but those particles escaping and more nothing holding this plasma. Anyway magnetic field must be aslo very near and at hight temperature. So need very strong magnetic field and over nonsenses... So quantum computer is like nuclear fusion. Nobody can't prove that it's uneffective, but all experiments showing that this is imposible.
http://beige.ucs.indiana.edu/M743/node82.html
So you still don't enough sugestions, that only D-wave quantum computer is pseudosuper good?
If you think that hypercomputer and quantum computer is the same thing then you are wrong! Hypercomputer can do somthing better but to him need more energy. For dwave quantum computer also need very much energy to cool down they superconductor based pseudoquantumhypercomputer. So nothing faster than hypercomputer now don't exist even in teory with such huge energy consumption! 28 qubits is very small number for such huge energy consumpotion. So you are looser becouse quantum computer now exist in best case only like hypercomputer
To me don't need any dirac and over matrices to understood, becouse it's just reletivized shmidized pauli matrices.
I think pauli matrices can be 3 magnetic field in 3D space. X matrix is say from left; Y pauli matrix say is rotated from X pauli matrix 90 degrees counterclockwise, so Y matrix is magnetic field from y axis (don't know ho explain). And Z matrix is from top and Z pauli matrix is magnetic field from top. And spin is in center (0; 0; 0). X magnetic field is (1; 0; 0). Y magnetic field is (0; 1; 0). And Z magnetic field is (0; 0; 1). How you think does it's possible that pauli matrices can be in physical world 3 magnetic field for 3 axis in 3D?
About quantum computer nobody don't have proves that it's imposible, but it's clear like imposible nuclear fusion. Becouse for nuclear fusion need very hight temerature (1000000 kelvins). Such temperature possible do only with big electric potencials diferent and fire between those potencials and this calling plasma. But such plasma will burn everything around so nothing can hold this plasma except magnetic field, which holding somehow electrons or protons, but those particles escaping and more nothing holding this plasma. Anyway magnetic field must be aslo very near and at hight temperature. So need very strong magnetic field and over nonsenses... So quantum computer is like nuclear fusion. Nobody can't prove that it's uneffective, but all experiments showing that this is imposible.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 04:48 PM)
"This procedure is sensitive to temperature. It turns out that the total signal that can be obtained this way decreases exponentially with the number of qubits. This problem can be alleviated by cooling the sample. Yet, there is a limit on the total number of qubits that even a super-cooled NMR computer can work with effectively."
So it says they are possible, just you will have trouble making big ones. How is that hard for you to understand?
So it says they are possible, just you will have trouble making big ones. How is that hard for you to understand?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 04:48 PM)
If you think that hypercomputer and quantum computer is the same thing then you are wrong!
I've said nothing about 'hypercomputers', you did. Are you so unable to follow the conversation you don't realise you mentioned hypercomputers and I've never said anything about them?
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 04:48 PM)
To me don't need any dirac and over matrices to understood, becouse it's just reletivized shmidized pauli matrices.
But you don't understand any of them, Pauli, Dirac or otherwise.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 04:48 PM)
I think pauli matrices can be 3 magnetic field in 3D space.
Well you'd be wrong. They act on states, they are not the states themselves.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 04:48 PM)
About quantum computer nobody don't have proves that it's imposible, but it's clear like imposible nuclear fusion.
Except we've already acheived nuclear fusion too. We just haven't got out more energy than we've put in.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 19 2007, 04:48 PM)
Nobody can't prove that it's uneffective, but all experiments showing that this is imposible.
There's a difference between "This experiment doesn't prove it's possible" and "This experiment proves it's impossible".
Absense of proof is not proof of absense.
Absense of proof is not proof of absense.
"Single-photon multi-qubit approaches to quantum computing are not scalable (requiring an
exponential increase in resources3), but the algorithm as realized is fully quantum and sufficient for our
pedagogical purpose."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/...ure04523-s1.pdf
One more + to me and one more - to you.
They just misleading themselfs with quantum computer and with nuclear fusion, but they in heards fell that it's imposible, but it can be interesting from scientist perspective somthing new to understood.
But you don't know how they act, do you?
Nuclear fussion energy can't be proved that it's wrong (or maybe nobody want to prove), becouse it's to difficult for human brain to compare all plus and minus and made conclusion that nuclear fusion energy never would be effecient. Need hundreds of milions degrees C for effiecent nuclear fusion controled reactions. Everything around such reactor would become nothing and dust. And if you wanna hold spins say of this nuclear fusion with magnetic field on top then it's still need veryu far hold this magnetic field and then it's would be very unefiecent, becouse would need very much energy to generate very strong magnetic field and this energy would be equal energy of nuclear fusion reaction. And I even can't imagine how to control such reaction safty, becouse nothing can't absorb energy to control, becouse it's very hot. Two diferent temperatures isn't friendly...
And even if nuclear fusion would be doen it's still will be dengerouse for workers inside such reactor and station, becouse it's can explode.
So then maybe Pauli matrix X is magnetic field on left and pauli matrix Z is magnetic field on top? And pauli matrix Y means nothing, but except XZ=iY? Just for simplicity that to don't write XZ, you writeing iY and it's means bit and phase flip? And them spin can be randomly in magnetic field or another variant that spin aligned to X magnetic field.
But still nobody can't prove that pauli matrices exist if electron don't moving. Becouse about pauli matrix is I think can be evidence that possible made bit flip, so pauli X matrix may exist!
And here DavidD uncertainty principle. Two entangled electron can't have more states than 2. For example electrons can be in state 0.707|00>+0.707|1>, but can't be in state 0.5|00>+0.5|01>-0.5|10>+0.5|11>. Where 0.707^2+0.707^2=1 and 0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2=1.
But you don't know how they act, do you?
Nuclear fussion energy can't be proved that it's wrong (or maybe nobody want to prove), becouse it's to difficult for human brain to compare all plus and minus and made conclusion that nuclear fusion energy never would be effecient. Need hundreds of milions degrees C for effiecent nuclear fusion controled reactions. Everything around such reactor would become nothing and dust. And if you wanna hold spins say of this nuclear fusion with magnetic field on top then it's still need veryu far hold this magnetic field and then it's would be very unefiecent, becouse would need very much energy to generate very strong magnetic field and this energy would be equal energy of nuclear fusion reaction. And I even can't imagine how to control such reaction safty, becouse nothing can't absorb energy to control, becouse it's very hot. Two diferent temperatures isn't friendly...
And even if nuclear fusion would be doen it's still will be dengerouse for workers inside such reactor and station, becouse it's can explode.
So then maybe Pauli matrix X is magnetic field on left and pauli matrix Z is magnetic field on top? And pauli matrix Y means nothing, but except XZ=iY? Just for simplicity that to don't write XZ, you writeing iY and it's means bit and phase flip? And them spin can be randomly in magnetic field or another variant that spin aligned to X magnetic field.
But still nobody can't prove that pauli matrices exist if electron don't moving. Becouse about pauli matrix is I think can be evidence that possible made bit flip, so pauli X matrix may exist!
And here DavidD uncertainty principle. Two entangled electron can't have more states than 2. For example electrons can be in state 0.707|00>+0.707|1>, but can't be in state 0.5|00>+0.5|01>-0.5|10>+0.5|11>. Where 0.707^2+0.707^2=1 and 0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2=1.
So it says they are possible, just you will have trouble making big ones. How is that hard for you to understand?
How to you is hard understand that this will be like with nuclear fusion, where after 50 years everybody will says that need another 50 years?
exponential increase in resources3), but the algorithm as realized is fully quantum and sufficient for our
pedagogical purpose."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/...ure04523-s1.pdf
One more + to me and one more - to you.
They just misleading themselfs with quantum computer and with nuclear fusion, but they in heards fell that it's imposible, but it can be interesting from scientist perspective somthing new to understood.
QUOTE
Well you'd be wrong. They act on states, they are not the states themselves.
But you don't know how they act, do you?
Nuclear fussion energy can't be proved that it's wrong (or maybe nobody want to prove), becouse it's to difficult for human brain to compare all plus and minus and made conclusion that nuclear fusion energy never would be effecient. Need hundreds of milions degrees C for effiecent nuclear fusion controled reactions. Everything around such reactor would become nothing and dust. And if you wanna hold spins say of this nuclear fusion with magnetic field on top then it's still need veryu far hold this magnetic field and then it's would be very unefiecent, becouse would need very much energy to generate very strong magnetic field and this energy would be equal energy of nuclear fusion reaction. And I even can't imagine how to control such reaction safty, becouse nothing can't absorb energy to control, becouse it's very hot. Two diferent temperatures isn't friendly...
And even if nuclear fusion would be doen it's still will be dengerouse for workers inside such reactor and station, becouse it's can explode.
So then maybe Pauli matrix X is magnetic field on left and pauli matrix Z is magnetic field on top? And pauli matrix Y means nothing, but except XZ=iY? Just for simplicity that to don't write XZ, you writeing iY and it's means bit and phase flip? And them spin can be randomly in magnetic field or another variant that spin aligned to X magnetic field.
But still nobody can't prove that pauli matrices exist if electron don't moving. Becouse about pauli matrix is I think can be evidence that possible made bit flip, so pauli X matrix may exist!
And here DavidD uncertainty principle. Two entangled electron can't have more states than 2. For example electrons can be in state 0.707|00>+0.707|1>, but can't be in state 0.5|00>+0.5|01>-0.5|10>+0.5|11>. Where 0.707^2+0.707^2=1 and 0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2=1.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well you'd be wrong. They act on states, they are not the states themselves. |
But you don't know how they act, do you?
Nuclear fussion energy can't be proved that it's wrong (or maybe nobody want to prove), becouse it's to difficult for human brain to compare all plus and minus and made conclusion that nuclear fusion energy never would be effecient. Need hundreds of milions degrees C for effiecent nuclear fusion controled reactions. Everything around such reactor would become nothing and dust. And if you wanna hold spins say of this nuclear fusion with magnetic field on top then it's still need veryu far hold this magnetic field and then it's would be very unefiecent, becouse would need very much energy to generate very strong magnetic field and this energy would be equal energy of nuclear fusion reaction. And I even can't imagine how to control such reaction safty, becouse nothing can't absorb energy to control, becouse it's very hot. Two diferent temperatures isn't friendly...
And even if nuclear fusion would be doen it's still will be dengerouse for workers inside such reactor and station, becouse it's can explode.
So then maybe Pauli matrix X is magnetic field on left and pauli matrix Z is magnetic field on top? And pauli matrix Y means nothing, but except XZ=iY? Just for simplicity that to don't write XZ, you writeing iY and it's means bit and phase flip? And them spin can be randomly in magnetic field or another variant that spin aligned to X magnetic field.
But still nobody can't prove that pauli matrices exist if electron don't moving. Becouse about pauli matrix is I think can be evidence that possible made bit flip, so pauli X matrix may exist!
And here DavidD uncertainty principle. Two entangled electron can't have more states than 2. For example electrons can be in state 0.707|00>+0.707|1>, but can't be in state 0.5|00>+0.5|01>-0.5|10>+0.5|11>. Where 0.707^2+0.707^2=1 and 0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2+0.5^2=1.
So it says they are possible, just you will have trouble making big ones. How is that hard for you to understand?
How to you is hard understand that this will be like with nuclear fusion, where after 50 years everybody will says that need another 50 years?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.