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

Of course it is childish, but not incorrect. And furthermore, it made ou turn the right way. I have given up any representation of quantum mechanics, I am only handling the real quantum mechanical quantities. But you don't seem to like that either.
And for this purpose, you don't need the comutator rules for observables, for two main reasons:
a)First of all,the moment you say "order of measurments"(and you can find your own quote on this one some 30 messages ago) the commutation of the observables M1 and M2 go out the window, because you are dealing with operators at different instants in time, and wavefunctions, etc, while the commutation of operators are equal time commutation rules. You should already know this from QFT and Feynmann graphs.
b)Second of all, the practice of measurement, no one in QM "measures" simultaneously anything, unless some experiment is specifically designed that way. So from the praxis point of viev, the commutation of observable is irrelevant.

But then let's return to your argument, once again. You keep the observables as operators, they commute, but you don't want any projection postulate involeved.Your proof can be summarized as follows: <S|M1M2|S>=<S|M2M1|S> which principially can tell you nothing about entanglement, even in this context, since you are measuring simultaneously the two quantieties/observables, so no ordering comes into play. At best it becomes an argument against non-locality, but not against entanglement.Once you take ordering into consideration, commutation fails (you have observables at different moment in time, so you cannot say anything about their commutation), and your argument becomes invalid, once again.

Your message IS incorrect.
What is Feinman about?
If you want to go to the level of quantum field theory, you are on your own.

The QUAC is incorrect on the level of quantum mechanics.

I am sure although, that you as incompetent in the quantum field theory, as you are incompetent in the quantum mechanics

es

ES:"Your message IS incorrect."

And your argument supporting the above statement IS?

ES:"What is Feinman about?If you want to go to the level of quantum field theory, you are on your own."

I was just exemplifying something, but you missed it. But I wouldn't mind going to QFT either. I would really like to see your argument for a graded algebra of observables, for example.

"The QUAC is incorrect on the level of quantum mechanics."

That might be, but not according to your statements, and not according to your previous arguments. So once again, where is your proof (if any) that entanglement does not exist, and that as such it violates causality?

ES:"I am sure although, that you as incompetent in the quantum field theory, as you are incompetent in the quantum mechanics."

There you go again. I thought we were past this crap. So cut the ranting, even if it makes you feel good in some twisted way, and channel your efforts into something more constructive, like, say, developing an argument in support of your statements, and presenting it appropriately.

ES is just having fun with QM. The thing that interest me is whether or not a multiverse exists in which all the possibilities you can find after a measurement are realized. Even if the many worlds interpretation is false and QM refers to a single universe, you can still have a many worlds like scenario in an infinite universe where an infinite number of copies of observer exist (e.g. in eternal inflation models).

Also, one can imagine an infinite ensemble of universes. It could be that there is no distinction between physical and mathematical existence. We could be purely mathematical entities living in an abstract mathematical world, experiencing our own world subjectively as something real. All possible mathematical models would then define their own universe (such a model has been proposed by Tegmark).

The "idea" of multiple universes came up, since parallel nonlinear processing seems to be not an option.

Those who talk about "full set of the states of computer", do not realize that for physical computer this would include the states when it is melted or even evaporated

ES

Not sure what you mean. The multiverse idea was invented before the concept of quantum computers.

It did not fly then, it does not make sense of the QUAC either

es

Ibliss, if you want to discuss the multiverse relation to QM, I am afraid that you should provide a more detailed description of the issue, maybe start a different thread. You know my oppinion about the multiverse ideea, I am more of a GR-LQG person, but nevertheless, I would be very interested to discuss it.

That's a good idea. I mentioned it here because of the projecton postulate that ES wants to get rid of.

OK,so let's go.

Do not get lost in those multiple worlds.
:p

But we are all lost in multiple worlds! From your perspective you cannot tell who I am. You don't know whether I'm male or female, whether I have a big beard or not, or how tall I am. There exists worlds in which you are exactly the same but in which all the things you don't know about are different. Since you are identical in those alternative worlds, you can't say that I have definite properties and that you just don't know about it.

All the possible persons who could be Count Iblis (the female, the male with the big beard etc.) are real for you!

In some we even are not born

es

Sure. But because you cannot compare time across diffetrent worlds, you should say that there are some worlds in which you never occur.

Also there is a world in which only you exist. This is the world defined by the exact mathematical description of your brain. Actually it would be better to say that you are this world. This world is embedded in the present universe, but it also exists ''on its own''.

Now, as it was rejected by the Physical Review Letters, you can read my article about QUAC Myths.
You already know, that Quantum Computing is an abberation and a pseudoscience.
Started with good intentions, it has paved quite a road to hell

Read this:

Quantum Computing Myths link

es

ESless, I am not surprised it was rejected. Care to comment about why?
You write worse than a first grader, among other things. My students usually get a quarter of the full credit if they come up with such a report. I can only hope that this is not the format you sent to PRL. Because if it is, it is pitiful.

And maybe you should take up the old advice: if two people tell you you're drunk, you'd better go to bed.

BTW, ESless, you might want to post your, hm, let's call it euphemistically paper on arxiv. At the very least, you migh get some insight into the arguments that people (I mean real scientists) will throw at you, and eventually modify your arguments to address such issues.
But then, unless you have posted on arxiv already, you need someone to endorse you, and for you in particular, that might not be a small task.

I know my style is pitiful.
Yes, I do not know how to go about that endosement: the people I thought might do it for me, do not use arXiv; too cheap for them.
Do you know anybody, who can?

ES

ES, this is not you. Whatever happened to your "impetus"?

ES: "I know my style is pitiful."

Even worse.But this is not a disease without a cure. Clue me in, if you have already been finished your master in theoretical physics, how on earth did you end up with this style? You should have published something as a result of your master thesis/project, especially in theoretical physics as you claim.

First of all, you should download from arxiv a paper that you can use as a model, and try to follow the way it is written. I would recommend you something by R. Jackiw, or H.J. Matschull. They have a very nice style, and they are very clear in exposing their ideeas.

I just remembered, there is another paper you can download, by E.Gerjoy I think (I can give you the whole ref if you like).It came out about a week ago on arxiv, and the guy makes similar comments to yours regarding the Shor algorithm. It would be useful for you to read it, because it is a good example of how to present ideas that disprove or are against "already established" patterns. With your approach, you will never get your ideeas across, even if they were correct. No one will take you seriously if you foam and state in two lines that physics is wrong, you know what I mean by that.

Second of all, you should download some version of Latex, and learn to use latex. Maybe you already use latex, I don't know, since you can produce a pdf file from MSWord too. For arxiw, latex is a must. It is not very difficult to use, it is just annoying, but I believe you can do it.

ES: "Yes, I do not know how to go about that endosement: the people I thought might do it for me, do not use arXiv; too cheap for them."

You've lost me here. Too cheap...?I am not sure that I understand. I don't know what friends you have, but arxiv is amongst the best databases for physics, along with Spires and DESY and the others. And it besides the public access, it also offers exactly what I was telling you about: feedback from others in the field or from other fields regarding your ideeas, arguments, etc.

ES: "Do you know anybody, who can?"

You must be kidding, right? I can just imagine a dialog something like this:

"Hey John, nice to see you. You know, I have a fella, I have no ideea who he is, and what he is, but he thinks that quantum computing is wrong, entanglement does not exist, Shor's algorithm is actually incorrect, wants to post a paper on arxiv to this effect, and he needs endorsement.
...What? Yes, I have seen his ideeas, but he did not convince me. Nor did I find him reasonable in discussing the issues related to his arguments. He seems to know something, but that's about it.
...No, I have no ideea where he went to school, or who his supervisor was, but would you be so kind as to endorse him for arxiv?"

I hope you see my point. Your best bet would be one of your former professors, maybe even your supervisor for your master or your PH.D., but I really doubt that anyone would actually endorse you if you show him the same arguments you showed on agogo.

Alternatively, you could email arxiv and ask if there is any other possiblity for endosement, like to be endorsed by your someone at your workplace or similar, if that applies.

I don't have any better ideeas, maybe Ibliss could come up with something.

Otherwise, the only thing that you can do is to rewrite your paper and try several other journals,in the hope one of them will actually accept your paper.

If that does not work either, what can I say?Make a second website on this topic and put your work on that site in the hope that someone might see it and contact you.

This is the best I can come up with for you.

ROFLMAO! Was this article reviewed and if so what did the referees say?