Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomography?

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

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

Expand view Topic review: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomography?

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:26 am

***
Quantum Hype and Quantum Skepticism: https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/5/2 ... mbV30JZ5k0

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:07 am

Joy Christian wrote:
JohnDuffield wrote:
How on Earth are academics like Scott Aaronson allowed to spray such obnoxious bile and remain in post?

The fault lies entirely with the physics community as a whole, especially with those holding professorial positions and positions of power. There is no accountability for abusive actions like those of Scott Aaronson and others. I wrote to the Provost of MIT when Aaronson was at MIT, but his office did nothing. Their reply to me was that what Aaronson does on his private blog does not amount to either scientific or professional misconduct. The administrators of FQXi, Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre, also sided with Aaronson and seemed to be grateful to him for his actions, which led to my resignation from FQXi. Even people like Harvey Brown and Samson Abramsky of my own college at Oxford University, Wolfson College, sided with Aaronson and acted against me, thereby condoning his abusive actions. The reason behind this is nothing but academic politics. Sadly, I have witnessed its dark underbelly from inside for many years.

"... privilege often breeds a dangerous mixture of ineptitude and arrogance, as well as incubating the kind of unhinged ideas that could appeal only to people removed from ordinary life, who tend to see the world in terms of crass abstractions." This opinion appears in the piece written today by John Harris in the context of Brexit for The Guardian, but it applies equally to the proponents of the so-called "quantum computing."

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by JohnDuffield » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:32 am

Joy Christian wrote:The fault lies entirely with the physics community as a whole, especially with those holding professorial positions and positions of power. There is no accountability for abusive actions like those of Scott Aaronson and others. I wrote to the Provost of MIT when Aaronson was at MIT, but his office did nothing. Their reply to me was that what Aaronson does on his private blog does not amount to either scientific or professional misconduct. The administrators of FQXi, Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre, also sided with Aaronson and seemed to be grateful to him for his actions, which led to my resignation from FQXi. Even people like Harvey Brown and Samson Abramsky of my own college at Oxford University, Wolfson College, sided with Aaronson and acted against me, thereby condoning his abusive actions. The reason behind this is nothing but academic politics. Sadly, I have witnessed its dark underbelly from inside for many years.
This is not good. Unfortunately it appears to be endemic, albeit without quite so much bile. I've had people tell me they've been told "don't rock the boat or you'll never make full professor". I hear stories about people struggling to get a paper on the arXiv, or into a high-impact journal. So I'm afraid I also have my doubts about peer review, as per this cartoon by Nick Kim:

Image

Not only that, but it spills out into life at large. For example Q-reeus has employed the "crank" ad-hominem, and is now using the old "you have been debunked" trick. Sigh. I will start a thread, but he won't point out any flaws.

Anyway, apologies for the digression. What are you working on at the moment? Perhaps I could start a thread about something relevant.

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:59 am

JohnDuffield wrote:
How on Earth are academics like Scott Aaronson allowed to spray such obnoxious bile and remain in post?

The fault lies entirely with the physics community as a whole, especially with those holding professorial positions and positions of power. There is no accountability for abusive actions like those of Scott Aaronson and others. I wrote to the Provost of MIT when Aaronson was at MIT, but his office did nothing. Their reply to me was that what Aaronson does on his private blog does not amount to either scientific or professional misconduct. The administrators of FQXi, Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre, also sided with Aaronson and seemed to be grateful to him for his actions, which led to my resignation from FQXi. Even people like Harvey Brown and Samson Abramsky of my own college at Oxford University, Wolfson College, sided with Aaronson and acted against me, thereby condoning his abusive actions. The reason behind this is nothing but academic politics. Sadly, I have witnessed its dark underbelly from inside for many years.

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Q-reeus » Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:49 am

JohnDuffield wrote:You're sounding like Scott Aaaronson. You have nothing to do with me being here. I emailed Joy about his 2007 article Quantum Entanglement: is Spookiness under threat, and we got talking. The moot point is that when you know about electron spin, you know that Joy was right. And yet he received dreadful abuse for his pains. This was an injustice. How on Earth are academics like Scott Aaronson allowed to spray such obnoxious bile and remain in post?

As for how gravity works, you can't point out where it's wrong. If you think you can, please start a thread and do so. But please do so on another thread, and respect the OP. Ditto if you want to talk about neutrino spin.

Right, well relieved to know I wasn't responsible for you being here. As for your put-up-or-shut-up dare, no. Feel free to start a thread on either topic, and I will likely chip in to point out obvious flaws you were alerted to numwerouss times in the past, but to no good effect. Your choice John.

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by JohnDuffield » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:45 am

You're sounding like Scott Aaaronson. You have nothing to do with me being here. I emailed Joy about his 2007 article Quantum Entanglement: is Spookiness under threat, and we got talking. The moot point is that when you know about electron spin, you know that Joy was right. And yet he received dreadful abuse for his pains. This was an injustice. How on Earth are academics like Scott Aaronson allowed to spray such obnoxious bile and remain in post?

As for how gravity works, you can't point out where it's wrong. If you think you can, please start a thread and do so. But please do so on another thread, and respect the OP. Ditto if you want to talk about neutrino spin.

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Q-reeus » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:39 pm

JohnDuffield wrote:
Q-reeus wrote:Joy you really should have done some basic checking before posting that link. John Duffield aka 'Physics Detective' is a crank especially well known for his 'visual' interpretation of GR.
When I talk about GR, I refer to what Einstein said. Things like this from 1920:

“Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

That's because I've read the history. I've read the history of quantum mechanics too. And papers such as Hans Ohanian’s what is spin?. When you understand these things, you understand why quantum computing hasn't achieved anything in nearly forty years.

Oh dear. Guess I should take at least partial responsibility for JD signing up here. Partial because I suspect someone else here alerted John to my earlier entry above.
Rather than disputing again some of your erroneous ideas that were repeatedly dealt with over at another forum, I will refer any interested reader to check out these:
http://physicsdetective.com/how-gravity-works/
http://physicsdetective.com/the-screw-n ... magnetism/
Don't have the time or interest to comb through each and every article there - just selected two whose main themes were persistently promoted over at another forum.
Hopefully the conceptual errors in both articles are clearly evident. If not, too bad - JD may end up with one or more new disciples.
[PS - I myself was rather partial to Ohanian's spin model for an electron - one which was improved on btw by a later article by Andre Gsponer, - What Is Spin http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0308027
Unfortunately, I cannot see how it could successfully be adapted to explain the experimentally observed spin half for neutrinos!]

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by JohnDuffield » Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:52 pm

Q-reeus wrote:Joy you really should have done some basic checking before posting that link. John Duffield aka 'Physics Detective' is a crank especially well known for his 'visual' interpretation of GR.
When I talk about GR, I refer to what Einstein said. Things like this from 1920:

“Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

That's because I've read the history. I've read the history of quantum mechanics too. And papers such as Hans Ohanian’s what is spin?. When you understand these things, you understand why quantum computing hasn't achieved anything in nearly forty years.

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Q-reeus » Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:53 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
Q-reeus, I don't agree with everything John Duffield is saying, but he is entitled to his views. And I agree with his view that quantum computing is "pie in the sky and jam tomorrow." :)

***

Make that a threesome Joy. However whether it's down to mere infeasibility e.g. environmental decoherence, ineffectualness of 'error correction' etc., or fundamental physics i.e. existence or non-existence of entanglement and/or quantum superposition, is where it's really at. Most if not all of the QC critics you quoted and linked to earlier here (and in other threads), fall under the former category best I can tell. 8-)

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:28 pm

***
Q-reeus, I don't agree with everything John Duffield is saying, but he is entitled to his views. And I agree with his view that quantum computing is "pie in the sky and jam tomorrow." :)

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Q-reeus » Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:53 pm

Joy you really should have done some basic checking before posting that link. John Duffield aka 'Physics Detective' is a crank especially well known for his 'visual' interpretation of GR.

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:23 am

***
Yet another skeptical commentary about quantum computing: http://physicsdetective.com/quantum-com ... um-quacks/

It alludes to my first anti-Bell paper of 2007, and also to my refutation of Scott Aaronson's critique of my work: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:41 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
Yet another amusing blog-post about QC: https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/category/physics/

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:18 pm

***
Yet another amusing blog-post about QC: https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019 ... s***/

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:29 am

***
Michael Nielsen asks: "In what sense is quantum computing a science?" (in other words, is it not just crackpottery?): http://cognitivemedium.com/qc-a-science ... PpMIt32JUY

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:26 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
More skepticism is surfacing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/com ... -computing

And that doesn't even take into consideration what you have discovered that it is impossible via "entanglement". Though, I still wonder if the strong correlations of QM can be taken advantage of in some fashion.

They can be. Although I don't know how.

What is significant in the National Academies of Science report is that it is written, not by skeptics, but by the quantum computing enthusiasts and some truly smart people (not like Scott Aaronson, who is all words and no brains). And yet, they paint a very bleak picture for quantum computers.

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:12 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
More skepticism is surfacing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/com ... -computing

***

And that doesn't even take into consideration what you have discovered that it is impossible via "entanglement". Though, I still wonder if the strong correlations of QM can be taken advantage of in some fashion.

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:01 am

***
More skepticism is surfacing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/com ... -computing

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:33 am

***
One good thing that may come out of the fantasy of quantum computers is that it will provide an excellent quantitative measure of the asininity of some disingenuous quantum supremacists (such as Scott Aaronson) in terms of the billions of dollars wasted for decades on the fantasy, with nothing to show in the end. In the commercial world that would be a sufficient reason for indictment (and even imprisonment) of some supremacists. Unfortunately, in the scientific world, there is no accountability for a misconduct of this type.

***

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:52 am

minkwe wrote:https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/the-case-against-quantum-computing.amp.html
In light of all this, it’s natural to wonder: When will useful quantum computers be constructed? The most optimistic experts estimate it will take 5 to 10 years. More cautious ones predict 20 to 30 years. (Similar predictions have been voiced, by the way, for the last 20 years.) I belong to a tiny minority that answers, “Not in the foreseeable future.” Having spent decades conducting research in quantum and condensed-matter physics, I’ve developed my very pessimistic view. It’s based on an understanding of the gargantuan technical challenges that would have to be overcome to ever make quantum computing work.


Count me in on "never". What will soon happen, is face saving, by moving goal posts. Expect the definition of "quantum computer" to start changing within the next 5 years.

I saw that too and made a post about it yesterday on my Facebook. Most clear explanation of the impossibility. But, as you say, the fraud will continue. It is way too lucrative to give up!

***

Top

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library