Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Progress in Quantum Computing

Here it is, the point of view of the DARPA chief:
Do you read anything into this, the champion of hearsay/references?

ES

It's not the fact that this guy is the head of DARPA that makes his opinion valuable. Lots of government positions like this are headed by professional beaurocrats who couldn't get a real job and aren't very good at what they do.

But this guy has a PhD in a relative field and comes with pretty good credentials. However, this is one guy and he doesn't come ANYWHERE close to saying what you have said. He's skeptical. Lots of people are skeptical. You have said that those involved in this research are ignoramouses, while every post you have made has proven you to be completely ignorant of physics, logics, manners, math, and pretty much everything else.

"Sceptical" appears only at the title of article.
The actual quotations of him are 100% assertive. And I stand 100% behind them all the time.

Eat your hat, pal.

ES

Wonderful extraNONsense. You found someone that is not convinced quantum computing has a future.

Specifically which statements did he make that are relevant to what you have been posting about quantum computing being a fraud and being slow?

Your attitude is dishonest.
You were asking about publication, that kills QC.
No matter how long you are going split hair, you have lost the argument.
All works on digital QC are bs, including qbits, schor algoirithm etc.

ES

Lets take a trip down memory lane. Here's what you actually wrote:

6/11
In fact the idea of QC is interesting, but all the attempts to develop it have failed miserably.

6/15
It is not that algorithm can not be implemented, it is that it is super SLOW,

6/17
There is NO scientific work, that PROVES any of the claims about speed of "quantum computation".

6/19
QC was invented by a bunch of ignoramuses, who never had a clue what the real quantum theory is.

Which would all be reasonable were it not for the fact that none if it is correct. And the proof:

http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/20/1620227
from which I will quote:
" According to a press release (19 December 2001), researchers at IBM's Almaden Research Center have performed the world's most complicated quantum-computer calculation to date. They used a container full of billions of custom-designed molecules to create a seven-qubit quantum computer that solved a simple version of the numerical factoring problem at the heart of many of today's data-security cryptographic systems. Reporting their work in the 20 December 2001 issue of Nature, the team says they have provided the first demonstration of "Shor's Algorithm" -- a method developed in 1994 by AT&T scientist Peter Shor for using a quantum computer to find a number's factors. Today, factoring a large number is so difficult for conventional computers -- yet so simple to verify -- that it is used by many cryptographic methods to protect data."

So there you have it. An unpublished anonymous entity decries work published by IBM.

Anyone interested in learning more about what has been done should go to google.com and search using the criteria:
"Quantum computing" and "IBM"

When you can demonstrate that the researchers at IBM fabricated their work and published results I'll be interested. Your hot air might better be applied to blowing up a balloon.

Your remarkable ignorance can not be surpassed. It is so soaked in bs, that no facts can clean it. For sure not a material that God intended for discussing matters of science and such.


ES

"Your remarkable ignorance can not be surpassed. It is so soaked in bs, that no facts can clean it. For sure not a material that God intended for discussing matters of science and such."

Okay, Eliza's cousin, here's the thing:
your post is clearly self-referential.

I was giving you considerable leeway early one because it was obvious that you were not altogether comfortable with the English language and it wasn't clear that much of the disagreement wasn't just a misunderstanding.

Dear DA,

You seem to be doing your share of posturing, and you didn't even give a reference when I asked.
I actually am interested in finding out.

count Ibliss II wrote:
Quantum computing works precisely because of these superpositions. It has already been demonstrated in the lab. Shor's factorization algorithm and Grover's search algorithm have been implemented using a few qubits.

Then you wrote:
Do you have a reference for that?

I assumed you were asking the Count.

Are you asking me to provide you a reference on what someone else posted?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/421796a.html

Quantum computers have been built - on a very small scale so far.

You are deaf to the issue.
The claims of speed are wrong, not the concept of quantum computation as such.
Fools come up with ridiculous claims - what else fools are for?

ES

DA,

Sorry, your right it was the Count.
You only talked about people working to make Quantum Computing faster. When I first read it I thought that you were agreeing with he count (who failed to provide any references to back his statement).

However your statement leads on to an interesting idea...

Has anyone come across any analysis of the expected speed of Quantum Computing with QS operating versus the speed without QS?
So far I have not found any reference to a verifiable prediction from the Copenhagen Interpreation (there are a few supposed predictions but they are just circular arguments).

Comparing the actual processing speed against the predicted processing speed for a given quantum computer has the potential to provide the first physical evidence one way or the other.
However this comparison would probably require a significant amount of work as the optimum algorithms for QS processing and non QS processing would probably be quite different.

Still it would be worth it to for someone to start applying the Scientific Method to the Quantum Superposition postulate*.

* I don't think Hypothesis is appropriate for the Copenhagen Interpretation, as it appears to be a Philosophical argument arising from one interpretation of a Mathmatical Formula rahter than Sciencs (this conclusion is based on the content of general science sources - text books, biographies, encyclopoedias & science magazines).

I personally think the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong. It sole value is that it has provided a framework within which to consider QM.

At this point in time the calculation related to quantum mechanics and quantum chromodynamics are the most accurate that exist in physics. Tested and proven to an unbelievable level of accuracy.

That means the math has value. The interpretation of what that math means is quite another thing.

See e.g. here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor\'s_algorithm

You see that the superposition is essential for the quantum algorithm to work.

I am now going to put Schroedinger's cat amongst the pigeons:

The superposition of what? The Schroedinger equation describes AN ELECTRON; Each possible solution for a chosen potential energy must then surely also be able to only manifest if it represents an actual electron. When these wave solutions overlap it surely must mean that a multi-electron superposition is manifesting. What is done in quantum superposition is to superpose many wave functions (each of which does not represent an electron) and then to state that this superposition also represents a single electron. It does not really make sense.

By doing this, the result has to be interpreted in terms of Born's postulate that the wave function represents probabilities; this in turn leads to the result that when one knows the position of the centre of mass of an electron you do not know ANYTHING about its momentum. This violates special trelativity. In order to know the position of an electron you must know it relative to an inertial reference frame. In order to know the reference frame, one MUST also know its velocity relative to your reference frame; i.e. one must be able to know the position and the momentum simultaneously. Born's interpretation can only survive if there exists a unique stationary reference frame in the Universe. According to Einstein this is not possible. I rather believe Einstein; not Born.

In addition Born's interpretation must be valid independent of the accuracy with which one can measure. In fact, in all textbooks on quantum mechanics it is stated that the uncertainties in momentum and position is "built into" the fabric of the Universe. Thus even if it were possible to make 100% accurate measurements one will still obtain uncertainties. Thus when testing Born's interpretation of the wave function in terms of a "thought experiment" it must be tested in terms of perfect measurements. When applying this to an electron, one finds that the conservation of energy is violated; for example, consider an electron with momentum p(0) and make a perfect position measurement on it. According to Born one will now have no knowledge of its momentum; i.e. it can have any momentum. Now make a perfect momentum measurement on the electron; a momentum p is obtained that can, according to Born, be much much larger than p(0). Where does this energy come from?

It is just nonsense that a single electron can be in two separate wave states at the same time. What can happen, however, is that two electrons can entangle to form a single wave-state having a charge -2e. This is what happens when a covalent bond forms and when two protons entangle during an EPR experiment. I believe that this is also what happens when two protons and an electron entangles to form a proton-neutron pair; i.e. a deuterium nucleus.

I agree with the comments DA Morgan has made in his last posting above.