Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:50 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2024 9:58 am Sure, mathematical artifacts can exist at the same time. Qubits give you 2^n mathematical artifact "states".
That is exactly the point Mikhail Dyakonov is making. For that reason, there will never be a quantum computer --- which is the theme of this thread.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Sun Sep 29, 2024 9:58 am

Sure, mathematical artifacts can exist at the same time. Qubits give you 2^n mathematical artifact "states".
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:01 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 10:16 am
Joy Christian wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:22 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:59 pm Measurement time.
That is just one time at which the qubit state Psi(t) is measured. Not two different times. So up and down states do exist at the same time, just as I said.

The spin system is in the qubit state, which is given by Psi(t) = a(t) x up + b(t) x down. This state Psi(t) is measured at the time of measurement, say t_m.
Measurement of the qubit produces an up OR down; not both.
And that transforms the qubit into an ordinary bit --- up-bit or down-bit --- which is useless for quantum computing, reducing it to classical computing.

In a qubit, Psi(t) = a(t) x up + b(t) x down, the spin exists in the up and down state at the same time. That is what is required for quantum computing.

-----------------------------------------------

You seem to like Copilot and may believe it more than you believe me, so here is how it answered by question "What is a bit in QC?":

Copilot:

In quantum computing (QC), a bit can refer to either a classical bit or a quantum bit (qubit). Here’s a brief overview:

1. Classical Bit (cbit): This is the basic unit of classical information, which can be either 0 or 1.

2. Quantum Bit (qubit): This is the fundamental unit of quantum information. Unlike classical bits, qubits can exist in a superposition of states, meaning they can be both 0 and 1 simultaneously until measured.

------------------------------------------------

If this was not the case, why would anyone bother with qubits? Just work with up-bit OR down-bit, post-measurement, as you seem to think what QM is.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 28, 2024 10:16 am

Joy Christian wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:22 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:59 pm Measurement time.
That is just one time at which the qubit state Psi(t) is measured. Not two different times. So up and down states do exist at the same time, just as I said.

The spin system is in the qubit state, which is given by Psi(t) = a(t) x up + b(t) x down. This state Psi(t) is measured at the time of measurement, say t_m.
Measurement of the qubit produces an up OR down; not both.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:22 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:59 pm Measurement time.
That is just one time at which the qubit state Psi(t) is measured. Not two different times. So up and down states do exist at the same time, just as I said.

The spin system is in the qubit state, which is given by Psi(t) = a(t) x up + b(t) x down. This state Psi(t) is measured at the time of measurement, say t_m.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:59 pm

Measurement time.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:23 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:50 am
Joy Christian wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:46 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:57 am
Do you have a reference for that? I don't ever recall seeing that.
The qubit state is written down explicitly in Mikhail Dyakonov's talk I linked above: https://www.facebook.com/michel.dyakono ... z8gFDuL0DD
That is not the issue. And not a good reference for "...exist at the same time". And..., is he a "quantum computing guy"?
Ok. If they do not exist at the same time, then they exist at different times. What are these different times when they exist?
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:50 am

Joy Christian wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:46 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:57 am
Joy Christian wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:38 am
This is a qubit state in which up and down states exist at the same time, at least according to the quantum computing guys.
Do you have a reference for that? I don't ever recall seeing that.
The qubit state is written down explicitly in Mikhail Dyakonov's talk I linked above: https://www.facebook.com/michel.dyakono ... z8gFDuL0DD
That is not the issue. And not a good reference for "...exist at the same time". And..., is he a "quantum computing guy"?
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:46 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:57 am
Joy Christian wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:38 am
This is a qubit state in which up and down states exist at the same time, at least according to the quantum computing guys.
Do you have a reference for that? I don't ever recall seeing that.
The qubit state is written down explicitly in Mikhail Dyakonov's talk I linked above: https://www.facebook.com/michel.dyakono ... z8gFDuL0DD
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:57 am

Joy Christian wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:38 am
This is a qubit state in which up and down states exist at the same time, at least according to the quantum computing guys.
Do you have a reference for that? I don't ever recall seeing that.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:38 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 6:25 pm
Joy Christian wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 1:09 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:42 pm So, you agree that probability waves exist as mathematical objects. Is that correct? If so, then we can have probability based superposition. Do you agree?
I understand what probability is. And I understand what quantum superposition is. But what is "probability based superposition"?
It is what quantum superposition is basically. Say that the coefficients of the up and down states of the qubit are equal at 1/sqrt(2). Then there is a 50 percent probability that the qubit is either up and a 50 percent probability that it is down. Does that mean that the qubit is up and down at the same time? I don't think so.
You are talking about two different things.

First, there is a superposition of up and down states, with, in general, complex coefficients a and b. So we have

Psi = a x up + b x down.

This is a qubit state in which up and down states exist at the same time, at least according to the quantum computing guys. To them, Psi exists and it is as real as anything else.

Second, if we want to know the probability of the qubit being in the up state, then that is equal to |a|^2, according to the Born rule. But this is a separate postulate. It is not a part of the qubit itself. The qubit would have interference terms in addition to having the potential probabilities of |a|^2 and |b|^2.

So superposition and probabilities are two different concepts. In particular, Psi =/= |a|^2 and |b|^2 only.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 25, 2024 6:25 pm

Joy Christian wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 1:09 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:42 pm So, you agree that probability waves exist as mathematical objects. Is that correct? If so, then we can have probability based superposition. Do you agree?
I understand what probability is. And I understand what quantum superposition is. But what is "probability based superposition"?
It is what quantum superposition is basically. Say that the coefficients of the up and down states of the qubit are equal at 1/sqrt(2). Then there is a 50 percent probability that the qubit is either up and a 50 percent probability that it is down. Does that mean that the qubit is up and down at the same time? I don't think so.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Wed Sep 25, 2024 1:09 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:42 pm So, you agree that probability waves exist as mathematical objects. Is that correct? If so, then we can have probability based superposition. Do you agree?
I understand what probability is. And I understand what quantum superposition is. But what is "probability based superposition"?
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:42 pm

So, you agree that probability waves exist as mathematical objects. Is that correct? If so, then we can have probability based superposition. Do you agree?
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:46 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:29 am
Joy Christian wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:03 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 4:57 pm Do you believe that probability waves exist?
I don't even know what "probability waves exist" means. What exists are measurement results, or clicks of detectors, or eigenvalues of Hermitian operators.
I didn't mean exists as a physical object but exists as a mathematical object based on real physical events.
Sure. But it is just a mathematical tool that can be used to predict real physical events.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:29 am

Joy Christian wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:03 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 4:57 pm Do you believe that probability waves exist?
I don't even know what "probability waves exist" means. What exists are measurement results, or clicks of detectors, or eigenvalues of Hermitian operators.
I didn't mean exists as a physical object but exists as a mathematical object based on real physical events.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:03 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 4:57 pm Do you believe that probability waves exist?
I don't even know what "probability waves exist" means. What exists are measurement results, or clicks of detectors, or eigenvalues of Hermitian operators.
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Tue Sep 24, 2024 4:57 pm

Do you believe that probability waves exist?

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by Joy Christian » Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:18 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 4:59 pm
Joy Christian wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 12:10 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:15 pm Superposition is a consequence of wave action. Classical waves can have superposition so it stands to reason that quantum probability waves could have superposition also.
Ballentine is not questioning that. You are missing his explanation that the supposition principle does not violate classical probabilities as usually claimed.
No problem, I got that from Ballentine OK so didn't miss it.
Returning to the main question you raised concerning the rationale behind the quantum computing hype, the hype is driven by the belief that quantum superposition and quantum entanglement are something non-classical. Indeed, all of the physics of the past 100 years is driven by this belief that quantum mechanics is a new discovery, revealing mystical properties that go beyond classical mechanics. But Ballentine deflates this belief. He shows that, while quantum mechanics is indeed not the same as classical mechanics, it does not require a new non-classical probability theory to understand it as usually believed, either implicitly or explicitly. This also deflates your initial question about needing a "disproof" of superposition to undermine the quantum computing hype. Ballentine provides that disproof without dismissing the phenomenon of superposition. Hence, quantum computing is a misguided hype.
For me, quantum mechanics is simply about probabilities and the math for it. Your last three sentences do not compute.
Unlike you, quantum computing scammers do not see quantum mechanics as "simply about probabilities" (of course it is not, but that is another story). They believe it is a mystical theory where an electron can exist in two states, "spin up" and "spin down", at the same time, in a "quantum superposition." Some of them (such as David Deutsch, one of the founding fathers of quantum computing) even believe that these two states of elections belong to two different, parallel universes. They call this a "qubit." If they did believe like you that quantum mechanics is simply about probabilities, then there can only be "bits" and no "qubits", which would deflate their claims of "quantum supremacy" and "exponential speed up." Everything I ever say always computes. :D
.

Re: Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

by FrediFizzx » Sun Sep 22, 2024 4:59 pm

Joy Christian wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2024 12:10 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:15 pm Superposition is a consequence of wave action. Classical waves can have superposition so it stands to reason that quantum probability waves could have superposition also.
Ballentine is not questioning that. You are missing his explanation that the supposition principle does not violate classical probabilities as usually claimed.
No problem, I got that from Ballentine OK so didn't miss it.
Returning to the main question you raised concerning the rationale behind the quantum computing hype, the hype is driven by the belief that quantum superposition and quantum entanglement are something non-classical. Indeed, all of the physics of the past 100 years is driven by this belief that quantum mechanics is a new discovery, revealing mystical properties that go beyond classical mechanics. But Ballentine deflates this belief. He shows that, while quantum mechanics is indeed not the same as classical mechanics, it does not require a new non-classical probability theory to understand it as usually believed, either implicitly or explicitly. This also deflates your initial question about needing a "disproof" of superposition to undermine the quantum computing hype. Ballentine provides that disproof without dismissing the phenomenon of superposition. Hence, quantum computing is a misguided hype.
For me, quantum mechanics is simply about probabilities and the math for it. Your last three sentences do not compute. :roll:
.

Top