Thread: magical photons
View Single Post
  #11  
Old 10-02-2020, 01:23 AM
bgilbert (Barry gilbert)
barryg

bgilbert is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: tamworth
Posts: 64
The article you linked presented an interesting perspective, but it did not in any way refute QM, Bell's theorem, superposition, entanglement etc. - the author certainly did not suggest that quantum computing will fail because it is based on false ideas in QM (in your words "with Santa and the Goblins").

Correct, the point I was trying make, is that QM has two hurdles to overcome, the validity
of Quantum Entanglement (QE), and Decoherence.
QE has never been demonstrated, J. S. Bell supports this view(see earlier post).
The claims that Quantum Computers (QC) are already operating, are mostly false (I’m making a bold assumption that one exists out there), it is not generally known that a QC, that fails a Bell test, defaults to Classical Analogue Computer (CAC), which can be 1000s of times faster than a digital computer. There is a trade off between speed and accuracy with a CAC. NASA has several CAC’S of different specialized types, even a wind tunnel, can be classified as a CAC.
A Classical Digital Computer (CDC). is a special case of a CAC.
A telescope object lens, can perform 3d Fourier transforms, at light speed, at room temp. using no input power. The resolution is only limited by the diffraction limit.

The next step I’m afraid is to look at some of the EPR experiments in detail, to see Why Bell, and others, including me, have concluded they don't prove the existence of QE.
I have just started scanning some peer reviewed material on EPR experiments and Bell tests.

As for the nature article, its going to take a while to digest, but I suspect some unfair comparisons going on;
(1) they are comparing there QC with a CDC with accuracy or resolution 1/2^64, or about 20 significant figures, the QC resolution is about 1/2^4 or 0.1%, about 3 sig figures
(2) QC at 20mK v CDC at about 300K.

A CAC running at 20 mK would keep up with it. A better comparison might be to test its performance against a 1 metre telescope objective doing 3D Fourier transforms.

Cheers,
Barry.

PS. You may prefer Einsteins "witches covens" to my "Santa and the goblins"
Reply With Quote