Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Science: hijacked by pseudo

I guess you deserve all invectives you throw at me. The thing is that you have proven uncapable of intelligent discussion. On the other hand, as it was ones said about a dreadful flute player, at least he is not into the hw robberies.

e s

You are out of your league: probably, have not seen a differential equation in your life.
The way to ask, for you, is to stand on your knees first, get it?

ES

>>I guess you deserve all invectives you throw at >>me. The thing is that you have proven uncapable >>of intelligent discussion. On the other hand, >>as it was ones said about a dreadful flute >>player, at least he is not into the hw >>robberies.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, cut the baloney and let's get down to quantum mechanics, entanglement, quantum gravity, quantum field theory or whatever else quantum that pleases you.

>>You are out of your league: probably, have not >>seen a differential equation in your life.

You mean I am out of your league, right? Boy, you really are thick. When it comes to quantum theory, I prefer them as eigenvalue problems, you know. Gives you a better understanding of the issue than in a a particular representation as diff equation. You should know that already.

>>The way to ask, for you, is to stand on your >>knees first, get it?

As I said before, you are not a very bright fella. I'll have to get used to it. So if your testosterone levels have dropped back to nominal levels, stop squirming and let's get back to real science.

So once again, what are your arguments based on the principles of thermodynamics and Heisenberg's inequalities that prevent the existence of a quantum computer? And I am especially interested in your oppinion how nonlinearities come into play, since you don't seem to be aware of the fact that for example the p-n juncion is also globally non-linear, and yet computers exist. Have you ever heard of the acronym LCAO? Go look it up.

Pasti, perhaps the word you are looking for is "narcissism", from the legend of Narcissus, who starved to death from staring at his own reflection in the water. "Nymphomania" refers to "excessive sexual desire in and behavior by a female." Which, given who we're dealing with, might not be too inaccurate, either.

Hi Amaranth,

First of all Happy Thanksgiving, and second of all, sorry for the long silence.

You are right, I used "nymphomaniac" in a "slightly" enlarged context, but he did not actually get it. As I said, he's not a very bright one, just a bit above Paul's IQ, but not much.

[Censored: incendiary and off-topic]

If you continue to make comments of this nature there will be consequences.

ES, as I said before, stop squirming and let's talk about quanum theory. I am still waiting for your arguments regarding the impossibility of QC.

How very intersting. When it comes to the "real thing", suddenly your interminable posts have reduced to only a line. What seems to be the problem? Have you suddenly become "shy" when challenged by someone more knowledgeable than you in the field? How very unscientific of you.


Was your boasting about the time you spent understanding quantum theory just to impress the less knowledgeablew in the matter? There is no reason for that, I have worked in QM, QED, QFT, QG, QC more than you will ever work in physics, so I certainly can understand your arguments.

First af all, the correct term is QUAC - QUANTUM COMPUTER.

The QUAC is impossible, because none of the offered descriptions of any of its properties and/or operations passes laugh test.

All of it is just bambling of complete ignoramuses in the quantum theory.

You or anybody else will be unable to come up with a quote about QUAC, that makes sense from the quantum physics and computing point of view,

Try it

ES

First af all, the correct term is QUAC - QUANTUM COMPUTER.

The QUAC is impossible, because none of the offered descriptions of any of its properties and/or operations passes laugh test.

All of it is just bambling of complete ignoramuses in the quantum theory.

You or anybody else will be unable to come up with a quote about QUAC, that makes sense from the quantum physics and computing point of view,

Try it

ES

There you go, Schroeinger's cat didn't get your tongue after all. But you recently seem to have developed a comprehension problem. I said ARGUMENTS, by which I mean scientific arguments. You should at least know the meanong of the concept, even if practice in applying it lacks.

Once again, what are your ARGUMENTS regarding the impossibility of QC? Preferential acronymisation does not count as an ARGUMENT, and I already know your oppinions. So go ahead with the arguments now, stop chasing your tail.

Funny that you say that
I offered YOU, or anybody else who cares, a challenge.

I claim, that you can not come up with an actual quotation from QUAC proponents, that is not a plagiarism, and that is not patently incorrect from physical and/or computational point of view.

You have to accept challenge and offer a quotation, or you must admit that I am right and that all QUAC is a bunch of crap.

e s

"I offered YOU, or anybody else who cares, a challenge."

Aha!The good old trick of shifting the burden of proof onto those who don't share your views.I was wondering when you would say that. As I said ES, you are not a very bright fella. The answer to your cheap trick is trivial. I stand behind the entire experimental and theoretical work that has been done in the field. At MIT, LANL, Caltech ICQ, and wherever else you like. You want refs? Well, let's see, you can use arxiv, Spires, and search for authors like Deutsch, Laflamme, Lloyd, Kimble, Preskill, or for keywords like decoherence, quantum gates. If you feel you are not capable to do the search by yourself, let me know and I will come up with more concrete refs.

"I claim, that you can not come up with an actual quotation from QUAC proponents, that is not a plagiarism, and that is not patently incorrect from physical and/or computational point of view."

You can claim whatever you whish, but without concrete arguments/proofs your claims are worth nothing. I will make it really easy for you, so that you don't overeload your brain (too much). Take one issuein QC, the issue you are most comfortable with, which you understand the best etc, and put up for discussion your argument about why this particular issue is incorrect, or plagiarism, or whatever you think it is wrong with it.


"You have to accept challenge and offer a quotation, or you must admit that I am right and that all QUAC is a bunch of crap."

My dog laughed when he read what you wrote above. You don't seem to realize the enormity of your statements. All the arguments in favor of QC are public, are posted on public archives (see above) for everyone to read and comment. You claim they are wrong, and I still have to see a concrete argument from you to that effect. So what don't you do the same thing, on this forum at least: pick up an issue at your convenience, and post your arguments detailing why that particular issue is fale, untrue, incorrect, plagiarism or whatever eles.

As for the challenge you mention, I accepted your challenges long ago but as usual, you don't seem to understand this. And I have offered you refs (in physics we call them references, if you might recall), but once again, this seems to have eluded you. Nevermind, I offered you more refs above, should you want to actually pursue them.

So, let' get down to business. I am waiting for your CONCRETE ARGUMENTS regarding the incorrectness of the issue of your choice in QC.

Take the "quantum entanglement". It is regergitation of the discussion about 60 years ago.
The story goes that two coherent particles are being created.
They do not physically interact after being created.

One of them is being observed/measured first What can be said about the state of the second particle, and after the measurement of the first one, that could not be said before the measurement ?

1. Before the measurement, we have total state as production of the states of those particles

|1,2> = |1>|2>, <1|1>=<2|2>=1

Let say M1 and M2 are propeties of the first and the second particle. Their operators will commute:
[M1,M2]=0

Measurement of amplitude of property M1 of first particle, gives
<1,2|M1|1,2> = <1|M1|1>
The mesurement changes the state of the first particle to |1m>

subsequent easurement of amplitude of property M2 of second particle, gives
<1m,2|M2|1m,2>/<1m,2|1m,2> = <2|M2|2>

No matter what order you make the measurements,
those results will be the same.

This is a simple model. You can complicate it as much as you want, the result will be the same.

This simply a restatement of the fact that those particles are independent during the time, whereat we analyze their behavior.

Clearly, no specific entanglement effects are observed.

You might say, that we could have some prior knowlege about the system, like total energy.
The quantum mechanics do not consider such knowlege and do not evaluate changes of such knowlege due to experiment.
It starts and ends with system, defined to the extent that its Psy function defined.
Those who make conclusions beyond that, are on their own, they can not claim that it is what quantum mechanics say.


Thus, the claim about "quantum entanglement" has no quantum mechanical justification. It is a hoax to say it does.

ES

OK, so you posted your argument. Let's talk shop now.

Let's indeed assume that you have the two non-interacting particles, initially in state |1 > and state |2>. However, you somehow seem to neglect the fact that since you are dealing with quantum systems, the states |1> and |2> are elements of a continous and/or discrete complete set of such states, assuming that you have actually solved the 1-particle problem(s).
Let's now further assume that indeed the total Hilbert space of the system is the direct product of the 1-particle Hilbert spaces, since the two particles do not interact, so that in the end you can say that your initial state is |1,2>=|1>|2>.
And that is about where we stop agreeing.

First of all, you are talking about average values of observables, while quantum entanglement deals not with with the average values of the quantum observables, but with the measurement of such observables, with individual measurements. Which changes completely your story.

Now, if you actually want to describe measurements, you need to include also the wavefunction of the measurement apparatus. Roughly speaking, if you consider a 2 step von Neumann type of measurement, combined with the fact that you have a complete set of 1-particle eigenfunctions means that after you have measured (first stage of the measurement) the observable M1 your two particles are in a state that can roughly be described as:

|1,2/new>= {Sum/n}|1n>|2n>

where n is some sumation index and your initial state |1,2> is one of the states in the sum, for a particular value of n. This is where the entanglement of the states of the 2 particles occurs. There are some nice refs on this issue that I can give you if you want.

In the second stage of the measurement (observation), your wavefunctions collapses, such that the observed state will be say |1r>|2r>, which gives you the eigenvalue m1r for the observable M1. Furthermore, this (the outcome of the measurement on M1) uniquely determines your outcome of any future observation on M2 as m2r, before any such observation has actually been performed.

Of course, if you change the measuring process and you measure M2 first, the situation changes in the sense that the outcome of any further observation on M1 is uniquely determined by the observation on M2.

So, in the end it matters which measurement is made first. In your case, since you used averages and did not use the entire set of 1-particle states, the above distinction dissapears,and so does any consideration regarding entanglement.

Do not try it at home. Ask somebody, who actually knows anything about quantum theory.

Let me put it for dummies:
"entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory.

That's all you actually need to know.
And with "entanglement", goes down the "quantum teleportation" and the whole "quantum computing" pile of crap.

e s

......................... Scientists implemented a seven qubit computing device that ran Shor's factorization algorithm at Almaden Research Center.

... o_o PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST~! *whisper* Go here. http://www.almaden.ibm.com/

shhhh...

Andy,

Shor's "algorithm" is absolute undiluted crap.
Its speed is 2**N * O(N**3), the slowest ever anywhere :rolleyes:


The nitwit does not get that his "quantum function" f(n) will take O(2**N) to evaluate.

You can implement and model that crap for small N like seven, but it is the slowest and most degenerate way to factor numbers.

ES

ES:"Do not try it at home. Ask somebody, who actually knows anything about quantum theory."

There you go again. I thought we were past this baloney. But you seem to get back to it every time you get cornered.


ES:"Let me put it for dummies:"entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory."

Aha, so now entanglement exists, but it violates causality at quantum level. Humor me, how does it violate causality? Once again, arguments not psycho-babble. And don't give me the faster than light bull.

ES:"And with "entanglement", goes down the "quantum teleportation" and the whole "quantum computing" pile of crap."

Aside from the fact that I agree with you that the term "teleportation" has been a very unfortunate choice, and the media has cashed extensively on it, you are once again indulging yourself in mystico-apocalyptic self babble, without any support for your claims. The argument you offered previously for the inexistence of entanglement is incorrect, and even worse, your claims are also contrary to observational data, and you know that.

As for Schor's algorithm, it may be slow, but then so was the DFT algorithm before Lanczos. But Schor made a correct point, and it was proven to work. So your point is?

(1) - shows that you have a problem with English and logic. The "entanglement" is impossible and it does not exist, since its existence would violate the laws of Nature.

(2) The whole Shor's algorithm claim to the fame is, that a device with QUAC properties would require O(N**p) operation time for factoring of a large integer. It is a crap, since it would require at least 2**N times more time.

(3) There is no correct point made by Shor or any other of QUAC kooks

ES

ES:"(1) - shows that you have a problem with English and logic. The "entanglement" is impossible and it does not exist, since its existence would violate the laws of Nature.

Let me quote you:"..."entanglement" violates the principle of casuality, which is the paramount for any physical theory including quantum theory."

Now, let me spell it for you dummy: in order for causality to be violated, something called entanglement (we can drop the quotes since they are pretty much irrelevant in this context) must exist, either as a concept only, or as both concept and observational evidence. You know, to put it in laymen terms, you have to apply at least the concept in order to prove that causality is violated.

So implicitly you have admitted that entanglement exists at least as a concept, although previously you have "proved" that it doesn't exist as a concept.

If this argument does not satisfy you, let me know and I will provide you with a amthematical logic argument.

ES:"(2) The whole Shor's algorithm claim to the fame is, that a device with QUAC properties would require O(N**p) operation time for factoring of a large integer. It is a crap, since it would require at least 2**N times more time."

Ah, whining again. You simply cannot get it out of your system, can you?
Well, then instead of foaming inthe shadows, why don't you actually write a paper to this effect, exposing the flaws in Shor's calculations for the computatuion time? As the "true" scientist that you blaim to be, I am certain that at some point in your past you might have heard of this ancient method of publishing a paper in response to someone else' published claims. you might want to try this sometime.

"3) There is no correct point made by Shor or any other of QUAC kooks"

Do I detect a slight trace of racism in your statement? I can only hope that you haven't sunk so low.

Returning to your statement, I am sure that in your feverish imagination there is no such a point. But in reality there is, and he was not afraid to make his point and his arguments public. In flagrant contrast to you, who for the time being make claims based more on some sort of cayceian revelations than on solid arguments(the arguments you came with previously have, in the form you presented them, no merit whatsoever).