|
Ray
I think I'm wasting my time. I'm prepared to discuss crucial historic experiments in some detail to counter misinformation put out by pop science.
i thought I was making good points and you showed some interest, and then you hit me with some crap about "quantum supremacy" and "spoofing".
It turns out, it is a lot of acneyed gamers, employed by two of the biggest Q computer developers, getting their rocks off providing a lot of hype and publicity for Google and IBM. No significant progress was achieved, no entanglement was demonstrated. I have stated before several times, that a Q computer defaults to a classical ANALOQUE computer if no entanglement is at play is play.
Also if it was truly a Q computer it would be several orders of magnitude faster than calculated. That leads me to another interesting point. I don't actually think they ran the IBM because its time is too valuable for such BS, and it was simulated calculation of a simulation. not only that but with wide variation in calculated run time for the IBM, 10,000 hours says Google, 2.5 days says IBM.
The IBM runs at room temperature, it probably has 1/2^64 resolution, about 23 significant decimal places, the Q computer about 0.1 to 1% resolution or about 3 significant decimal places.
The Q computer was originally going to be great for factorizing large primes, lets do it then, or better yet crack the new Q encryption product that is on the market, according to another of your links.
You mention how Q entanglement, has been demonstrated over and over, I claim It has never been demonstrated, and have attached a link to some peer reviewed material supporting my claim.
Have all the realists died, I seem to be all alone , all that I'm doing is simply advocating for some old realists; Einstein, Plank, Bohm, Schrodinger Bell et al.
Barry
|