Quantum mechanic claims that quantum computer must be possible to build, but unfortuntly quantum computers don't working... Quantum mechanic don't have any evidence about completnes and possibility to build quantum computer and that for simulation quantum physics need exponentional computation power. So quantum mechanic is hypothetical theory. Some things in quantum mechanic are proven and some - not. Why those unproven things are included in quantum mechanic theory? Why there is tryes to build quantum computer if there no proff about concept according to which quantum computer must work? Should we try made all things, which we can imagine and which don't match with logic (multiuniverse, exponentional speedup...)?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 09:54 AM)
So quantum mechanic is hypothetical theory.
No, some parts of quantum mechanics are hypothetical. The vast majority is not. The CPU in the computer infront of you is designed and built using sections of quantum theory, evidence that those sections work.
No, some parts of quantum mechanics are hypothetical. The vast majority is not. The CPU in the computer infront of you is designed and built using sections of quantum theory, evidence that those sections work.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 09:54 AM)
Some things in quantum mechanic are proven and some - not.
Absense of proof is not proof of absense. Noone has disproved the existence of God simply because there's no evidence he exists. And given the vast amount of evidence for the majority of quantum mechanics, there's even less reason to deny the other parts of quantum mechanics.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 09:54 AM)
Why those unproven things are included in quantum mechanic theory?
Because they are the invitable result of the axioms of quantum mechanics. QM has a handful of axioms and it predicts thousands of phenomena, most of which have been experimentally verified.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 09:54 AM)
Why there is tryes to build quantum computer if there no proff about concept according to which quantum computer must work?
That's like saying "Why do an experiment to test a theory if there's been no experiment to test the theory?". Building a working quantum computer would be evidence that it works. And they have done. You've been shown evidence of such a thing. I've been to talks, from physicists researching the area, about how they've built quantum computers.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 09:54 AM)
Should we try made all things, which we can imagine and which don't match with logic (multiuniverse, exponentional speedup...)?
Quantum computers are the logical implication of the axioms of quantum mechanics.
All now existed quantum computers are unproved. Or they proves holdings on hair.
Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic? Ofcourse quarks also are hypothetical particles, but they more or less fit in with leptons and can somthing explain. But hypothetical part of quantum mechanic I doubt that can somthing explain.
Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic? Ofcourse quarks also are hypothetical particles, but they more or less fit in with leptons and can somthing explain. But hypothetical part of quantum mechanic I doubt that can somthing explain.
And given the vast amount of evidence for the majority of quantum mechanics, there's even less reason to deny the other parts of quantum mechanics.
So I can take and connect some quantum dragon, which living in atom to quantum mechanic and then claim that it is part of quantum mechanic.
Bonus question: Does exist evidence that Pauli matrices exist?
in page 89: http://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/Courses/QuantInf/lect7.pdf
is saying that for simulation in 3 dimensions one quantum particle with 100 point for each dimension need 100^3 bits. And for simulation 5 such particles need 100^15=10^30 bits. For classical computer it is imposible. Now imagine that there is five planets and each planet have one Moon. Each planet has positive charge and each moons has negative charge. And all those 5 planets are enough nearly to each over to atract each over with fields (of plus or minus charge). And for each planet and for each moon is 100 point for each dimension. How much bits need to simulate this 5 planets with 5 Moons? I think that also need about 10^30 bits (or operations...).
QUOTE
No, some parts of quantum mechanics are hypothetical. The vast majority is not.
Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic? Ofcourse quarks also are hypothetical particles, but they more or less fit in with leptons and can somthing explain. But hypothetical part of quantum mechanic I doubt that can somthing explain.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, some parts of quantum mechanics are hypothetical. The vast majority is not. |
Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic? Ofcourse quarks also are hypothetical particles, but they more or less fit in with leptons and can somthing explain. But hypothetical part of quantum mechanic I doubt that can somthing explain.
And given the vast amount of evidence for the majority of quantum mechanics, there's even less reason to deny the other parts of quantum mechanics.
So I can take and connect some quantum dragon, which living in atom to quantum mechanic and then claim that it is part of quantum mechanic.
Bonus question: Does exist evidence that Pauli matrices exist?
in page 89: http://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/Courses/QuantInf/lect7.pdf
is saying that for simulation in 3 dimensions one quantum particle with 100 point for each dimension need 100^3 bits. And for simulation 5 such particles need 100^15=10^30 bits. For classical computer it is imposible. Now imagine that there is five planets and each planet have one Moon. Each planet has positive charge and each moons has negative charge. And all those 5 planets are enough nearly to each over to atract each over with fields (of plus or minus charge). And for each planet and for each moon is 100 point for each dimension. How much bits need to simulate this 5 planets with 5 Moons? I think that also need about 10^30 bits (or operations...).
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 09:41 AM)
All now existed quantum computers are unproved. Or they proves holdings on hair.
Wrong.
Because they arise from portions of QM which are known to be true. It's like saying you know all of the technical information about a gun, but don't believe it'll kill someone if you shoot them in the head with it.
Because they arise from portions of QM which are known to be true. It's like saying you know all of the technical information about a gun, but don't believe it'll kill someone if you shoot them in the head with it.
So I can take and connect some quantum dragon, which living in atom to quantum mechanic and then claim that it is part of quantum mechanic.
Nope.
Wrong.
QUOTE
Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic?
Because they arise from portions of QM which are known to be true. It's like saying you know all of the technical information about a gun, but don't believe it'll kill someone if you shoot them in the head with it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic? |
Because they arise from portions of QM which are known to be true. It's like saying you know all of the technical information about a gun, but don't believe it'll kill someone if you shoot them in the head with it.
So I can take and connect some quantum dragon, which living in atom to quantum mechanic and then claim that it is part of quantum mechanic.
Nope.
Another (unanswered?) question: does electrons entanglement was proved with experiments? Does experimentaly Pauli matrices was verificated seems nobody can answer...
Even if quantum mechanic behave acording quantum theory in some conditions it's still don't mean that is possible to build quantum computer, becouse thermal noise may be stronger...
In quantum computer believing only scientist who working in this field, becouse don't want to lose job and fanatics. Any reasonable proves dosn't exist. NMR QC with 7 qubits get answer after 2^7 tries, instead one try. How it possible to believe in quantum computer after this?
Even if quantum mechanic behave acording quantum theory in some conditions it's still don't mean that is possible to build quantum computer, becouse thermal noise may be stronger...
QUOTE
Wrong.
In quantum computer believing only scientist who working in this field, becouse don't want to lose job and fanatics. Any reasonable proves dosn't exist. NMR QC with 7 qubits get answer after 2^7 tries, instead one try. How it possible to believe in quantum computer after this?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM)
All now existed quantum computers are unproved. Or they proves holdings on hair.
No, they have actually been built and have been used to compute the solutions to simple problems. You're denying the existence of well documented things.
Have you ever been to Beijing? Do you deny it's existence simply because you haven't seen it with your own eyes?
No, they have actually been built and have been used to compute the solutions to simple problems. You're denying the existence of well documented things.
Have you ever been to Beijing? Do you deny it's existence simply because you haven't seen it with your own eyes?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM)
Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic?
Because that's like saying "If we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't exist". When Einstein formulated general relativity there was no evidence for it over Newtonian physics. By your logic, he should have chucked it in the bin because it was all, at the time, hypothetical.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM)
Ofcourse quarks also are hypothetical particles, but they more or less fit in with leptons and can somthing explain.
No, deep inelastic scattering proves that neutrons and protons have point charged within them which couple via a force other than electromagnetism or gravity. Quarks also explain all mesons and baryons. Quarks were a concept developed because experiments said they existed.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM)
But hypothetical part of quantum mechanic I doubt that can somthing explain.
But then you're an idiot.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM)
So I can take and connect some quantum dragon, which living in atom to quantum mechanic and then claim that it is part of quantum mechanic.
No, because this is not an implication which is derivable from the axioms of quantum mechanics.
The results of quantum mechanics cannot be derived from Newtonian physics. Hence you cannot say "Newtonian physics explains quantum mechanics". Just as you cannot say "Quantum mechanics says dragons live in atoms".
Do you even understand how logic works?
The results of quantum mechanics cannot be derived from Newtonian physics. Hence you cannot say "Newtonian physics explains quantum mechanics". Just as you cannot say "Quantum mechanics says dragons live in atoms".
Do you even understand how logic works?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM)
Bonus question: Does exist evidence that Pauli matrices exist?
*sigh*
You and I have already discussed this. Matrices are mathematical objects, they no more exist in reality than d/dx differential operators do. However, they form structures which, when certain physical quantities are assigned to the structures' components, which mirror the behaviour of certain physical systems.
For instance, the spin of electrons around atoms or quarks in hadrons form structures which are seen in Pauli matrices. Angular momentum also forms a structure like the Pauli matrices, ie if J_i is the i'th component of the angular momentum vector J = (J_1,J_2,J_3) then these have the structure [J_i,J_j] = ε_ijk J_k. The Pauli matrices, σ_i, form a structure [σ_i,σ_j] = ε_ijk σ_k. Thus you can describe angular momentum behaviours using the Pauli matrices.
Another example is that the Lorentz transformations in relativity form the Lie group SO(3,1). The Lie algebra of SO(3,1), so(3,1), is the direct product of two copies of the Lie algebra of SU(2), su(2)xsu(2). The generators of su(2) are precisely the Pauli matrices. Thus you can describe space-time transformations using the Pauli matrices.
All of these are experimentally verified, space-time transformations like rotations and boosts transform like that and the spin of electrons in magnetic fields transform like that.
klingon, sindarin, hell even icelandic would do
You and I have already discussed this. Matrices are mathematical objects, they no more exist in reality than d/dx differential operators do. However, they form structures which, when certain physical quantities are assigned to the structures' components, which mirror the behaviour of certain physical systems.
For instance, the spin of electrons around atoms or quarks in hadrons form structures which are seen in Pauli matrices. Angular momentum also forms a structure like the Pauli matrices, ie if J_i is the i'th component of the angular momentum vector J = (J_1,J_2,J_3) then these have the structure [J_i,J_j] = ε_ijk J_k. The Pauli matrices, σ_i, form a structure [σ_i,σ_j] = ε_ijk σ_k. Thus you can describe angular momentum behaviours using the Pauli matrices.
Another example is that the Lorentz transformations in relativity form the Lie group SO(3,1). The Lie algebra of SO(3,1), so(3,1), is the direct product of two copies of the Lie algebra of SU(2), su(2)xsu(2). The generators of su(2) are precisely the Pauli matrices. Thus you can describe space-time transformations using the Pauli matrices.
All of these are experimentally verified, space-time transformations like rotations and boosts transform like that and the spin of electrons in magnetic fields transform like that.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM)
Another (unanswered?) question: does electrons entanglement was proved with experiments? Does experimentaly Pauli matrices was verificated seems nobody can answer...
People can answer, I've answered you in this thread and I've answered you in other threads. You just don't want to listen.
This and the fact you seem to think you understand Pauli matrices but obviously don't, make me feel justified in calling you are complete idiot. A staggering fool. A delusional mor0n.
This and the fact you seem to think you understand Pauli matrices but obviously don't, make me feel justified in calling you are complete idiot. A staggering fool. A delusional mor0n.
Before I vote. Could the OP rephrase the question "Does quantum mechanic is wrong?" please? This time in English.
BINARIES INHERENTLY UNSTABLE,
TRINARIES INHERIT PLANAR STABILITY
HUMANS INHERIT THE WINDY RHETORIC
[Spin-Knows-A thing or two or more (circa 1531 ADE)]
DavidD
Posted on Today at 8:54 AM:
[Comments:rm-QM claims nothing, people make claims, goal for us humans? Live long, don't suffer, recreate a better World.
"Science" is a discipline at it's best, knowledge and understanding yields personal power, no Doctor StrangeLove necessary, unproven may or may not, or otherwise, show light in dark passageway to future.
How's that?
Just put in new security download today, better or different Apple TextEdit.
This is a test, one, two, three, four, five, six, pick up magnetic sticks, attach magnetic steel balls, construct some basic 3D models, take your time, get the 4D picture?
Qubits, two state; qutrit, three state, so a computer, static states or dynamic, the basic counting unit, bit or qutrit, should be reliable, redundancy helps.
Big industry, computers, it took, I read, some 900 years to identify the dimple in the clay that held the calculii from rolling out of the places to do the Roman Numerals and other recogning calculations, to call that absence by the name zero, "0".
We got time on our side, collectively speaking, if we can work to secure the Planet, and avoid a direct hit by a large comet.]
Best, rmuldavin
===========================
AlphaNumeric
Posted on Today at 1:39 PM: Your last sentence:
{{Quantum computers are the logical implication of the axioms of quantum mechanics.}}
[comments: I'd add the notion that there are many "natural" computers other than the ones we humans have manufactured over more than two ice ages, that is longer than 100 K years (167K yrs last report of human skull found in Egypt).]
===========================
DavidD
Posted on Today at 2:41 PM:
[comments:
Complexity by Mathematic or by Rhetoric, in either case, I would expect some physics, the G-string felt HUGS with the complexing of the number line into a real part ® and imaginary (sq rt minus 1) times (I) gives a two dimensional plane for each dimension. On it we can draw continuous curves in the abstract sense, let me check your link:
[Sorry, my ibook show no or very little rural telephone activity. Is this some slowdown, commerical limit, I doubt it. Maybe the link, ... a few streaks, ...there a spike. At time I think the QM is a taboo subject because either commerically many are investing or want investors and revelations are not given that would be a disadvantage...pass NSApplications!]
===========================
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted on Today at 4:57 PM: I sense your anger, are you a paid detractor, or a farmer on a tractor? Maybe one of those enclosed cabs with wireless Internet, watch that the rows are conformal.
Passing Green House Gas? Apologize for that one. Best, rm
===========================
DavidD
Posted on Today at 5:23 PM: Last week or two I read essay that large linear and circular accelerators have model mathematical makers that fit to collision data, large number of workers contributing to this.
Sure it would be easy to merely assert it is a massive boon doggle, and I assert that the emphasis should be for medical and global environmental cures, the job loss aspect would disappear as we (collectively) could share the benefits of production by automation, giving some truth to the propaganda that automation can reduce costs, not necessary raise profits that likely cause the Capital to be withdrawn and shipped overseas or across borders, actual or cybernetic.
In short, short changed are we working people, remember, the fully retired are also pure abstract mathematical capitalists, a paper check without indexing for inflation will soon be cheap wallpaper.
The sticky buck stops on the walls of tenement halls, with the sounds of silence, if you haven't lost your home by default.
Apologies for light fingered physics.
===========================
Nite, will try to follow this discussion, maybe tomorrow reading more on bit and trits,
best, rm
TRINARIES INHERIT PLANAR STABILITY
HUMANS INHERIT THE WINDY RHETORIC
[Spin-Knows-A thing or two or more (circa 1531 ADE)]
DavidD
Posted on Today at 8:54 AM:
[Comments:rm-QM claims nothing, people make claims, goal for us humans? Live long, don't suffer, recreate a better World.
"Science" is a discipline at it's best, knowledge and understanding yields personal power, no Doctor StrangeLove necessary, unproven may or may not, or otherwise, show light in dark passageway to future.
How's that?
Just put in new security download today, better or different Apple TextEdit.
This is a test, one, two, three, four, five, six, pick up magnetic sticks, attach magnetic steel balls, construct some basic 3D models, take your time, get the 4D picture?
Qubits, two state; qutrit, three state, so a computer, static states or dynamic, the basic counting unit, bit or qutrit, should be reliable, redundancy helps.
Big industry, computers, it took, I read, some 900 years to identify the dimple in the clay that held the calculii from rolling out of the places to do the Roman Numerals and other recogning calculations, to call that absence by the name zero, "0".
We got time on our side, collectively speaking, if we can work to secure the Planet, and avoid a direct hit by a large comet.]
Best, rmuldavin
===========================
AlphaNumeric
Posted on Today at 1:39 PM: Your last sentence:
{{Quantum computers are the logical implication of the axioms of quantum mechanics.}}
[comments: I'd add the notion that there are many "natural" computers other than the ones we humans have manufactured over more than two ice ages, that is longer than 100 K years (167K yrs last report of human skull found in Egypt).]
===========================
DavidD
Posted on Today at 2:41 PM:
[comments:
Complexity by Mathematic or by Rhetoric, in either case, I would expect some physics, the G-string felt HUGS with the complexing of the number line into a real part ® and imaginary (sq rt minus 1) times (I) gives a two dimensional plane for each dimension. On it we can draw continuous curves in the abstract sense, let me check your link:
[Sorry, my ibook show no or very little rural telephone activity. Is this some slowdown, commerical limit, I doubt it. Maybe the link, ... a few streaks, ...there a spike. At time I think the QM is a taboo subject because either commerically many are investing or want investors and revelations are not given that would be a disadvantage...pass NSApplications!]
===========================
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted on Today at 4:57 PM: I sense your anger, are you a paid detractor, or a farmer on a tractor? Maybe one of those enclosed cabs with wireless Internet, watch that the rows are conformal.
Passing Green House Gas? Apologize for that one. Best, rm
===========================
DavidD
Posted on Today at 5:23 PM: Last week or two I read essay that large linear and circular accelerators have model mathematical makers that fit to collision data, large number of workers contributing to this.
Sure it would be easy to merely assert it is a massive boon doggle, and I assert that the emphasis should be for medical and global environmental cures, the job loss aspect would disappear as we (collectively) could share the benefits of production by automation, giving some truth to the propaganda that automation can reduce costs, not necessary raise profits that likely cause the Capital to be withdrawn and shipped overseas or across borders, actual or cybernetic.
In short, short changed are we working people, remember, the fully retired are also pure abstract mathematical capitalists, a paper check without indexing for inflation will soon be cheap wallpaper.
The sticky buck stops on the walls of tenement halls, with the sounds of silence, if you haven't lost your home by default.
Apologies for light fingered physics.
===========================
Nite, will try to follow this discussion, maybe tomorrow reading more on bit and trits,
best, rm
OK, Pauli matrices seems describing spin very well and was experimentaly verified...
But I can't understand how to create entangled electrons or atoms? Entangled photons are created when blue photon of light bunching into crystal and then going out two red photons. Besides, Alphanumeric, you never write about entangled electrons.
"In the1990-2000, several experimentalists showed that entangled photons generated
by non-linear crystals could stay entangled for distances up to 10 km." So photon entanglement is proven, but how about electrons or atoms (or maybe nucleons, or bosons)?
If you more believe in documents than in brain, then you are an idiot. What's a point to claim that they working if they working exponentionaly bad? You probably don't analise what is wroting in those documents, more deeply?
"Since one electron produces several photons instantaneously, such photons are
entangled according to Quantum Mechanics. Being statistically spread in a cone,
entangled photons can hit several samples, swap their entanglement to nuclei or to
atom electrons. Electron accelerators are thus efficient tools for irradiating
thermoluminescent materials where entangled electrons can be stored."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611109
"Recent work with electrons in magnetic materials show that at very low temperature
the electron motion does not stop [14]. Electron spins are entangled in pairs and their
innate bond with one another keep them from freezing, contrary to what classical
physics predicts" - Can't understand how electrons are entangled and what conditions need to make them entangled?
"Furthermore the entangled electrons seems to be resistant to decoherence, that is
the collapse of their entanglement, since samples, co-irradiated several months prior
to the experiments reported here, still gave intense signals. An extremely large
number of single electrons in one crystal are entangled with electrons in the other
crystal and “stored” in relative decoherence free space of impurity traps of the
crystals. It appears that the ion traps are behaving very similarly to QED quantum
cavities." - If Ion trap QC dosn't working, why I should believe in entangled electrons?
This citated make me believe in entangled electrons at 70%:
"The reported experiments are a practical implementation of the entanglement
phenomenon of Quantum Mechanics. Two particles are said to be entangled when
they are emitted simultaneously by the same atomic wave function, for example;
photons emitted by a nucleus, or an electron, and the photons temporarily form an
interactive interference pattern with one another. Such particles are quantumconnected
to each other and interaction with a measurement system by one of them
is “sensed” immediately by the entangled counterpart. Entanglement can be
swapped between two particles and two other particles. Entangled particles, such as
10
electrons, can be “stored” in ion traps or impurities within thermoluminescent crystal
lattices and remain isolated from environmental decoherence effects in the traps for
considerable amounts of time. Electrons can be forced to leave these traps and then
drop down to their respective ground state energies in the crystal lattice by thermal
heating or by stimulated luminescence. An entangled electron dropping out of its ion
trap will go through spin transitions which affect its entangled counterpart electron by
reason of spin conservation laws such that it becomes favorable for the counterpart
electron to exit its trap as a result, emitting some light while dropping to ground state,
at whatever distances the traps are located from one another. Since traps can be
entangled even though present in separate crystal lattices, such samples can be
separated by a large distance and the entangled electrons still be connected until
perturbed by thermal heating of the crystal lattice containing one of the trapped
entangled electron pairs. It appears that the trapped entangled electrons escape only
at discrete and unique temperature values, thus allowing the same glow curve
response (although much less intense than the heated crystal) to be recorded for
each non-heated thermoluminescent crystal when the temperature of the heated
crystal lattice is increased and decreased. This experiment amply demonstrates that:
- Bremsstrahlung gamma ray or X photons are entangled,
- The entangled photons can transfer their entanglement to particles (electrons)
- swapping entanglement between particles is possible and does occur,
- entangled particles can be “stored” as wave functions in ion traps that behave
as QED cavities within thermoluminescent materials,
- environmental decoherence appears extremely feeble within ion traps
containing entangled electrons since the heating and measurement
experiments were conducted over one month after co-irradiation of separate
TLD chips,
- entangled electrons appear to exit the traps only at very discrete and
characteristic temperatures during temperature increase and not in accord
with the Arrhenius equation which dictates that ordinary electron traps empty
as a function of a continuum of release temperatures. This is a significant
finding of this experiment which should provide quantitative clues for the
interaction mechanisms involved in entangled electrons within ion traps
- slave chip (non-heated entangled counterpart crystal) glow curves correlate for
the crystal lattice temperature increasing and then decreasing via cooling
(temperature turn around point) in a very symmetrical and systematic way,
- quantum liaisons can be established between locations situated 8,182 km
apart."
Photonic quantum computer can't be made, becouse even entangled shamngled photons don't want talk to each over, becouse very hard to connect them together in 3D space. QC with atoms or electrons dosn't work, becouse of thermal noise either of imposiblity manipulate electrons in way, which quantum mechanic predict, when electrons are entangled.
But I can't understand how to create entangled electrons or atoms? Entangled photons are created when blue photon of light bunching into crystal and then going out two red photons. Besides, Alphanumeric, you never write about entangled electrons.
"In the1990-2000, several experimentalists showed that entangled photons generated
by non-linear crystals could stay entangled for distances up to 10 km." So photon entanglement is proven, but how about electrons or atoms (or maybe nucleons, or bosons)?
QUOTE
No, they have actually been built and have been used to compute the solutions to simple problems. You're denying the existence of well documented things.
If you more believe in documents than in brain, then you are an idiot. What's a point to claim that they working if they working exponentionaly bad? You probably don't analise what is wroting in those documents, more deeply?
"Since one electron produces several photons instantaneously, such photons are
entangled according to Quantum Mechanics. Being statistically spread in a cone,
entangled photons can hit several samples, swap their entanglement to nuclei or to
atom electrons. Electron accelerators are thus efficient tools for irradiating
thermoluminescent materials where entangled electrons can be stored."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611109
"Recent work with electrons in magnetic materials show that at very low temperature
the electron motion does not stop [14]. Electron spins are entangled in pairs and their
innate bond with one another keep them from freezing, contrary to what classical
physics predicts" - Can't understand how electrons are entangled and what conditions need to make them entangled?
"Furthermore the entangled electrons seems to be resistant to decoherence, that is
the collapse of their entanglement, since samples, co-irradiated several months prior
to the experiments reported here, still gave intense signals. An extremely large
number of single electrons in one crystal are entangled with electrons in the other
crystal and “stored” in relative decoherence free space of impurity traps of the
crystals. It appears that the ion traps are behaving very similarly to QED quantum
cavities." - If Ion trap QC dosn't working, why I should believe in entangled electrons?
This citated make me believe in entangled electrons at 70%:
"The reported experiments are a practical implementation of the entanglement
phenomenon of Quantum Mechanics. Two particles are said to be entangled when
they are emitted simultaneously by the same atomic wave function, for example;
photons emitted by a nucleus, or an electron, and the photons temporarily form an
interactive interference pattern with one another. Such particles are quantumconnected
to each other and interaction with a measurement system by one of them
is “sensed” immediately by the entangled counterpart. Entanglement can be
swapped between two particles and two other particles. Entangled particles, such as
10
electrons, can be “stored” in ion traps or impurities within thermoluminescent crystal
lattices and remain isolated from environmental decoherence effects in the traps for
considerable amounts of time. Electrons can be forced to leave these traps and then
drop down to their respective ground state energies in the crystal lattice by thermal
heating or by stimulated luminescence. An entangled electron dropping out of its ion
trap will go through spin transitions which affect its entangled counterpart electron by
reason of spin conservation laws such that it becomes favorable for the counterpart
electron to exit its trap as a result, emitting some light while dropping to ground state,
at whatever distances the traps are located from one another. Since traps can be
entangled even though present in separate crystal lattices, such samples can be
separated by a large distance and the entangled electrons still be connected until
perturbed by thermal heating of the crystal lattice containing one of the trapped
entangled electron pairs. It appears that the trapped entangled electrons escape only
at discrete and unique temperature values, thus allowing the same glow curve
response (although much less intense than the heated crystal) to be recorded for
each non-heated thermoluminescent crystal when the temperature of the heated
crystal lattice is increased and decreased. This experiment amply demonstrates that:
- Bremsstrahlung gamma ray or X photons are entangled,
- The entangled photons can transfer their entanglement to particles (electrons)
- swapping entanglement between particles is possible and does occur,
- entangled particles can be “stored” as wave functions in ion traps that behave
as QED cavities within thermoluminescent materials,
- environmental decoherence appears extremely feeble within ion traps
containing entangled electrons since the heating and measurement
experiments were conducted over one month after co-irradiation of separate
TLD chips,
- entangled electrons appear to exit the traps only at very discrete and
characteristic temperatures during temperature increase and not in accord
with the Arrhenius equation which dictates that ordinary electron traps empty
as a function of a continuum of release temperatures. This is a significant
finding of this experiment which should provide quantitative clues for the
interaction mechanisms involved in entangled electrons within ion traps
- slave chip (non-heated entangled counterpart crystal) glow curves correlate for
the crystal lattice temperature increasing and then decreasing via cooling
(temperature turn around point) in a very symmetrical and systematic way,
- quantum liaisons can be established between locations situated 8,182 km
apart."
Photonic quantum computer can't be made, becouse even entangled shamngled photons don't want talk to each over, becouse very hard to connect them together in 3D space. QC with atoms or electrons dosn't work, becouse of thermal noise either of imposiblity manipulate electrons in way, which quantum mechanic predict, when electrons are entangled.
QUOTE
N O M Posted on Today at 11:59 AM Before I vote. Could the OP rephrase the question "Does quantum mechanic is wrong?" please? This time in English.
klingon, sindarin, hell even icelandic would do
I couldn't answer the question nor give you my opinion because i couldn't understand the question
i am quite sure that " why quantum mechanic is wrong?" does not count in the English concept.......
please specify what you mean, and give me a call when you have undertaken an English class!
i am quite sure that " why quantum mechanic is wrong?" does not count in the English concept.......
please specify what you mean, and give me a call when you have undertaken an English class!
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 09:09 AM)
but how about electrons or atoms (or maybe nucleons, or bosons)?
Photons are bosons you idiot.
Photons are bosons you idiot.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 09:09 AM)
why I should believe in entangled electrons?
So you don't believe in anything for which evidence doesn't exist? Again, absense of proof is not proof of absense.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 09:09 AM)
You probably don't analise what is wroting in those documents, more deeply?
Firstly, I don't 'analise' anything (or anyone)!
Secondly, that's pretty damn rich coming from you. You whine about Pauli matrices but you've never read a thing about them. You don't know any of the maths of them or how they apply to physics. And despite me having explained their physical applications to you previously, you still whine about them.
And as I said, I've been to talks by people who actually have built a small quantum computer, so I believe them over the interpretation of an idiot like you on a topic you know nothing about.
Practical scalability in quantum computers
Explaination of why SOME methods of building a quantum computer suffer from noise but others do not
ow to build a 300 bit, 1 Giga-operation quantum computer
In the abstract it says "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented."
Practical implimentation of quantum computers in 'noisy' systems
Need I go on....
Secondly, that's pretty damn rich coming from you. You whine about Pauli matrices but you've never read a thing about them. You don't know any of the maths of them or how they apply to physics. And despite me having explained their physical applications to you previously, you still whine about them.
And as I said, I've been to talks by people who actually have built a small quantum computer, so I believe them over the interpretation of an idiot like you on a topic you know nothing about.
Practical scalability in quantum computers
Explaination of why SOME methods of building a quantum computer suffer from noise but others do not
ow to build a 300 bit, 1 Giga-operation quantum computer
In the abstract it says "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented."
Practical implimentation of quantum computers in 'noisy' systems
Need I go on....
Yo, I read that to entangle two atoms or electrons is very hard, becouse they entanglement is through photons so need everwhere mirrors around and this sounds shitly. And thermal noise will make deconherence faster than photons through mirrors will do them job. Also entangled(?) atoms talking through phonons (high frenquency sound), what is very strange. All this problems with entanglement of two atoms or electrons sounds very imposible. So I think 50% that maybe entangled elctrons was been demostrated.
Pauli matrices invented for describing spin (of electron or prtoton, neutron) and they have nothing to do with entanglement. I only don't know does pauli matrices describing spin in 3D or not, but they work only with single particle and this means, that entanglement between two atoms or electrons wasn't doen. On the over hand entanglement between two photons was maded, but quantum computer with photons somewhy can't be builded (I am not sure, this is becouse need exponentionaly many gates or becouse need that photon interacts more with each over than just that they be entangled...).
Do you talking about D-wave? If yes then just wait few months until they will demonstrate they unworking (unsuccessful - exponentionaly slower than should be) 512 qubits quantum computer. If no, then those people are just very big optimist about very weak proofs...
Do you talking about D-wave? If yes then just wait few months until they will demonstrate they unworking (unsuccessful - exponentionaly slower than should be) 512 qubits quantum computer. If no, then those people are just very big optimist about very weak proofs...
Practical scalability in quantum computers
Explaination of why SOME methods of building a quantum computer suffer from noise but others do not
ow to build a 300 bit, 1 Giga-operation quantum computer
In the abstract it says "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented."
Practical implimentation of quantum computers in 'noisy' systems
Only dreams, but no working quantum computer.
Pauli matrices invented for describing spin (of electron or prtoton, neutron) and they have nothing to do with entanglement. I only don't know does pauli matrices describing spin in 3D or not, but they work only with single particle and this means, that entanglement between two atoms or electrons wasn't doen. On the over hand entanglement between two photons was maded, but quantum computer with photons somewhy can't be builded (I am not sure, this is becouse need exponentionaly many gates or becouse need that photon interacts more with each over than just that they be entangled...).
QUOTE
And as I said, I've been to talks by people who actually have built a small quantum computer, so I believe them over the interpretation of an idiot like you on a topic you know nothing about.
Do you talking about D-wave? If yes then just wait few months until they will demonstrate they unworking (unsuccessful - exponentionaly slower than should be) 512 qubits quantum computer. If no, then those people are just very big optimist about very weak proofs...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And as I said, I've been to talks by people who actually have built a small quantum computer, so I believe them over the interpretation of an idiot like you on a topic you know nothing about. |
Do you talking about D-wave? If yes then just wait few months until they will demonstrate they unworking (unsuccessful - exponentionaly slower than should be) 512 qubits quantum computer. If no, then those people are just very big optimist about very weak proofs...
Practical scalability in quantum computers
Explaination of why SOME methods of building a quantum computer suffer from noise but others do not
ow to build a 300 bit, 1 Giga-operation quantum computer
In the abstract it says "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented."
Practical implimentation of quantum computers in 'noisy' systems
Only dreams, but no working quantum computer.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 11:53 AM)
And thermal noise will make deconherence faster than photons through mirrors will do them job.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512084
How to build systems which don't suffer from bad decoherence. And one of the papers I linked to describes how to impliment systems which have error correction on a level with physically attainable errors.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512084
How to build systems which don't suffer from bad decoherence. And one of the papers I linked to describes how to impliment systems which have error correction on a level with physically attainable errors.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 11:53 AM)
Also entangled(?) atoms talking through phonons (high frenquency sound), what is very strange.
Why is it strange? Phonons are a well understood phenomena. They are experimentally verified.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 11:53 AM)
Pauli matrices invented for describing spin
No, su(2) was described centuries before Pauli came along. Cartan did a complete enumeration of simple Lie algebras long before Pauli worked out a physical application for su(2).
Pauli got his name attatched to them because he took the mathematical concept of su(2) and realised it had physical applications. Just like Lorentz realised that SO(3,1) was the symmetry group of Minkowski space-time.
Pauli got his name attatched to them because he took the mathematical concept of su(2) and realised it had physical applications. Just like Lorentz realised that SO(3,1) was the symmetry group of Minkowski space-time.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 11:53 AM)
I only don't know does pauli matrices describing spin in 3D or not, but they work only with single particle
No, Pauli matrices work for multi-particle systems. I even said so in my last post when I said they described hadronic systems. Look up meson multiplets. I've even explained them to you before.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 11:53 AM)
but quantum computer with photons somewhy can't be builded (I am not sure, this is becouse need exponentionaly many gates or becouse need that photon interacts more with each over than just that they be entangled...).
Still not grasping it, are you? Photon based quantum computers have been built. You seem to think that because BIG (ie lots of bits) quantum computers haven't been built that ANY number of bits is impossible. Wrong! Quantum computers with bits less than 8 have been built. It's known as 'proof of concept'. The concept of quantum computers works, experiments prove it. Getting large scale quantum computing is different.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 11:53 AM)
If no, then those people are just very big optimist about very weak proofs...
Proving it works isn't a weak proof.
It's like saying "A big fire isn't hot" because you've only ever seen small fires, which you accept are hot.
I say this, just becouse to made more easy to you understand, that they proffs is TOTALY BULLSHIT!!!
I say this, just becouse to made more easy to you understand, that they proffs is TOTALY BULLSHIT!!!
Did you miss the one which said "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented"
But not proven. If 58% or somthing working instead classical 50% it don't proves that those gates working. And if gates implemented then what stoping them from building quantum computer with 2 qubits?
Show me PDF, please.
Show me PDF, please.
You seem to think that because BIG (ie lots of bits) quantum computers haven't been built that ANY number of bits is impossible.
NO, wasn't build even 2 qubits quantum computer.
With exponentionaly bad qubits.
With exponentionaly bad qubits.
It's known as 'proof of concept'. The concept of quantum computers works, experiments prove it.
Experiments nothing had prove. Press - yes.
Alphanumeric, who you are idealist or materialist? If you are idealist then you probably believe in Manyworlds, exponentional speedup, or somthing like this, many dimensions and that our world isn't classical, but quantum or whatever. I am materialist and believing that our universe is 3 dimensional and working accoring classical physic (with smallest particles like in my theory, for example). So I don't believing in exponentional speed-up becouse it's violates laws of classical physic.
Does there is proves about superposition of excided and ground state of atom?
Does there is nontrivial (90-100% match with experiment) prove about entangled atoms or electrons?
Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement.
Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.
It's like saying "A big fire isn't hot" because you've only ever seen small fires, which you accept are hot.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 11:53 AM)
Only dreams, but no working quantum computer.
Did you miss the one which said "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented"? Did you bother to look at any of them or did you just reply without even thinking about it?
You're obviously not interested in physics, you whine about concepts you don't understand and you refuse to look at evidence. Why do you even bother coming to this website if all you're interested in is hearing yourself talk? Do us all a favour and stop posting. You can just sit at home and speak outloud. At least then you're the only person who has to be exposed to your ignorance.
You're obviously not interested in physics, you whine about concepts you don't understand and you refuse to look at evidence. Why do you even bother coming to this website if all you're interested in is hearing yourself talk? Do us all a favour and stop posting. You can just sit at home and speak outloud. At least then you're the only person who has to be exposed to your ignorance.
QUOTE
Proving it works isn't a weak proof.
It's like saying "A big fire isn't hot" because you've only ever seen small fires, which you accept are hot.
It's like saying "A big fire isn't hot" because you've only ever seen small fires, which you accept are hot.
I say this, just becouse to made more easy to you understand, that they proffs is TOTALY BULLSHIT!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Proving it works isn't a weak proof. It's like saying "A big fire isn't hot" because you've only ever seen small fires, which you accept are hot. |
I say this, just becouse to made more easy to you understand, that they proffs is TOTALY BULLSHIT!!!
Did you miss the one which said "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented"
But not proven. If 58% or somthing working instead classical 50% it don't proves that those gates working. And if gates implemented then what stoping them from building quantum computer with 2 qubits?
QUOTE
Photon based quantum computers have been built.
Show me PDF, please.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Photon based quantum computers have been built. |
Show me PDF, please.
You seem to think that because BIG (ie lots of bits) quantum computers haven't been built that ANY number of bits is impossible.
NO, wasn't build even 2 qubits quantum computer.
QUOTE
Quantum computers with bits less than 8 have been built.
With exponentionaly bad qubits.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum computers with bits less than 8 have been built. |
With exponentionaly bad qubits.
It's known as 'proof of concept'. The concept of quantum computers works, experiments prove it.
Experiments nothing had prove. Press - yes.
Alphanumeric, who you are idealist or materialist? If you are idealist then you probably believe in Manyworlds, exponentional speedup, or somthing like this, many dimensions and that our world isn't classical, but quantum or whatever. I am materialist and believing that our universe is 3 dimensional and working accoring classical physic (with smallest particles like in my theory, for example). So I don't believing in exponentional speed-up becouse it's violates laws of classical physic.
Does there is proves about superposition of excided and ground state of atom?
Does there is nontrivial (90-100% match with experiment) prove about entangled atoms or electrons?
Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement.
Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.
Second Order Webester for noun "natural":
{{natural, noun,
1. an idiot; a fool; one born without the usual powers of reason or understanding.
2. a person who is or seems to be naturallly expert. [Collog.]
3. a thing that is, or promises to be immediately and remarkably successful [Collog]
4. in music...[-rm: white keys only]
5. a native, an original inhabitant [Obs.]
6. a gift of nature; a natural quality. [Obs.]
[additional comments: may have mentioned the IDIOT word used in North Easter Europe, a film, the "Village Idiot" was the Rabi.
Why or why did this "IDIOT" word get these definitions, Webster's defines it from French and Greek origins.
idio-, [Gr. idio- from idios, one's own.] a combining form meaning one's own, personal distinct, and in idiocrasy, idiograph.
My political guess? Uniqueness in presentation of self in everyday life, a word associated with birth of child outside sanctioned marriage, maybe more often out of poverty, or to natives living on lands invaded by males with relatively advanced weapons.
In short, being with nature, however the dice were rolled, like "idiot savant", or idiot servant".
The deck is stacked for the powerful materially, but often even they are playing without a full deck, but don't know it.
You made my day, chatters, right on, common radicals (comrades) maybe our tolerances are at low levels to feeling like an IDIOT, which is somewhere a part of myself?
Best, back to reading, from rmuldavin
{{natural, noun,
1. an idiot; a fool; one born without the usual powers of reason or understanding.
2. a person who is or seems to be naturallly expert. [Collog.]
3. a thing that is, or promises to be immediately and remarkably successful [Collog]
4. in music...[-rm: white keys only]
5. a native, an original inhabitant [Obs.]
6. a gift of nature; a natural quality. [Obs.]
[additional comments: may have mentioned the IDIOT word used in North Easter Europe, a film, the "Village Idiot" was the Rabi.
Why or why did this "IDIOT" word get these definitions, Webster's defines it from French and Greek origins.
idio-, [Gr. idio- from idios, one's own.] a combining form meaning one's own, personal distinct, and in idiocrasy, idiograph.
My political guess? Uniqueness in presentation of self in everyday life, a word associated with birth of child outside sanctioned marriage, maybe more often out of poverty, or to natives living on lands invaded by males with relatively advanced weapons.
In short, being with nature, however the dice were rolled, like "idiot savant", or idiot servant".
The deck is stacked for the powerful materially, but often even they are playing without a full deck, but don't know it.
You made my day, chatters, right on, common radicals (comrades) maybe our tolerances are at low levels to feeling like an IDIOT, which is somewhere a part of myself?
Best, back to reading, from rmuldavin
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
I say this, just becouse to made more easy to you understand, that they proffs is TOTALY BULLSHIT!!!
They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'totally bullshit' ?
They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'totally bullshit' ?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
But not proven.
They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'not proven' ?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
Show me PDF, please.
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/06/0222quantum.html
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
NO, wasn't build even 2 qubits quantum computer.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/13/dwave_quantum/page2.html
8 bit.
8 bit.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
With exponentionaly bad qubits.
Do you even understand what that means? It means you can get quantum computers with a very small number of bits to work, but if you add more bits the problem with noise rapidly increases. It doesn't mean 2 bits is impossible.
And as my links to PUBLISHED PAPERS demonstrated, there are ways around that. That's what research is about, finding solutions to problems.
And as my links to PUBLISHED PAPERS demonstrated, there are ways around that. That's what research is about, finding solutions to problems.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
Experiments nothing had prove
They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'not proven' ?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
Alphanumeric, who you are idealist or materialist?
I'm a realist. If a quantum computer solves a problem then it proves quantum computers are real. This has happened, thus quantum computers are real.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
I am materialist and believing that our universe is 3 dimensional and working accoring classical physic (with smallest particles like in my theory, for example). So I don't believing in exponentional speed-up becouse it's violates laws of classical physic.
Then you're an idiot. Classical mechanics CANNOT even explain the atom. There's huge numbers of phenomena it cannot explain. Anything, EVERYTHING, to do with atoms and subatomic particles. Thus classical physics is insufficent to explain reality. It only takes 1 experiment to disprove classical mechanics. We have thousands!
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
Does there is proves about superposition of excided and ground state of atom?
Yes, quantum mechanics explains emission spectra of atoms. Classical mechanics cannot.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
Does there is nontrivial (90-100% match with experiment) prove about entangled atoms or electrons?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3449-triple-electron-entanglement-boosts-quantum-computing.html
Find me a published paper which demonstrates classical mechanics can describe super conductors, electroweak decay or atoms. They don't exist because classical mechanics can't.
Find me a published paper which demonstrates classical mechanics can describe super conductors, electroweak decay or atoms. They don't exist because classical mechanics can't.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement.
Phonons exhibit quantum properties, they are quantised sound oscillations. Find me a published paper showing classical mechanics can accurately explain phonons.
This quantum computer is simulator. Did you know that it means? It means that if even such computer would be builded for it need exponentionaly many gates, becouse it's not true quantum computer but quantum computer SIMULATOR:
http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/QI/Photon...-jmo-47-257.pdf
It's similar to this citate: "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 D-wave quantum computer I don't want talk, becouse better wait and if they will not show they quantum computer with 10% speed-up of theorietical result (theoreticaly must be 100% speed-up), then they quantum computer is crap. But I can promise you that you will not see working 1000 qubits quantum computer in your live. You can say, that it will be maked after 100 years. Ok it's your choise to believe and I somthere heard it: isn't it nuclear fusion?
This quantum computer is simulator. Did you know that it means? It means that if even such computer would be builded for it need exponentionaly many gates, becouse it's not true quantum computer but quantum computer SIMULATOR:
http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/QI/Photon...-jmo-47-257.pdf
It's similar to this citate: "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 D-wave quantum computer I don't want talk, becouse better wait and if they will not show they quantum computer with 10% speed-up of theorietical result (theoreticaly must be 100% speed-up), then they quantum computer is crap. But I can promise you that you will not see working 1000 qubits quantum computer in your live. You can say, that it will be maked after 100 years. Ok it's your choise to believe and I somthere heard it: isn't it nuclear fusion?
They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'totally bullshit' ?
Quantum random number generator also can give you solution. And it only based on superposition. So what? Does it mean that it is quantum computer?
Probabilistic machine or quantum random generator also can compute solution. How it is not the quantum computer?
Probabilistic machine or quantum random generator also can compute solution. How it is not the quantum computer?
Then you're an idiot. Classical mechanics CANNOT even explain the atom. There's huge numbers of phenomena it cannot explain. Anything, EVERYTHING, to do with atoms and subatomic particles. Thus classical physics is insufficent to explain reality. It only takes 1 experiment to disprove classical mechanics. We have thousands!
Do you know why Classical mechanic can't eplain atom? Becouse atoms is very dificult classical object, and predict it classical structure is very hard or imposible even for supercomputer. So atom is classical (it consist of from smallest particles in my theory). Non-locality is also classical (and can be explained (not proved) by my theory).
How it relates with superposition? Superposition is such thing, which have interference (like single photon in Matrch-Zender interferometer): http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/qucompApplet.html
How it relates with superposition? Superposition is such thing, which have interference (like single photon in Matrch-Zender interferometer): http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/qucompApplet.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3449-triple-electron-entanglement-boosts-quantum-computing.html
Dreams.
I don't know all quantum mechanical simbols and your quantum mechanical knowleges are under exponentional wave function understanding.
I don't understand quantum logic in your excercises.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 01:51 PM)
Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.
Do you know any quantum mechanics? Do you know anything about the maths of the Schrodinger equation? Your very question demonstrates you don't even understand what papers talking about 'noise' refer to.
I help teach this stuff to university students. Just yesterday I marked more than three dozen 2nd year student scripts on solutions to the Schrodinger equation in certain potentials. Do you think you can answer simple homework questions on it?
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/B9b.pdf
Answer a few of those. I bet you can't. I bet you make up a pathetic excuse. I bet you're full of ****.
I help teach this stuff to university students. Just yesterday I marked more than three dozen 2nd year student scripts on solutions to the Schrodinger equation in certain potentials. Do you think you can answer simple homework questions on it?
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/B9b.pdf
Answer a few of those. I bet you can't. I bet you make up a pathetic excuse. I bet you're full of ****.
QUOTE
This quantum computer is simulator. Did you know that it means? It means that if even such computer would be builded for it need exponentionaly many gates, becouse it's not true quantum computer but quantum computer SIMULATOR:
http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/QI/Photon...-jmo-47-257.pdf
It's similar to this citate: "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 D-wave quantum computer I don't want talk, becouse better wait and if they will not show they quantum computer with 10% speed-up of theorietical result (theoreticaly must be 100% speed-up), then they quantum computer is crap. But I can promise you that you will not see working 1000 qubits quantum computer in your live. You can say, that it will be maked after 100 years. Ok it's your choise to believe and I somthere heard it: isn't it nuclear fusion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| optical: http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/06/0222quantum.html |
This quantum computer is simulator. Did you know that it means? It means that if even such computer would be builded for it need exponentionaly many gates, becouse it's not true quantum computer but quantum computer SIMULATOR:
http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/QI/Photon...-jmo-47-257.pdf
It's similar to this citate: "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 D-wave quantum computer I don't want talk, becouse better wait and if they will not show they quantum computer with 10% speed-up of theorietical result (theoreticaly must be 100% speed-up), then they quantum computer is crap. But I can promise you that you will not see working 1000 qubits quantum computer in your live. You can say, that it will be maked after 100 years. Ok it's your choise to believe and I somthere heard it: isn't it nuclear fusion?
They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'totally bullshit' ?
Quantum random number generator also can give you solution. And it only based on superposition. So what? Does it mean that it is quantum computer?
QUOTE
They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'not proven' ?
Probabilistic machine or quantum random generator also can compute solution. How it is not the quantum computer?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They turn on a machine and it computes the solution to a problem. How is that 'not proven' ? |
Probabilistic machine or quantum random generator also can compute solution. How it is not the quantum computer?
Then you're an idiot. Classical mechanics CANNOT even explain the atom. There's huge numbers of phenomena it cannot explain. Anything, EVERYTHING, to do with atoms and subatomic particles. Thus classical physics is insufficent to explain reality. It only takes 1 experiment to disprove classical mechanics. We have thousands!
Do you know why Classical mechanic can't eplain atom? Becouse atoms is very dificult classical object, and predict it classical structure is very hard or imposible even for supercomputer. So atom is classical (it consist of from smallest particles in my theory). Non-locality is also classical (and can be explained (not proved) by my theory).
QUOTE
Yes, quantum mechanics explains emission spectra of atoms. Classical mechanics cannot.
How it relates with superposition? Superposition is such thing, which have interference (like single photon in Matrch-Zender interferometer): http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/qucompApplet.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, quantum mechanics explains emission spectra of atoms. Classical mechanics cannot. |
How it relates with superposition? Superposition is such thing, which have interference (like single photon in Matrch-Zender interferometer): http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/qucompApplet.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3449-triple-electron-entanglement-boosts-quantum-computing.html
Dreams.
I don't know all quantum mechanical simbols and your quantum mechanical knowleges are under exponentional wave function understanding.
I don't understand quantum logic in your excercises.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
This quantum computer is simulator.
No, it's a ****ing quantum computer. The link says so. You're arguing with people who build the sodding things!
No, it's a ****ing quantum computer. The link says so. You're arguing with people who build the sodding things!
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/sim.html
So you accept that source but not the many I provide? Besides, that's semantics. A quantum computer with 2 bits is a quantum computer. It's not very practical, but it's a quantum computer.
Explain how that computer is not a quantum computer.
Explain how that computer is not a quantum computer.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
About D-wave quantum computer I don't want talk, becouse better wait and if they will not show they quantum computer with 10% speed-up of theorietical result (theoreticaly must be 100% speed-up), then they quantum computer is crap. But I can promise you that you will not see working 1000 qubits quantum computer in your live. You can say, that it will be maked after 100 years. Ok it's your choise to believe and I somthere heard it: isn't it nuclear fusion?
In other words you don't want to accept it proves you wrong. Who said that a computer had to have 1000 bits? You said that even a 2 bit quantum computer hadn't been made, it was impossible. I've provided links that prove otherwise.
You are wrong!
You are wrong!
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
Quantum random number generator also can give you solution. And it only based on superposition. So what? Does it mean that it is quantum computer?
Except that those computers I linked to dont generate random numbers, they run an algorithm to compute a solution. Just like normal computers run algorithms, except they do it using a quantum process.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
Do you know why Classical mechanic can't eplain atom? Becouse atoms is very dificult classical object, and predict it classical structure is very hard or imposible even for supercomputer. So atom is classical (it consist of from smallest particles in my theory).
I know why the atom isn't classical, you obviously don't.
Classically, any accelerating charge will radiate energy away. This is a standard result in classical electromagnetism. The electron is a charged particle and it goes in an orbit around the nucleus, so it's being accelerated (since it isn't moving in a straight line). Thus, classically, it should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. But it doesn't. Classical mechanics is stumped.
So it's nothing to do with being a 'difficult classical object', it's a very simple object, the problem is it's wrong. You don't need a supercomputer, you just need to know that accelerating a charge implies, classically, the radiating of energy.
Anyone whose studied any electromagnetism or read anything about the development of quantum mechanics will know this. I learnt about it when I was 15 and read a pop science book on quantum mechanics.
So the atom isn't classical. Prove me wrong. Prove me with 'your theory', I bet you don't have a working model.
Classically, any accelerating charge will radiate energy away. This is a standard result in classical electromagnetism. The electron is a charged particle and it goes in an orbit around the nucleus, so it's being accelerated (since it isn't moving in a straight line). Thus, classically, it should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. But it doesn't. Classical mechanics is stumped.
So it's nothing to do with being a 'difficult classical object', it's a very simple object, the problem is it's wrong. You don't need a supercomputer, you just need to know that accelerating a charge implies, classically, the radiating of energy.
Anyone whose studied any electromagnetism or read anything about the development of quantum mechanics will know this. I learnt about it when I was 15 and read a pop science book on quantum mechanics.
So the atom isn't classical. Prove me wrong. Prove me with 'your theory', I bet you don't have a working model.
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
How it relates with superposition? Superposition is such thing, which have interference (like single photon in Matrch-Zender interferometer): http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s55086/qucomp/qucompApplet.html
Emission spectra relate to the transit of the electron between different orbital levels of an atom, including the ground state. The expression for the electron is a superposition of states whose time evolution is governed by the Hamiltonian of the system. It's a standard homework question to consider the state of the electron when a magnetic field is applied (there's the Pauli matrices again!).
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
Dreams.l
How is it a dream when they've actually done it? Did they dream they did the experiment and it worked?!
Are you so desperate to avoid saying "I am wrong" that you think everyone imagined these experiments?
I explain it already. Quantum computer SIMULATOR isn't quantum computer, becouse if you want made it with 1000 qubits then for you need 2^1000 gates. So quantum computer simulator (like in java link) don't giving speed-up (but only using march zender interferometer experiment properties with single photon).
I explain it already. Quantum computer SIMULATOR isn't quantum computer, becouse if you want made it with 1000 qubits then for you need 2^1000 gates. So quantum computer simulator (like in java link) don't giving speed-up (but only using march zender interferometer experiment properties with single photon).
In other words you don't want to accept it proves you wrong. Who said that a computer had to have 1000 bits? You said that even a 2 bit quantum computer hadn't been made, it was impossible. I've provided links that prove otherwise.
You are wrong!
You see, I don't believe in this bullcrap, so I 100% will believe if I will see working 1000 qubit quantum computer, which in some tasks is faster than supercomputer.
I can't prove with my theory that atom is classical, but it doesn't mean that atom isn't classical. And this is whole proccess in my theory and you can't just analize single atom, without all universe... Your brain just don't understand whose all classical processes...
I can't prove with my theory that atom is classical, but it doesn't mean that atom isn't classical. And this is whole proccess in my theory and you can't just analize single atom, without all universe... Your brain just don't understand whose all classical processes...
Emission spectra relate to the transit of the electron between different orbital levels of an atom, including the ground state. The expression for the electron is a superposition of states whose time evolution is governed by the Hamiltonian of the system. It's a standard homework question to consider the state of the electron when a magnetic field is applied (there's the Pauli matrices again!).
So it's just classical probabilities, and there is no negative amplitude and interference...
No, it's dreams. http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291
No, it's dreams. http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291
Do you admit you cannot do any physics relating to the Pauli matrices or the Schrodinger equation?
At least your examples I can't solve and don't have time to try solve. I don't know much about such manipulations. But I don't admit, what quantum computer exist and that it will ever exist.
Alphanumeric, you still are an idealist. Do you believing that our universe isn't classical like was saying Feynman? Do your are Feynman clo(u)ne? Even George Rose from D-wave was writed sentence, that our universe probably is classical, somthing like this: "Maybe classical physics is somthing more than quantum mechanic?". So what is our universe? Quantum or manyworld or many dimensions according to you? Becouse if our universe is classical then quantum computer is imposible.
Unanswered questions:
Quantum entanglement between two atoms or electrons wasn't proven.
Superposition of two atom energy levels wasn't proven.
Superposition of electron or nucleon spin wasn't proven.
Maybe first need proof this things before trying to made working quantum computer?
Alphanumeric, can you give me excercises with exponentional wave function?
BTW, in terms "classical" I mean only clearly classical meachanic like Niutons laws, without gravity, electromagnetism. My smallest particles universe model is clearly classical, becouse don't include any gravity or electromagnetism or charge and based on geometrical spherical equal size particles... Gravity and electromagnetism and over fields and laws is result of smallest particles laws.
Are you so desperate to avoid saying "I am wrong" that you think everyone imagined these experiments?
QUOTE (DavidD+Feb 29 2008, 08:03 PM)
I don't know all quantum mechanical simbols and your quantum mechanical knowleges are under exponentional wave function understanding.
I don't understand quantum logic in your excercises.
I don't understand quantum logic in your excercises.
So you actually know nothing about the working of the Schrodinger equation? What a suprise.
How about questions 4 and 5 from the next sheet? They relate to the Pauli matrices. I bet you can't do any of them either.
Do you admit you cannot do any physics relating to the Pauli matrices or the Schrodinger equation?
How about questions 4 and 5 from the next sheet? They relate to the Pauli matrices. I bet you can't do any of them either.
Do you admit you cannot do any physics relating to the Pauli matrices or the Schrodinger equation?
Quantum Electro Dynamics QED is so far the most accurate physics we have when compared against observation. The mathematics of it are close to being perfect. To say that Quantum theory is bunk is quite simply nuts unless you can replace it with something even better. Some quantum theory is not perfect however in time it will be improved.
To me Physics is about finding better mathematical models to something that can be tested by experiment. We are hindered currently by our mathematics tools and our level of experimentation.
My thanks to alphanumeric for his limitless patience in addressing the wild rantings of the un-informed.
The un-informed need to get their ducks in a row. It has never been easier to learn physics. Just get a pizza and beer and watch on your PC.
I had to sit through hours of University lectures on awful wooden bench seats at inconvenient times (i.e. the morning). Then go on a myriad of trips to the Library to find information. By comparison today it is blindingly easy. Even if you don't watch the watch the MIT Physics lecture series, at least watch Richard Feynman's lectures on QED.
To me Physics is about finding better mathematical models to something that can be tested by experiment. We are hindered currently by our mathematics tools and our level of experimentation.
My thanks to alphanumeric for his limitless patience in addressing the wild rantings of the un-informed.
The un-informed need to get their ducks in a row. It has never been easier to learn physics. Just get a pizza and beer and watch on your PC.
I had to sit through hours of University lectures on awful wooden bench seats at inconvenient times (i.e. the morning). Then go on a myriad of trips to the Library to find information. By comparison today it is blindingly easy. Even if you don't watch the watch the MIT Physics lecture series, at least watch Richard Feynman's lectures on QED.
Hi AlphaNumeric,
I have read many of your posts and it is clear that you know your physics. All the more reason why I was surprised to read in your last post above a justification
( that may not be the correct word, but please bear with me ) of quantum mechanics based on the solar system atomic model - and you say that classical mechanics is stumped because it cannot explain this model. Am I missing something fundamental - coz if this is the best QM has to offer we might as well go back and have a very critical look at how it all began.
yours, very stumped
edward 3
I have read many of your posts and it is clear that you know your physics. All the more reason why I was surprised to read in your last post above a justification
( that may not be the correct word, but please bear with me ) of quantum mechanics based on the solar system atomic model - and you say that classical mechanics is stumped because it cannot explain this model. Am I missing something fundamental - coz if this is the best QM has to offer we might as well go back and have a very critical look at how it all began.
yours, very stumped
edward 3
QUOTE (Edward 3+Feb 29 2008, 08:58 PM)
All the more reason why I was surprised to read in your last post above a justification
( that may not be the correct word, but please bear with me ) of quantum mechanics based on the solar system atomic model - and you say that classical mechanics is stumped because it cannot explain this model. Am I missing something fundamental -
What? Did you read the same last post that I read? Nowhere did I see mention of the solar system atomic model.
( that may not be the correct word, but please bear with me ) of quantum mechanics based on the solar system atomic model - and you say that classical mechanics is stumped because it cannot explain this model. Am I missing something fundamental -
What? Did you read the same last post that I read? Nowhere did I see mention of the solar system atomic model.
The atom (ie experiments which showed the well known structure of the atom, electrons going around a heavy central nucleus) demonstrates that classical mechanics is insufficent when it comes to describing nature. Quantum mechanics was then developed in order to deal with this void produced by experiments like Rutherford's gold leaf & alpha ray experiment. It explains why electrons can go around the nucleus without radiating energy.
Quantum mechanics was then developed to explain everything else which involves non-relativistic atomic processes. Then quantum mechanics was melded with relativity to give us quantum field theory, which can describe systems which involve a changing number of particles, which lead to the most verified and accurate theories in human history, such as QED.
There's so much more than just the model of the atom which gives validation to quantum mechanics. Everything from the last 100 years which involves the very small validates quantum mechanics. The photoelectric effect, emission spectra and the Rutherford experiment were the big three which started it all off. Then things like the discovery of the neutron and positron and development of nuclear weapons/reactors just helped cement it. Then there's everything like muons, taus, W and Z bosons and other hadrons.
The evidence is staggering.
Quantum mechanics was then developed to explain everything else which involves non-relativistic atomic processes. Then quantum mechanics was melded with relativity to give us quantum field theory, which can describe systems which involve a changing number of particles, which lead to the most verified and accurate theories in human history, such as QED.
There's so much more than just the model of the atom which gives validation to quantum mechanics. Everything from the last 100 years which involves the very small validates quantum mechanics. The photoelectric effect, emission spectra and the Rutherford experiment were the big three which started it all off. Then things like the discovery of the neutron and positron and development of nuclear weapons/reactors just helped cement it. Then there's everything like muons, taus, W and Z bosons and other hadrons.
The evidence is staggering.
THE quantum theory is not wrong,but is incomplete,because get not explain several variables that appear when placed by spacetime continuum.in special,in the universe in four-dimensions.then need more spatial dimensions,to explain the
spontaneous symmetry breaking,as so the CP,that corresponds for violation of T,then appear the spacetime,discontinuos,with the noncommutative property,that
contain the breaks of the invariance of lorentz,therefore have the uncertainly principle,explaining the non-locality and locality phenomenons.
spontaneous symmetry breaking,as so the CP,that corresponds for violation of T,then appear the spacetime,discontinuos,with the noncommutative property,that
contain the breaks of the invariance of lorentz,therefore have the uncertainly principle,explaining the non-locality and locality phenomenons.
QUOTE
Explain how that computer is not a quantum computer.
I explain it already. Quantum computer SIMULATOR isn't quantum computer, becouse if you want made it with 1000 qubits then for you need 2^1000 gates. So quantum computer simulator (like in java link) don't giving speed-up (but only using march zender interferometer experiment properties with single photon).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Explain how that computer is not a quantum computer. |
I explain it already. Quantum computer SIMULATOR isn't quantum computer, becouse if you want made it with 1000 qubits then for you need 2^1000 gates. So quantum computer simulator (like in java link) don't giving speed-up (but only using march zender interferometer experiment properties with single photon).
In other words you don't want to accept it proves you wrong. Who said that a computer had to have 1000 bits? You said that even a 2 bit quantum computer hadn't been made, it was impossible. I've provided links that prove otherwise.
You are wrong!
You see, I don't believe in this bullcrap, so I 100% will believe if I will see working 1000 qubit quantum computer, which in some tasks is faster than supercomputer.
QUOTE
I know why the atom isn't classical, you obviously don't.
Classically, any accelerating charge will radiate energy away. This is a standard result in classical electromagnetism. The electron is a charged particle and it goes in an orbit around the nucleus, so it's being accelerated (since it isn't moving in a straight line). Thus, classically, it should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. But it doesn't. Classical mechanics is stumped.
So it's nothing to do with being a 'difficult classical object', it's a very simple object, the problem is it's wrong. You don't need a supercomputer, you just need to know that accelerating a charge implies, classically, the radiating of energy.
Anyone whose studied any electromagnetism or read anything about the development of quantum mechanics will know this. I learnt about it when I was 15 and read a pop science book on quantum mechanics.
So the atom isn't classical. Prove me wrong. Prove me with 'your theory', I bet you don't have a working model.
Classically, any accelerating charge will radiate energy away. This is a standard result in classical electromagnetism. The electron is a charged particle and it goes in an orbit around the nucleus, so it's being accelerated (since it isn't moving in a straight line). Thus, classically, it should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. But it doesn't. Classical mechanics is stumped.
So it's nothing to do with being a 'difficult classical object', it's a very simple object, the problem is it's wrong. You don't need a supercomputer, you just need to know that accelerating a charge implies, classically, the radiating of energy.
Anyone whose studied any electromagnetism or read anything about the development of quantum mechanics will know this. I learnt about it when I was 15 and read a pop science book on quantum mechanics.
So the atom isn't classical. Prove me wrong. Prove me with 'your theory', I bet you don't have a working model.
I can't prove with my theory that atom is classical, but it doesn't mean that atom isn't classical. And this is whole proccess in my theory and you can't just analize single atom, without all universe... Your brain just don't understand whose all classical processes...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know why the atom isn't classical, you obviously don't. Classically, any accelerating charge will radiate energy away. This is a standard result in classical electromagnetism. The electron is a charged particle and it goes in an orbit around the nucleus, so it's being accelerated (since it isn't moving in a straight line). Thus, classically, it should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. But it doesn't. Classical mechanics is stumped. So it's nothing to do with being a 'difficult classical object', it's a very simple object, the problem is it's wrong. You don't need a supercomputer, you just need to know that accelerating a charge implies, classically, the radiating of energy. Anyone whose studied any electromagnetism or read anything about the development of quantum mechanics will know this. I learnt about it when I was 15 and read a pop science book on quantum mechanics. So the atom isn't classical. Prove me wrong. Prove me with 'your theory', I bet you don't have a working model. |
I can't prove with my theory that atom is classical, but it doesn't mean that atom isn't classical. And this is whole proccess in my theory and you can't just analize single atom, without all universe... Your brain just don't understand whose all classical processes...
Emission spectra relate to the transit of the electron between different orbital levels of an atom, including the ground state. The expression for the electron is a superposition of states whose time evolution is governed by the Hamiltonian of the system. It's a standard homework question to consider the state of the electron when a magnetic field is applied (there's the Pauli matrices again!).
So it's just classical probabilities, and there is no negative amplitude and interference...
QUOTE
How is it a dream when they've actually done it? Did they dream they did the experiment and it worked?!
Are you so desperate to avoid saying "I am wrong" that you think everyone imagined these experiments?
Are you so desperate to avoid saying "I am wrong" that you think everyone imagined these experiments?
No, it's dreams. http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How is it a dream when they've actually done it? Did they dream they did the experiment and it worked?! Are you so desperate to avoid saying "I am wrong" that you think everyone imagined these experiments? |
No, it's dreams. http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291
Do you admit you cannot do any physics relating to the Pauli matrices or the Schrodinger equation?
At least your examples I can't solve and don't have time to try solve. I don't know much about such manipulations. But I don't admit, what quantum computer exist and that it will ever exist.
Alphanumeric, you still are an idealist. Do you believing that our universe isn't classical like was saying Feynman? Do your are Feynman clo(u)ne? Even George Rose from D-wave was writed sentence, that our universe probably is classical, somthing like this: "Maybe classical physics is somthing more than quantum mechanic?". So what is our universe? Quantum or manyworld or many dimensions according to you? Becouse if our universe is classical then quantum computer is imposible.
Unanswered questions:
Quantum entanglement between two atoms or electrons wasn't proven.
Superposition of two atom energy levels wasn't proven.
Superposition of electron or nucleon spin wasn't proven.
Maybe first need proof this things before trying to made working quantum computer?
Alphanumeric, can you give me excercises with exponentional wave function?
BTW, in terms "classical" I mean only clearly classical meachanic like Niutons laws, without gravity, electromagnetism. My smallest particles universe model is clearly classical, becouse don't include any gravity or electromagnetism or charge and based on geometrical spherical equal size particles... Gravity and electromagnetism and over fields and laws is result of smallest particles laws.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 06:07 AM)
Alphanumeric, can you give me excercises with exponentional wave function?
I feel he'd rather give you pain with a hammer..... idiot!
I feel he'd rather give you pain with a hammer..... idiot!
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
I explain it already. Quantum computer SIMULATOR isn't quantum computer, becouse if you want made it with 1000 qubits then for you need 2^1000 gates. So quantum computer simulator (like in java link) don't giving speed-up (but only using march zender interferometer experiment properties with single photon).
Now you're moving the goal posts. You claimed that even a 2 bit quantum computer wasn't possible. I've proven you wrong. Now you're saying you won't accept it till you see a 1000 bit quantum computer.
Now you're moving the goal posts. You claimed that even a 2 bit quantum computer wasn't possible. I've proven you wrong. Now you're saying you won't accept it till you see a 1000 bit quantum computer.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
I can't prove with my theory that atom is classical
What a shocker!
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
And this is whole proccess in my theory and you can't just analize single atom, without all universe
Yes, you can.
That's like saying if I throw a ball into the air I cannot predict where it will land without knowing the entire universe's state. Complete BS.
That's like saying if I throw a ball into the air I cannot predict where it will land without knowing the entire universe's state. Complete BS.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
our brain just don't understand whose all classical processes...
Do you honestly believe that? I've just explained to you a classical concept you couldn't understand.
Let's see you answer some of the questions in the example sheets here. That's another course I've done.
Let's see you answer some of the questions in the example sheets here. That's another course I've done.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
So it's just classical probabilities, and there is no negative amplitude and interference...
No, it's not 'classical probabilities' because it's describing the electron as a wave function, a 'smeared out' state around the nucleus. Don't you know anything about basic quantum mechanics?
No, that much is clear.
No, that much is clear.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
No, it's dreams. http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291
Wow, someone's blog. That obviously is better than published papers which describe experiments where quantum computers work!
You're trying to tell people that what they have seen with their own eyes isn't true. It's like me saying to you "No, you're name is Paul", and refusing to accept you're called David, even if you showed me your birth certificate.
You're trying to tell people that what they have seen with their own eyes isn't true. It's like me saying to you "No, you're name is Paul", and refusing to accept you're called David, even if you showed me your birth certificate.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
At least your examples I can't solve and don't have time to try solve. I don't know much about such manipulations.
Even if I gave you a month and you did nothing but read about quantum mechanics I'm certain you couldn't do those questions.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
But I don't admit, what quantum computer exist and that it will ever exist.
I didn't ask that, I asked for you to admit you know nothing about the Schrodinger equation and Pauli matrices.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
Alphanumeric, you still are an idealist.
No, I'm a rationalist. Classical mechanics has failed to explain phenomena. Thus, we're forced to expand our understanding.
You are an idealist, you hope that everything in the universe conforms to a neat little box of systems. You don't understand quantum mechanics therefore you think it's wrong. Like all the other idiots on this site.
You are an idealist, you hope that everything in the universe conforms to a neat little box of systems. You don't understand quantum mechanics therefore you think it's wrong. Like all the other idiots on this site.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
Do your are Feynman clo(u)ne?
Is English not your first language? If not, fair enough. If so, you're an idiot. Again.
I'm not a Feynman clone, I'm just being rational.
I'm not a Feynman clone, I'm just being rational.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
. So what is our universe? Quantum or manyworld or many dimensions according to you?
Those are entirely seperate concepts.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
Becouse if our universe is classical then quantum computer is imposible.?
If the world was classical, atoms would be impossible.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
Unanswered questions:
Quantum entanglement between two atoms or electrons wasn't proven.
Superposition of two atom energy levels wasn't proven.
Superposition of electron or nucleon spin wasn't proven.
Maybe first need proof this things before trying to made working quantum computer?
Quantum entanglement between two atoms or electrons wasn't proven.
Superposition of two atom energy levels wasn't proven.
Superposition of electron or nucleon spin wasn't proven.
Maybe first need proof this things before trying to made working quantum computer?
The fact you haven't bother looking for such experiments and even if you came across it wouldn't understand it doesn't mean they don't exist.
ALL of quantum systems have been ACCURATELY modelled using the notions of field theory and superpositions. QED explains all electromagnetic interactions and it's built on superposition. The description of the nucleus is built upon superposition and it's accurate enough to allow us to build nuclear reactors.
If it's subatomic, we've described it using quantum mechanics and one of the founding axioms of quantum mechanics is superposition.
Look at question 8. It gives a completely impossible result, in the eyes of classical mechanics, which has been derived using superposition. That effect has been experimentally verified. Superposition is justified.
Can you answer that question? I bet you can't.
ALL of quantum systems have been ACCURATELY modelled using the notions of field theory and superpositions. QED explains all electromagnetic interactions and it's built on superposition. The description of the nucleus is built upon superposition and it's accurate enough to allow us to build nuclear reactors.
If it's subatomic, we've described it using quantum mechanics and one of the founding axioms of quantum mechanics is superposition.
Look at question 8. It gives a completely impossible result, in the eyes of classical mechanics, which has been derived using superposition. That effect has been experimentally verified. Superposition is justified.
Can you answer that question? I bet you can't.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
Alphanumeric, can you give me excercises with exponentional wave function?
So you admit you don't understand the symbols in the questions I've already asked you but you think you'll have better luck with other ones?
Besides, I've already asked you one : Question 6
That's really easy, you don't even need to know any quantum mechanics! How about another :
Question 6
I bet you can't do either of them.
Are you so stupid? This is not quantum computer but quantum computer simulator, which don't giving 2x speed up! For NORMAL quantum computer is nessasary ENTANGLEMENT!
Are you so stupid? This is not quantum computer but quantum computer simulator, which don't giving 2x speed up! For NORMAL quantum computer is nessasary ENTANGLEMENT!
That's like saying if I throw a ball into the air I cannot predict where it will land without knowing the entire universe's state. Complete BS.
No, is not the same. Becouse you don't know how smallest particles interacting. And possible that my theory can work only in conditions, when number of smallest particles is infinity.
Dissagree, becouse atom without electrodinamic is like fish without water, but it doesn't mean, that fish and water don't consist of atoms...
Dissagree, becouse atom without electrodinamic is like fish without water, but it doesn't mean, that fish and water don't consist of atoms...
The fact you haven't bother looking for such experiments and even if you came across it wouldn't understand it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I don't found on internet, where entanglement between atoms or electrons match 90-100% with theory.
So you mean, that fermion spin or atom excitation level can have negative amplitude? But what is a point? For example photon pass through beam spliter and one path flying in one direction and another in another direction. Say first path bounce into atom and he become in superposition of excided and ground state, right? Or atom just absorb photon and there is 50% probability that it will be excided or not, if atom intitaily was in ground state? Anyway this superposition and entanglement between atoms and electrons sounds silly. Becouse atoms or electrons can be entangled only through photons.
If you means e^x exponentional wave function then it's strange, becouse with e^x is not hard to manipulate in math, so how it can give exponentional speedup?
I don't have quantum mechanic book (only have about electrodynamic), and don't want now solve photoefect excercise...
Can you prove that my theory is wrong? Can you prove that atom and all universe can't consist of smallest particles?
Can you prove that our universe can't work with classical mechanic?
Besides, I've already asked you one : Question 6
That's really easy, you don't even need to know any quantum mechanics! How about another :
Question 6
I bet you can't do either of them.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 07:07 AM)
BTW, in terms "classical" I mean only clearly classical meachanic like Niutons laws, without gravity, electromagnetism. My smallest particles universe model is clearly classical, becouse don't include any gravity or electromagnetism or charge and based on geometrical spherical equal size particles... Gravity and electromagnetism and over fields and laws is result of smallest particles laws.
You don't have a theory, you cannot model anything. You just have a delusion.
Besides, relativity, electromagnetism and electrodynamics are classical, since they are not quantised.
Besides, relativity, electromagnetism and electrodynamics are classical, since they are not quantised.
QUOTE
Now you're moving the goal posts. You claimed that even a 2 bit quantum computer wasn't possible. I've proven you wrong. Now you're saying you won't accept it till you see a 1000 bit quantum computer.
Are you so stupid? This is not quantum computer but quantum computer simulator, which don't giving 2x speed up! For NORMAL quantum computer is nessasary ENTANGLEMENT!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now you're moving the goal posts. You claimed that even a 2 bit quantum computer wasn't possible. I've proven you wrong. Now you're saying you won't accept it till you see a 1000 bit quantum computer. |
Are you so stupid? This is not quantum computer but quantum computer simulator, which don't giving 2x speed up! For NORMAL quantum computer is nessasary ENTANGLEMENT!
That's like saying if I throw a ball into the air I cannot predict where it will land without knowing the entire universe's state. Complete BS.
No, is not the same. Becouse you don't know how smallest particles interacting. And possible that my theory can work only in conditions, when number of smallest particles is infinity.
QUOTE
If the world was classical, atoms would be impossible.
Dissagree, becouse atom without electrodinamic is like fish without water, but it doesn't mean, that fish and water don't consist of atoms...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the world was classical, atoms would be impossible. |
Dissagree, becouse atom without electrodinamic is like fish without water, but it doesn't mean, that fish and water don't consist of atoms...
The fact you haven't bother looking for such experiments and even if you came across it wouldn't understand it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I don't found on internet, where entanglement between atoms or electrons match 90-100% with theory.
So you mean, that fermion spin or atom excitation level can have negative amplitude? But what is a point? For example photon pass through beam spliter and one path flying in one direction and another in another direction. Say first path bounce into atom and he become in superposition of excided and ground state, right? Or atom just absorb photon and there is 50% probability that it will be excided or not, if atom intitaily was in ground state? Anyway this superposition and entanglement between atoms and electrons sounds silly. Becouse atoms or electrons can be entangled only through photons.
If you means e^x exponentional wave function then it's strange, becouse with e^x is not hard to manipulate in math, so how it can give exponentional speedup?
I don't have quantum mechanic book (only have about electrodynamic), and don't want now solve photoefect excercise...
Can you prove that my theory is wrong? Can you prove that atom and all universe can't consist of smallest particles?
Can you prove that our universe can't work with classical mechanic?
Hi AlphaNumeric,
I do not wish to labour the point but this is how I see it:
1. The solar system model of the atom was developed.
2. This model failed to stand up to the scrutiny of classical mechanics.
3. Quantum Mechanics was developed to help explain and support the model.
4. The model is no longer considered to be an accurate description of the atom.
Conclusion : QM was developed to support a discredited atomic model and such a rocky foundation must therefore raise some questions about the theory itself.
Question: Would QM have developed in the way it has if we had today´s understanding of atomic structure?
I agree that there is a great deal of evidence to support QM but the theory also has a few problems. I sometimes wonder - and this is mere speculation - if QM might not be comparable to Newtonian Gravity - a very good approximation but not the whole story.
best regards
edward 3
I do not wish to labour the point but this is how I see it:
1. The solar system model of the atom was developed.
2. This model failed to stand up to the scrutiny of classical mechanics.
3. Quantum Mechanics was developed to help explain and support the model.
4. The model is no longer considered to be an accurate description of the atom.
Conclusion : QM was developed to support a discredited atomic model and such a rocky foundation must therefore raise some questions about the theory itself.
Question: Would QM have developed in the way it has if we had today´s understanding of atomic structure?
I agree that there is a great deal of evidence to support QM but the theory also has a few problems. I sometimes wonder - and this is mere speculation - if QM might not be comparable to Newtonian Gravity - a very good approximation but not the whole story.
best regards
edward 3
Maybe atom model is not proper, becouse around are another atoms or electrons or photons in another words, everwhere around atom is noise and so atom can't be described properly. 
Dwave had chance to prove they quantum computer, but don't proved or don't want to prove or wasn't able to check does they quantum computer is quantum.
QUOTE
Wow, someone's blog. That obviously is better than published papers which describe experiments where quantum computers work!
Dwave had chance to prove they quantum computer, but don't proved or don't want to prove or wasn't able to check does they quantum computer is quantum.
RANDOM THOUGHTS
LOCAL NETWORKS
MORE OFTEN
THAN KNOTS
ACCELERATIONS
EXPLAINATIONS
DavidD
Posted on Yesterday at 7:03 PM: [rm-pass]
AlphaNumeric
Posted on Yesterday at 7:35 PM: [rm-a quote:
{{Classically, any accelerating charge will radiate energy away. This is a standard result in classical electromagnetism. The electron is a charged particle and it goes in an orbit around the nucleus, so it's being accelerated (since it isn't moving in a straight line). Thus, classically, it should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. But it doesn't. Classical mechanics is stumped.}}]
[comments-rm: I'm not getting the picture, but, ... look in the sky, it's a bird, no a plain, no... its G-stringman, able to fund-a-mental small and tall static electric charges, with a single bond [credit to comedy shows], Michelson did it with an oil drop suspended in earth's Gravity field.
Michleson and Morely, did it with Earth's accelerating rotational field, I worked at the Mohave Desert, CA where that experiment took place.
Yes, ... don't let circular reasoning be less than classical, QED is demonstrated.
"Stumped", yes, many appear to be. The "electron" must be an IDIOT in the full sense of the word. A "NATURAL"!
We, of course, or, off course, are much more, let the SPIRIT guide us, beside us, with the light from night above.
The small are below us, in us, all around us. Above us the Eagle, no longer in circulation, the Silver is gone, Ho Silver and other Currencies, electrons included.
The Load-Arranger is here [that's to the comics], you can bank on it, but don't end up in the mor(t)gage without a home.
Bitter-sweet me off my feet, consistency leaves me incomplete, complexity has its problems, IDIOTs may too, what about us few?
String along between two near singularities, abstract as they be, infinite Mass covering no volume, that's too dense to comprehend.
Bend a string-a-long-explanation (sale), join our warring profit-tearing nation, praise the Prophets of Greed if you want, they will not succeed, for "scientific" was to be "democratic", words openly stated and debated, truth is timely, get the picture graphic?
Around the "atom" rotates another atom, encased in a tomb unbroken, is it a negative surrounding a positive core, and is it any wonder, light before the thunder, Been Frank had the key, jarred in glass and glowing, printing press he did use, his position of latter born in a family of near a dozen, he was driven by steroids in part, the French found out he was classically "smart", it's only a deadly game some would call a sport.
Shaggy dog wanders around the circle, moves ahead helical, held by HUGS a conjecture, g-strings attached to each and every thing, like love and care DNA measures the past in each hair tip to follicle.
Problem is human limitations themselves changing to survive, the price measured by feelings for those who died, at least I hope this may be true, for many more than given to our view, so the message is the media between me and you.
The physics of two passing particles, conservation of the energies and mass, starting from the "point of impact", center of mass (com), thus the question might be this:
Do the photons radiate from (com) randomly radially (comranrad), or more often towards other local masses.
Are we here more local? Are our comments random, connected to our inner thoughts?
More on physics, best, rmuldavin
LOCAL NETWORKS
MORE OFTEN
THAN KNOTS
ACCELERATIONS
EXPLAINATIONS
DavidD
Posted on Yesterday at 7:03 PM: [rm-pass]
AlphaNumeric
Posted on Yesterday at 7:35 PM: [rm-a quote:
{{Classically, any accelerating charge will radiate energy away. This is a standard result in classical electromagnetism. The electron is a charged particle and it goes in an orbit around the nucleus, so it's being accelerated (since it isn't moving in a straight line). Thus, classically, it should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. But it doesn't. Classical mechanics is stumped.}}]
[comments-rm: I'm not getting the picture, but, ... look in the sky, it's a bird, no a plain, no... its G-stringman, able to fund-a-mental small and tall static electric charges, with a single bond [credit to comedy shows], Michelson did it with an oil drop suspended in earth's Gravity field.
Michleson and Morely, did it with Earth's accelerating rotational field, I worked at the Mohave Desert, CA where that experiment took place.
Yes, ... don't let circular reasoning be less than classical, QED is demonstrated.
"Stumped", yes, many appear to be. The "electron" must be an IDIOT in the full sense of the word. A "NATURAL"!
We, of course, or, off course, are much more, let the SPIRIT guide us, beside us, with the light from night above.
The small are below us, in us, all around us. Above us the Eagle, no longer in circulation, the Silver is gone, Ho Silver and other Currencies, electrons included.
The Load-Arranger is here [that's to the comics], you can bank on it, but don't end up in the mor(t)gage without a home.
Bitter-sweet me off my feet, consistency leaves me incomplete, complexity has its problems, IDIOTs may too, what about us few?
String along between two near singularities, abstract as they be, infinite Mass covering no volume, that's too dense to comprehend.
Bend a string-a-long-explanation (sale), join our warring profit-tearing nation, praise the Prophets of Greed if you want, they will not succeed, for "scientific" was to be "democratic", words openly stated and debated, truth is timely, get the picture graphic?
Around the "atom" rotates another atom, encased in a tomb unbroken, is it a negative surrounding a positive core, and is it any wonder, light before the thunder, Been Frank had the key, jarred in glass and glowing, printing press he did use, his position of latter born in a family of near a dozen, he was driven by steroids in part, the French found out he was classically "smart", it's only a deadly game some would call a sport.
Shaggy dog wanders around the circle, moves ahead helical, held by HUGS a conjecture, g-strings attached to each and every thing, like love and care DNA measures the past in each hair tip to follicle.
Problem is human limitations themselves changing to survive, the price measured by feelings for those who died, at least I hope this may be true, for many more than given to our view, so the message is the media between me and you.
The physics of two passing particles, conservation of the energies and mass, starting from the "point of impact", center of mass (com), thus the question might be this:
Do the photons radiate from (com) randomly radially (comranrad), or more often towards other local masses.
Are we here more local? Are our comments random, connected to our inner thoughts?
More on physics, best, rmuldavin
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 1 2008, 12:11 PM)
Conclusion : QM was developed to support a discredited atomic model and such a rocky foundation must therefore raise some questions about the theory itself.
No, the QM model of the atom is not "It's a mini solar system", it was the theory which discredited that! It sees the electrons as delocalising and forming shells of probability distributions in particular shapes (the standard solutions to the Associate Legendre Polynomials).
The classical model is only taught to school children as a simplistic analogy. Unfortunately people like DavidD can't get past that.
No, the QM model of the atom is not "It's a mini solar system", it was the theory which discredited that! It sees the electrons as delocalising and forming shells of probability distributions in particular shapes (the standard solutions to the Associate Legendre Polynomials).
The classical model is only taught to school children as a simplistic analogy. Unfortunately people like DavidD can't get past that.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 1 2008, 12:11 PM)
if QM might not be comparable to Newtonian Gravity - a very good approximation but not the whole story.
It's non-relativistic so that much is obvious. Quantum field theory is better. But then because they don't include gravity they too are an approximation.
Everything we have is an 'effective theory' on some level or other because you have to assume to existence or non-existence of certain effects. When those assumptions break down, so do the theories.
Everything we have is an 'effective theory' on some level or other because you have to assume to existence or non-existence of certain effects. When those assumptions break down, so do the theories.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 1 2008, 12:11 PM)
Can you prove that my theory is wrong?.
You don't have a theory, you have an incoherent mess built on ignorance which cannot model anything.
IF atom model is so good then nobody would make alternative models http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm .
You don't understand about that I am talking. Anyway this don't realates with quantum computers...
You don't understand about that I am talking. Anyway this don't realates with quantum computers...
You don't have a theory, you have an incoherent mess built on ignorance which cannot model anything.
Yes it can't model anything, but it's don't means that our world can't be such like predict my theory.
Alphanumeric, do you can solve this schriodinger equation of electron spining about nuclear?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mgqua/hyds6.gif
Now existing theory don't explaining WHAT is magnetic field or electric field or what is gravitation or what is lepton or what is quark. It's like few centures ago nobody was know of what consist human, nobody then know of what everything consist. And then they found that human body consist of cells, cells consist of molecules, molecules of atoms, atoms of nuclear and electrons, nuclear of protons and neutrons, nucleons of hypothetical quarks. So Your alphanumeric claiming about that atoms consist of electrons and quarks is the same stupid as claim, that human body consist of cells, but don't explain of what consist cells. So you believe only in things which are known now, but don't trying to explain those things. My smallest balls theory prety good explaining how photon flying like wave, magnetic and electric fields are waves through my smallest particles. Positive and negative charges atrac each over becouse they somehow very dificult creating potencial pit and there is only geometrical particles and very dificult math, which not for human and your brain. Gravity is also somthing similar to fields between positive and negative charges or magnets. I just don't believe that our world base is some silly laws of quarks or leptons or gravitation or invisdible unexplained magnetic field, which is not explained and is the same as magic now.
Entanglement between photons can't be succesfuly manipulated to harnes exponentional speed up. Entanglement between atoms or electrons also can be harnesed, becouse need that they would talk through photons or phonons and this is very stupid and maybe even imposible. Becouse if there is two spins and pne of spins had change his state, then another probably shoudl to, but another is prety far so he doing bulsshitly weak work and thermal motion this work making even more bullshitly. So you can't cheat with thermal motions, becouse they are unpredicted. And why spins must have more than 2 superposition states?
QUOTE
The classical model is only taught to school children as a simplistic analogy. Unfortunately people like DavidD can't get past that.
You don't understand about that I am talking. Anyway this don't realates with quantum computers...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The classical model is only taught to school children as a simplistic analogy. Unfortunately people like DavidD can't get past that. |
You don't understand about that I am talking. Anyway this don't realates with quantum computers...
You don't have a theory, you have an incoherent mess built on ignorance which cannot model anything.
Yes it can't model anything, but it's don't means that our world can't be such like predict my theory.
Alphanumeric, do you can solve this schriodinger equation of electron spining about nuclear?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...mgqua/hyds6.gif
Now existing theory don't explaining WHAT is magnetic field or electric field or what is gravitation or what is lepton or what is quark. It's like few centures ago nobody was know of what consist human, nobody then know of what everything consist. And then they found that human body consist of cells, cells consist of molecules, molecules of atoms, atoms of nuclear and electrons, nuclear of protons and neutrons, nucleons of hypothetical quarks. So Your alphanumeric claiming about that atoms consist of electrons and quarks is the same stupid as claim, that human body consist of cells, but don't explain of what consist cells. So you believe only in things which are known now, but don't trying to explain those things. My smallest balls theory prety good explaining how photon flying like wave, magnetic and electric fields are waves through my smallest particles. Positive and negative charges atrac each over becouse they somehow very dificult creating potencial pit and there is only geometrical particles and very dificult math, which not for human and your brain. Gravity is also somthing similar to fields between positive and negative charges or magnets. I just don't believe that our world base is some silly laws of quarks or leptons or gravitation or invisdible unexplained magnetic field, which is not explained and is the same as magic now.
Entanglement between photons can't be succesfuly manipulated to harnes exponentional speed up. Entanglement between atoms or electrons also can be harnesed, becouse need that they would talk through photons or phonons and this is very stupid and maybe even imposible. Becouse if there is two spins and pne of spins had change his state, then another probably shoudl to, but another is prety far so he doing bulsshitly weak work and thermal motion this work making even more bullshitly. So you can't cheat with thermal motions, becouse they are unpredicted. And why spins must have more than 2 superposition states?
Because if they gave you all the answers all the time you'd actually be able to catch up.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 10:00 AM)
IF atom model is so good then nobody would make alternative models http://www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm .
There are always cranks, like you, trying to explain the atom with classical physics. They have all failed.
There are always cranks, like you, trying to explain the atom with classical physics. They have all failed.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 10:00 AM)
ou don't understand about that I am talking.
And you don't understand what I'm talking about, physics.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 10:00 AM)
Yes it can't model anything
Then you don't have a theory. A theory, in science, is a model which has been verified by experiment. Yours hasn't. It cannot predict anything which can then be measured and tested.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 10:00 AM)
Alphanumeric, do you can solve this schriodinger equation of electron spining about nuclear?
That is just the Schrodinger equation in spherical coordinates. When given the expression, U®, for the potential produced by the nucleus (ie the Coulomb force), yes, it can be solved. Infact, it's solved in terms of the Assosicaed Legendre Polynomials, which give the electron shell orbital shapes which we see in experiments.
Just use seperation of variables. Do you know how to do that?
Just use seperation of variables. Do you know how to do that?
Does this sriodinger equation describes atom or electron? If yes, then does it is hard to simulate such object on computer? Or if I put 100 such objects, do it will be imposible to simulate for supercomputer? Of course I can't solve this equation and even can't imagine what must be answer (how must looks like). Maybe you can show me answer of this equation?
Maybe you right my theory is not very physical, but prety philosophycal. Physical theory must somthing explain, my theory can explain only on intuitive level and not on logical. I heard that this schriodinger equation is very simplified (becouse in another case imposible solve it), is it true?
Maybe you right my theory is not very physical, but prety philosophycal. Physical theory must somthing explain, my theory can explain only on intuitive level and not on logical. I heard that this schriodinger equation is very simplified (becouse in another case imposible solve it), is it true?
There are always cranks, like you, trying to explain the atom with classical physics.
I don't trying explain atom in "such" classical way...
Anyway, supose that quantum computer is imposible ( I believe 100% that it is, but you don't and it is your choise), does then all sriodinger equations are wrong? IF not, then which ones wrong?
QUOTE
And you don't understand what I'm talking about, physics.
Maybe you right my theory is not very physical, but prety philosophycal. Physical theory must somthing explain, my theory can explain only on intuitive level and not on logical. I heard that this schriodinger equation is very simplified (becouse in another case imposible solve it), is it true?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you don't understand what I'm talking about, physics. |
Maybe you right my theory is not very physical, but prety philosophycal. Physical theory must somthing explain, my theory can explain only on intuitive level and not on logical. I heard that this schriodinger equation is very simplified (becouse in another case imposible solve it), is it true?
There are always cranks, like you, trying to explain the atom with classical physics.
I don't trying explain atom in "such" classical way...
Anyway, supose that quantum computer is imposible ( I believe 100% that it is, but you don't and it is your choise), does then all sriodinger equations are wrong? IF not, then which ones wrong?
http://www2.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/Mi...dinger_eq_E.htm
For example I want to solve schroedinger equation and for me need to find partial derivative of:
(d^2 e^{i(px-Et)/h})/(dx^2)
How to find it or how to find
d^2(cos(px/h-Et/h))/dx^2
?
cos(A-
=cosA*cosB+sinA*sinB=cos(px/h-Et/h)=cos(px/h)*cos(Et/h)+sin(px/h)*sin(Et/h).
d(cos(px/h-Et/h))/dx=-sin(px/h)*(p/h)+cos(px/h)*(p/h).
d^2(cos(px/h-Et/h))/dx^2=-cos(px/h)*(p/h)^2-sin(px/h)*(p/h)^2.
Do I am on right way by solving (1 dimensional (interesting what it can mean?)) schroedinger equation?
"Second is the use of the quantum
optics toolbox to experimentally demonstrate and investigate noise suppression at
the 0.7 and, more generally, n:m conductance anomalies in quantum point contacts."
http://www.stanford.edu/group/yamamotogrou...s/WDOthesis.pdf
I don't get it. It is 70% noise or 70% signal? Anyway with such "entanglement I don't think that possible quantum computation. So why they better first don't get better entanglement before making quantum computer?
For example I want to solve schroedinger equation and for me need to find partial derivative of:
(d^2 e^{i(px-Et)/h})/(dx^2)
How to find it or how to find
d^2(cos(px/h-Et/h))/dx^2
?
cos(A-
=cosA*cosB+sinA*sinB=cos(px/h-Et/h)=cos(px/h)*cos(Et/h)+sin(px/h)*sin(Et/h).d(cos(px/h-Et/h))/dx=-sin(px/h)*(p/h)+cos(px/h)*(p/h).
d^2(cos(px/h-Et/h))/dx^2=-cos(px/h)*(p/h)^2-sin(px/h)*(p/h)^2.
Do I am on right way by solving (1 dimensional (interesting what it can mean?)) schroedinger equation?
"Second is the use of the quantum
optics toolbox to experimentally demonstrate and investigate noise suppression at
the 0.7 and, more generally, n:m conductance anomalies in quantum point contacts."
http://www.stanford.edu/group/yamamotogrou...s/WDOthesis.pdf
I don't get it. It is 70% noise or 70% signal? Anyway with such "entanglement I don't think that possible quantum computation. So why they better first don't get better entanglement before making quantum computer?
DavidD
Posted on Today at 9:00 AM: You end your post with this question:
{{And why spins must have more than 2 superposition states?}}
[Comments: When I take the Dehmelt triplet lepton conjecture, the electron was chosen by he in his Nobel Prize Paper (circa 1989?), the electron is modeled as a flat equal lateral triangle (felt) and the three vertices are each 1/3 electron charged, some 10 billion times the mass of the electron we observe at a distance, that is, some 1/1830th of the proton mass at a distance.
And to this his implied further conjectured of the triplet as an original "Black Hole" like initial starting "Cosmonium", a triplet, each of the vertices dividing into three similar triplets, and my visual imagination and some sketching would then give the result that today all "fuzzy dot masses" are connected to each other by strings, threads, cables, ... string theory models.
The Higgs Universal Gravity Strings (HUGS) connect all levels of felts in two and three dimensions with time used as a way of showing transitions at any one level to another, from Fermi to glaxatic to foamy universes(?), expanding, contracting, oscillating, and mixing, for eternity.
So, perhaps your summary ending sentence can be answered this way:
Each vertex of any level of division from the Cosmonium has three spinning dot masses (triplets) that have gyro-electro-magnets "masses" (gemms) spinning such that the magnet fields tend to place themselves in "space" equidistant from each other.
I assume for now these three gemms have some wobble room in time and space.
I assume the combo of mass and charge to be entangled such that they are not able to be separated.
Thus the answer to your last question may be this:
The electron as a lepton is a triplet and each vertex can combine with other triplets in at least two ways, first as two wafer triplets separated such that the vertex of three axis have an averaged attractional force, and second, that the triplet forms (sub-quarks) can form polyhedral as 3-D models for molecular, atomic, and subatomic relatively stable masses.
This is fuzzy logic nearing uncertainty, but may answer your question, and hopefull inviting more questions. You may have that talent for a Natural IDIOT (Individual Discerning Information Over Time). Patience is the Virtue of Time.
Best, rmuldavin
Posted on Today at 9:00 AM: You end your post with this question:
{{And why spins must have more than 2 superposition states?}}
[Comments: When I take the Dehmelt triplet lepton conjecture, the electron was chosen by he in his Nobel Prize Paper (circa 1989?), the electron is modeled as a flat equal lateral triangle (felt) and the three vertices are each 1/3 electron charged, some 10 billion times the mass of the electron we observe at a distance, that is, some 1/1830th of the proton mass at a distance.
And to this his implied further conjectured of the triplet as an original "Black Hole" like initial starting "Cosmonium", a triplet, each of the vertices dividing into three similar triplets, and my visual imagination and some sketching would then give the result that today all "fuzzy dot masses" are connected to each other by strings, threads, cables, ... string theory models.
The Higgs Universal Gravity Strings (HUGS) connect all levels of felts in two and three dimensions with time used as a way of showing transitions at any one level to another, from Fermi to glaxatic to foamy universes(?), expanding, contracting, oscillating, and mixing, for eternity.
So, perhaps your summary ending sentence can be answered this way:
Each vertex of any level of division from the Cosmonium has three spinning dot masses (triplets) that have gyro-electro-magnets "masses" (gemms) spinning such that the magnet fields tend to place themselves in "space" equidistant from each other.
I assume for now these three gemms have some wobble room in time and space.
I assume the combo of mass and charge to be entangled such that they are not able to be separated.
Thus the answer to your last question may be this:
The electron as a lepton is a triplet and each vertex can combine with other triplets in at least two ways, first as two wafer triplets separated such that the vertex of three axis have an averaged attractional force, and second, that the triplet forms (sub-quarks) can form polyhedral as 3-D models for molecular, atomic, and subatomic relatively stable masses.
This is fuzzy logic nearing uncertainty, but may answer your question, and hopefull inviting more questions. You may have that talent for a Natural IDIOT (Individual Discerning Information Over Time). Patience is the Virtue of Time.
Best, rmuldavin
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 02:49 PM)
Does this sriodinger equation describes atom or electron? If yes, then does it is hard to simulate such object on computer? Or if I put 100 such objects, do it will be imposible to simulate for supercomputer? Of course I can't solve this equation and even can't imagine what must be answer (how must looks like). Maybe you can show me answer of this equation?
It describes the evolution of a wave function. Non-relativistic particles can be described, be they atoms or electrons. The equation isn't what they solve in quantum computers. Do you know how computers work, using bits? Quantum computers calculate in a similar manner but with superpositioned bits.
Solving the Schrodinger equation is quite easy in many cases. I help teach 2nd year students quantum mechanics and even though it's their first course in quantum mechanics, they still know how to solve the Schrodinger equation for various potentials. The electron orbitals, as I've said to you several times, are a common one to ask students.
Computers can solve even difficult ones, using usual methods for solving differential equations. I've computed the solution to more difficult differential equations than the Schrodinger equation on a computer. Even in my 2nd year, I wrote a program which solved the Schrodinger equation for a particular potential as part of my coursework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quant...tical_solutions
That's a list of various systems which can be solved exactly, often so easily students can do it.
It describes the evolution of a wave function. Non-relativistic particles can be described, be they atoms or electrons. The equation isn't what they solve in quantum computers. Do you know how computers work, using bits? Quantum computers calculate in a similar manner but with superpositioned bits.
Solving the Schrodinger equation is quite easy in many cases. I help teach 2nd year students quantum mechanics and even though it's their first course in quantum mechanics, they still know how to solve the Schrodinger equation for various potentials. The electron orbitals, as I've said to you several times, are a common one to ask students.
Computers can solve even difficult ones, using usual methods for solving differential equations. I've computed the solution to more difficult differential equations than the Schrodinger equation on a computer. Even in my 2nd year, I wrote a program which solved the Schrodinger equation for a particular potential as part of my coursework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quant...tical_solutions
That's a list of various systems which can be solved exactly, often so easily students can do it.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 02:49 PM)
Maybe you right my theory is not very physical, but prety philosophycal. Physical theory must somthing explain, my theory can explain only on intuitive level and not on logical.
If all you have is philosophy and you cannot predict or even try to predict phenomena than you don't have science, you have religion.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 02:49 PM)
I heard that this schriodinger equation is very simplified (becouse in another case imposible solve it), is it true?
Different systems have different potentials. Some can be solved, and easily, other cannot be solved analytically (using mathematical equations) but can be solved to high accuracy by computers. Even classical ones like the PC you're infront of right now.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 02:49 PM)
Anyway, supose that quantum computer is imposible ( I believe 100% that it is, but you don't and it is your choise), does then all sriodinger equations are wrong? IF not, then which ones wrong?
You appear to not even know how the Schrodinger equation and quantum computers are related. They do not try to solve the Schrodinger equation!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
Read it.
Show me where is writen that quantum computer existation is proven fact.
Show me where is writen that quantum computer existation is proven fact.
And why are you so doubtful about the development of Quantum Information Technology?
I doubful only about quantum computers. About quantum cryptography I am not doubful.
If I good understand entanglement (non-locality) can be proved with two diferent ways. And in one way quantum mechanicaly answer is 0.75 and classicaly is 0.5 and diferent is 0.75-0.5=0.25. And in another case 0.85-0.75=0.1. So I read that electrons entanglement was 70% noisy. So in first case 0.25=100% and x=70%; x=70%*0.25/100%=0.175.
so then in first case 0.75-0.175=0.575. So only 7.5% is diferent from classical case; unprecise experiment?
In second case 0.1=100% and x=70%; x=70%*0.1/100%=0.07. So then 0.85-0.07=0.78. So in second entanglement cheking case, only 3% is diferent from classical behave, without entanglement, probabilisticly; so those 0.03 is mabe measuring errors?
So my conclusion that even badly entanglement between electrons can be not proved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_a...dinger_equation
Read it.
QUOTE (DavidD+Mar 2 2008, 02:49 PM)
Do I am on right way by solving (1 dimensional (interesting what it can mean?)) schroedinger equation?
No. You appear to not even know calculus. You fail to be able to do what 17 year olds are expected to understand.
Why then there are claims that quantum computers will be exponentionaly faster than classical computers in simulation quantum mechanic? If schoedinger equations isn't hard for classical computer then what is?
You don't answer in my question about 100 electrons or atoms simulation on classical computer. I read that for simulation 100 quantum particles (or electron spins...) need 2^100=10^30 bits memory. You probably don't learn much about exponentional hard simulations and equations? Anyway where in practice can be used those schroedinger equations?
What will be mechanic if you admit like acksiom, that to create entangled photons from diferent photon sources is imposible and that imposible to entangle atoms, electrons and nucleons? Probably schrodinger equations will not change much and maybe in recycled bin will be put only quantum computing theory?
For me need examples how need to solve schrodinger equations, but doubt that they are on internet.
Why they are so abstract instead real values x, t... Electrodinamic also prety abstract... At least to understand electrodinamic don't need to understand formulas, becouse electromagnetism can understand even scoolchildren...
You don't answer in my question about 100 electrons or atoms simulation on classical computer. I read that for simulation 100 quantum particles (or electron spins...) need 2^100=10^30 bits memory. You probably don't learn much about exponentional hard simulations and equations? Anyway where in practice can be used those schroedinger equations?
What will be mechanic if you admit like acksiom, that to create entangled photons from diferent photon sources is imposible and that imposible to entangle atoms, electrons and nucleons? Probably schrodinger equations will not change much and maybe in recycled bin will be put only quantum computing theory?
For me need examples how need to solve schrodinger equations, but doubt that they are on internet.
Why they are so abstract instead real values x, t... Electrodinamic also prety abstract... At least to understand electrodinamic don't need to understand formulas, becouse electromagnetism can understand even scoolchildren...
How many times do you need to be told? Quantum computers are a proven fact. BTW, have you not considered becoming a translator because it seems like you used AI to translate your postings. And why are you so doubtful about the development of Quantum Information Technology? Sorry rat brain not silicon made of, and no want rat in computer, me!
QUOTE
Quantum computers are a proven fact.
Show me where is writen that quantum computer existation is proven fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum computers are a proven fact. |
Show me where is writen that quantum computer existation is proven fact.
And why are you so doubtful about the development of Quantum Information Technology?
I doubful only about quantum computers. About quantum cryptography I am not doubful.
If I good understand entanglement (non-locality) can be proved with two diferent ways. And in one way quantum mechanicaly answer is 0.75 and classicaly is 0.5 and diferent is 0.75-0.5=0.25. And in another case 0.85-0.75=0.1. So I read that electrons entanglement was 70% noisy. So in first case 0.25=100% and x=70%; x=70%*0.25/100%=0.175.
so then in first case 0.75-0.175=0.575. So only 7.5% is diferent from classical case; unprecise experiment?
In second case 0.1=100% and x=70%; x=70%*0.1/100%=0.07. So then 0.85-0.07=0.78. So in second entanglement cheking case, only 3% is diferent from classical behave, without entanglement, probabilisticly; so those 0.03 is mabe measuring errors?
So my conclusion that even badly entanglement between electrons can be not proved.