1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.FOUNDATIONS

  • Practical infeasibility of quantum computing as conseqence of the same

    From Mok-Kong Shen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 5 11:47:23 2015
    It seems that both quantum error correction and quantum tomography are necessary for practical realization of quantum computing, since the
    hardware needs to be verified for correctness in design, manufacture
    and maintenance. Is that true? If yes, then since, according to Wiki,
    quantum tomography is practically infeasible for more than a few
    qubits due to exponentially increase of work with the number of qubits,
    the practical infeasibility of quantum computing would be a direct
    consequence IMHO.

    M. K. Shen

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Heath@21:1/5 to Mok-Kong Shen on Fri Nov 6 12:29:05 2015
    On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-5, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    It seems that both quantum error correction and quantum tomography are necessary for practical realization of quantum computing, since the
    hardware needs to be verified for correctness in design, manufacture
    and maintenance. Is that true? If yes, then since, according to Wiki,
    quantum tomography is practically infeasible for more than a few
    qubits due to exponentially increase of work with the number of qubits,
    the practical infeasibility of quantum computing would be a direct consequence IMHO.

    M. K. Shen

    They have been trying to make a quantum computer for 20 years now. It seems to be close not never a real functional quantum computer. There is always some problem with this or that. At some point you have question quantum theory that predicts a quantum
    computer. Entanglement of qubits is central to a quantum computer. To this date no one has done a successful experimental proof of entanglement of two particles or photons. It is always a statistical averaging of many particles with the smoke and mirrors
    of 30 percent random noise to satisfy a Bell test. Maybe we should pay more attention to the finer details of a Bell test. Perhaps Dr Einstein was right when he said God does not throw dice.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From FrediFizzx@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 6 12:53:26 2015
    "John Heath" <heathjohn2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6ac5152-c4b7-4ad7-83fd-89243bb24827@googlegroups.com...
    On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-5, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    It seems that both quantum error correction and quantum tomography are
    necessary for practical realization of quantum computing, since the
    hardware needs to be verified for correctness in design, manufacture
    and maintenance. Is that true? If yes, then since, according to Wiki,
    quantum tomography is practically infeasible for more than a few
    qubits due to exponentially increase of work with the number of qubits,
    the practical infeasibility of quantum computing would be a direct
    consequence IMHO.

    M. K. Shen

    They have been trying to make a quantum computer for 20 years now. It
    seems to be close not never a real functional quantum computer. There is always some problem with this or that. At some point you have question quantum theory that predicts a quantum computer. Entanglement of qubits is central to a quantum computer. To this date no one has done a successful experimental proof of entanglement of two particles or photons. It is
    always a statistical averaging of many particles with the smoke and
    mirrors of 30 percent random noise to satisfy a Bell test. Maybe we should pay more attention to the finer details of a Bell test. Perhaps Dr
    Einstein was right when he said God does not throw dice.

    The D-Wave system is probably the closest they will get to quantum
    computing. See the discussion at,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=216

    For Bell tests,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=212

    Bell was wrong and Einstein was right after all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Heath@21:1/5 to FrediFizzx on Sun Nov 8 10:11:02 2015
    On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:
    "John Heath" <heathjohn2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6ac5152-c4b7-4ad7-83fd-89243bb24827@googlegroups.com...
    On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-5, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    It seems that both quantum error correction and quantum tomography are
    necessary for practical realization of quantum computing, since the
    hardware needs to be verified for correctness in design, manufacture
    and maintenance. Is that true? If yes, then since, according to Wiki,
    quantum tomography is practically infeasible for more than a few
    qubits due to exponentially increase of work with the number of qubits,
    the practical infeasibility of quantum computing would be a direct
    consequence IMHO.

    M. K. Shen

    They have been trying to make a quantum computer for 20 years now. It
    seems to be close not never a real functional quantum computer. There is always some problem with this or that. At some point you have question quantum theory that predicts a quantum computer. Entanglement of qubits is central to a quantum computer. To this date no one has done a successful experimental proof of entanglement of two particles or photons. It is always a statistical averaging of many particles with the smoke and
    mirrors of 30 percent random noise to satisfy a Bell test. Maybe we should pay more attention to the finer details of a Bell test. Perhaps Dr
    Einstein was right when he said God does not throw dice.

    The D-Wave system is probably the closest they will get to quantum
    computing. See the discussion at,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=216

    For Bell tests,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=212

    Bell was wrong and Einstein was right after all.

    Not sure I would go as far to say Bell was wrong. His logic was sound. It is the way test results are interpreted. A photon being length contracted to a piece of paper has only the option of a x or y polarization. However in the case of an event with a
    photon it is in our frame of reference not the length contracted FoR of the photon. I say this as the test equipment to do a Bell test is in out FoR so the photon must conform to our FoR in order to test its polarization. With these conditions the photon
    must be given full status of 3 dimension therefore 3 polarization possibilities of x y and z. To not do so would be a violation of special relativity. 3 possible polarizations changes non classical probabilities back to classical probabilities therefore
    the " entangled " photons fails a Bell test. When thought of this way the very notion of entanglement itself fails a Bell test when the full weight of special relativity for length contraction is taken into account.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Heath@21:1/5 to FrediFizzx on Sun Nov 8 10:09:18 2015
    On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:
    "John Heath" <heathjohn2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6ac5152-c4b7-4ad7-83fd-89243bb24827@googlegroups.com...
    On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-5, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    It seems that both quantum error correction and quantum tomography are
    necessary for practical realization of quantum computing, since the
    hardware needs to be verified for correctness in design, manufacture
    and maintenance. Is that true? If yes, then since, according to Wiki,
    quantum tomography is practically infeasible for more than a few
    qubits due to exponentially increase of work with the number of qubits,
    the practical infeasibility of quantum computing would be a direct
    consequence IMHO.

    M. K. Shen

    They have been trying to make a quantum computer for 20 years now. It
    seems to be close not never a real functional quantum computer. There is always some problem with this or that. At some point you have question quantum theory that predicts a quantum computer. Entanglement of qubits is central to a quantum computer. To this date no one has done a successful experimental proof of entanglement of two particles or photons. It is always a statistical averaging of many particles with the smoke and
    mirrors of 30 percent random noise to satisfy a Bell test. Maybe we should pay more attention to the finer details of a Bell test. Perhaps Dr
    Einstein was right when he said God does not throw dice.

    The D-Wave system is probably the closest they will get to quantum
    computing. See the discussion at,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=216

    For Bell tests,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=212

    Bell was wrong and Einstein was right after all.

    The way Grover and Shor's algorithms are being used to aid qubit result searches suggest random noise would do just as well. I do not see speed up for the D-Wave computer. I am open to examples where they have a speed advantage over conventional
    computers but all I can google up is fancy words about everything but the main point of speed up. I lean towards Joy Christian views on entanglement but for different reasons related to length contraction. I am free to voice my opinions but if you make
    your living in physics this is not always the case. Business and obligations to share holders can inhibit freedom of thought. I am not naively expecting the world to be perfect as private money is needed so compromises can be made to say thank you. But
    not to the point of reliving the Paul Marmet story again. That is too much of a compromise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Heath@21:1/5 to John Heath on Sun Dec 13 12:58:56 2015
    On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
    On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:
    "John Heath" <heathjohn2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6ac5152-c4b7-4ad7-83fd-89243bb24827@googlegroups.com...
    On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM UTC-5, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    It seems that both quantum error correction and quantum tomography are >> necessary for practical realization of quantum computing, since the
    hardware needs to be verified for correctness in design, manufacture
    and maintenance. Is that true? If yes, then since, according to Wiki,
    quantum tomography is practically infeasible for more than a few
    qubits due to exponentially increase of work with the number of qubits, >> the practical infeasibility of quantum computing would be a direct
    consequence IMHO.

    M. K. Shen

    They have been trying to make a quantum computer for 20 years now. It seems to be close not never a real functional quantum computer. There is always some problem with this or that. At some point you have question quantum theory that predicts a quantum computer. Entanglement of qubits is
    central to a quantum computer. To this date no one has done a successful experimental proof of entanglement of two particles or photons. It is always a statistical averaging of many particles with the smoke and mirrors of 30 percent random noise to satisfy a Bell test. Maybe we should
    pay more attention to the finer details of a Bell test. Perhaps Dr Einstein was right when he said God does not throw dice.

    The D-Wave system is probably the closest they will get to quantum computing. See the discussion at,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=216

    For Bell tests,

    http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=212

    Bell was wrong and Einstein was right after all.

    Not sure I would go as far to say Bell was wrong. His logic was sound. It is the way test results are interpreted. A photon being length contracted to a piece of paper has only the option of a x or y polarization. However in the case of an event with a
    photon it is in our frame of reference not the length contracted FoR of the photon. I say this as the test equipment to do a Bell test is in out FoR so the photon must conform to our FoR in order to test its polarization. With these conditions the photon
    must be given full status of 3 dimension therefore 3 polarization possibilities of x y and z. To not do so would be a violation of special relativity. 3 possible polarizations changes non classical probabilities back to classical probabilities therefore
    the " entangled " photons fails a Bell test. When thought of this way the very notion of entanglement itself fails a Bell test when the full weight of special relativity for length contraction is taken into account.


    Earth calling Mr Shen. Can you hear me out there in the cloud somewhere. Would like to discuss entropy , encryption and Diehard algorithms but you are not responding?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mok-Kong Shen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 20 11:15:27 2015
    I have in the meantime quoted some IMHO remarkable passages on this
    issue from a number of sources and posted that together with a few
    tiny humble comments of mine at:

    http://s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7457176/1/

    M. K. Shen

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Heath@21:1/5 to Mok-Kong Shen on Mon Dec 21 12:30:53 2015
    On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-5, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    I have in the meantime quoted some IMHO remarkable passages on this
    issue from a number of sources and posted that together with a few
    tiny humble comments of mine at:

    http://s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7457176/1/

    M. K. Shen

    Thank you. I could have some follow up questions later so please check this thread now and then.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)