Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

[Joy Christian]

.
One of the often-cited support for Bell's discredited theorem is the fashion of quantum computers and the so-called "quantum advantage", or supremacy.

Well, the game is over for quantum computers, at least for now: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/19.

In the old forum, we had a lot of useful links regarding quantum computers and their vocal supporters: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/ ... =216#p5756.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Quantum Computers are dead all over again: https://www.science.org/content/article ... -after-all
.

[kev01]

.
Quantum Computers are dead all over again: https://www.science.org/content/article ... -after-all
.

Last paragraph in quoted article:
"Still, the Google demonstration was not just hype, researchers say. Sycamore required far fewer operations and less power than a supercomputer, Zhang notes. And if Sycamore had slightly higher fidelity, he says, his team’s simulation couldn’t have kept up. As Hangleiter puts it, “The Google experiment did what it was meant to do, start this race.”"

Joy, if your original boast that QC would never achieve anything beyond conventional computing capabilities were true, Zhang's commentary there should read a lot differently. You picked up elsewhere, much later than my own posting on it, the touted Kish et. al. advantage of NBL (noise based logic) over QC e.g.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03162

The latest article on that points out a roadblock where some fundamental issues still need to be solved.
But all of that aside, every time you have posted an article lampooning the 'Quantum supremacy' hype (true enough), none of those article authors, or the authorities they quoted, claimed there was a theoretical flaw in the basic premise that intrinsically quantum principles of superposition and entanglement were at play.

What say you Joy?

[Joy Christian]

.
Quantum Computers are dead all over again: https://www.science.org/content/article ... -after-all
.

Last paragraph in quoted article:
"Still, the Google demonstration was not just hype, researchers say. Sycamore required far fewer operations and less power than a supercomputer, Zhang notes. And if Sycamore had slightly higher fidelity, he says, his team’s simulation couldn’t have kept up. As Hangleiter puts it, “The Google experiment did what it was meant to do, start this race.”"

Joy, if your original boast that QC would never achieve anything beyond conventional computing capabilities were true, Zhang's commentary there should read a lot differently. You picked up elsewhere, much later than my own posting on it, the touted Kish et. al. advantage of NBL (noise based logic) over QC e.g.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03162

The latest article on that points out a roadblock where some fundamental issues still need to be solved.
But all of that aside, every time you have posted an article lampooning the 'Quantum supremacy' hype (true enough), none of those article authors, or the authorities they quoted, claimed there was a theoretical flaw in the basic premise that intrinsically quantum principles of superposition and entanglement were at play.

What say you Joy?

The "quantum principles of superposition and entanglement" are 20th-century relics. They are not here to stay. Therefore the QC hype is much more fundamentally misguided than the quantum supremacy dogmatists like Scott Aaronson (who is quoted in the article) or Zhang are capable of grasping.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
The Quantum Computing Hype Bubble Is About To Burst, according to Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLVtCYHVO8.

Sabine does not say this, but I will say it: Quantum Computing is mostly a fraud, run by some academic and non-academic thugs and gangs!
.

[gill1109]

https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... or-mirage/

[kev01]

The principle issue for this site is not whether quantum computers are ever to be real world problems viable.
It's whether already done demonstrations of quantum computing have established that entanglement is essential to explaining the results of such early days demos.
Where has a refutation of that ever been convincingly shown?
Specifically focused on the published 'quantum supremacy/advantage' (PC correction!) demo results?

[Joy Christian]

.
Grover's Algorithm Offers No Quantum Advantage: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11317
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Quantum Computing’s Hard, Cold Reality Check:

Hype is everywhere, and practical applications are nowhere!

https://spectrum-ieee-org.cdn.ampprojec ... 2666638802

Happy New Year!
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Is this the beginning of the end of quantum computing hype?

https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/01/05/baid ... lier-move/
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Researchers show that classical computers can keep up with, and surpass, their quantum counterparts:

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-classical ... parts.html
.

[Joy Christian]

.
A non-quantum computer crunches the numbers several times faster than Google’s quantum computer, and uses far less energy doing so:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/24 ... y-smashed/
.

[Joy Christian]

.
The lure of "quantum computers" is one of the most lucrative scams, with scammers well placed in both academia and the industry of quantum technology. These scammers are earning millions in prizes and salaries. But here is a rare talk by Mikhail Dyakonov that debunks all the hype about quantum computers:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/jpRZtM6TgTQXHy76/
.

[FrediFizzx]

.
The lure of "quantum computers" is one of the most lucrative scams, with scammers well placed in both academia and the industry of quantum technology. These scammers are earning millions in prizes and salaries. But here is a rare talk by Mikhail Dyakonov that debunks all the hype about quantum computers:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/jpRZtM6TgTQXHy76/

So, qubits are not real?

[Joy Christian]

.
The lure of "quantum computers" is one of the most lucrative scams, with scammers well placed in both academia and the industry of quantum technology. These scammers are earning millions in prizes and salaries. But here is a rare talk by Mikhail Dyakonov that debunks all the hype about quantum computers:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/jpRZtM6TgTQXHy76/

So, qubits are not real?

A qubit can always be represented by a unit bivector, which is a perfectly classical object. This bivector can be either "up" or "down" with respect to another unit bivector, just as a qubit is "up" or "down." Therefore, what any quantum computer can do, can always be done with a classical computer.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Is there any proof that superposition doesn't exist? That seems to be the difference.
.

[Joy Christian]

Is there any proof that superposition doesn't exist? That seems to be the difference.

No.

Neither is there an observationally direct proof that superposition exists.
.

[FrediFizzx]

The existence of quantum superposition is supported by several key experiments and theoretical principles in quantum mechanics. Here are a few notable examples:

1. **Double-Slit Experiment**: This classic experiment demonstrates the wave-particle duality of particles like electrons and photons. When particles pass through two slits, they create an interference pattern on a screen, which can only be explained if each particle is in a superposition of passing through both slits simultaneously¹.

2. **Stern-Gerlach Experiment**: This experiment shows that particles such as electrons can exist in a superposition of spin states. When a beam of particles passes through a non-uniform magnetic field, it splits into two distinct paths, corresponding to the spin-up and spin-down states. This splitting indicates that the particles were in a superposition of spin states before measurement¹.

3. **Bell's Theorem and Bell Test Experiments**: These experiments test the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of classical physics. The results consistently support the quantum mechanical prediction of entanglement and superposition, ruling out local hidden variable theories¹.

4. **Quantum Interference**: Experiments involving quantum interference, such as those with photons in interferometers, show that particles can interfere with themselves, a phenomenon that can only be explained by superposition¹.

These experiments, along with the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics, provide strong evidence for the existence of superposition. The principles of quantum mechanics, such as the Schrödinger equation, inherently include superposition as a fundamental aspect¹.

From Copilot. Number 3 is no good; you ruled that out. 1 and 4 seem the same and I don't think 2 proves anything. So, number 1 needs to be disproven. But how?
.

[Joy Christian]

The existence of quantum superposition is supported by several key experiments and theoretical principles in quantum mechanics. Here are a few notable examples:

1. **Double-Slit Experiment**: This classic experiment demonstrates the wave-particle duality of particles like electrons and photons. When particles pass through two slits, they create an interference pattern on a screen, which can only be explained if each particle is in a superposition of passing through both slits simultaneously¹.

2. **Stern-Gerlach Experiment**: This experiment shows that particles such as electrons can exist in a superposition of spin states. When a beam of particles passes through a non-uniform magnetic field, it splits into two distinct paths, corresponding to the spin-up and spin-down states. This splitting indicates that the particles were in a superposition of spin states before measurement¹.

3. **Bell's Theorem and Bell Test Experiments**: These experiments test the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of classical physics. The results consistently support the quantum mechanical prediction of entanglement and superposition, ruling out local hidden variable theories¹.

4. **Quantum Interference**: Experiments involving quantum interference, such as those with photons in interferometers, show that particles can interfere with themselves, a phenomenon that can only be explained by superposition¹.

These experiments, along with the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics, provide strong evidence for the existence of superposition. The principles of quantum mechanics, such as the Schrödinger equation, inherently include superposition as a fundamental aspect¹.

From Copilot. Number 3 is no good; you ruled that out. 1 and 4 seem the same and I don't think 2 proves anything. So, number 1 needs to be disproven. But how?
.

Koopman in 1955 and Ballentine in 1986 disproved number 1. See Section VI.A of Ballentine's paper. A lot of modern physics is based on unjustified beliefs.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Interesting paper but I don't see how VI.A disproves number 1. What am I missing?
.