Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomography?

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:49 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
The Argument Against Quantum Computers: https://indico.cern.ch/event/839574/

PDF of the talk: https://indico.cern.ch/event/839574/att ... 7/CERN.pdf


Image

If so, then how many trillions will have been wasted? How many careers will have been ruined for raising a skeptical voice? And how many mediocre academics will have their careers made?

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby minkwe » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:21 am

Some people only learn the hard way.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby gill1109 » Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:17 am

This article tells exactly why the quantum computing dream is going to become a nightmare. I have copy-pasted the text of the article on Phys.org https://phys.org/news/2019-09-quantum.html Emphasis on three phrases in the beginning of the article is mine. I have the feeling that these statements were "tongue in cheek" remarks. Indeed, Johansson and Larsson have shown how some famous quantum algorithms actually work, and they have shown that they do not always work as spectacularly as many famous publications suggest. In fact, they show that there is no point in building quantum computers for the sake of implementing some particular algorithms at all! Obviously, it would be politically incorrect to say this out loud.

Scientists at Linköping University have shown how a quantum computer really works and have managed to simulate quantum computer properties in a classical computer. "Our results should be highly significant in determining how to build quantum computers," says Professor Jan-Åke Larsson.

The dream of superfast and powerful quantum computers has again been brought into focus, and large resources have been invested in research in Sweden, Europe and the world. A Swedish quantum computer is to be built within ten years, and the EU has designated quantum technology one of its flagship projects. At the moment, few useful algorithms are available for quantum computers, but it is expected that the technology will be hugely significant in simulations of biological, chemical and physical systems that are far too complicated for even the most powerful computers currently available. A bit in a computer can take only the value one or zero, but a quantum bit can take all values in between. Simply put, this means that quantum computers do not need to take as many operations for each calculation they carry out.

Two degrees of freedom

Professor Jan-Åke Larsson and his doctoral student Niklas Johansson, in the Division for Information Coding at the Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, have come to grips with what happens in a quantum computer and why it is more powerful than a classical computer. Their results have been published in the scientific journal Entropy.

"We have shown that the major difference is that quantum computers have two degrees of freedom for each bit. By simulating an additional degree of freedom in a classical computer, we can run some of the algorithms at the same speed as they would achieve in a quantum computer," says Jan-Åke Larsson.

They have constructed a simulation tool, Quantum Simulation Logic, QSL, that enables them to simulate the operation of a quantum computer in a classical computer. The simulation tool contains one, and only one, property that a quantum computer has that a classical computer does not: one extra degree of freedom for each bit that is part of the calculation.

"Thus, each bit has two degrees of freedom: it can be compared with a mechanical system in which each part has two degrees of freedom—position and speed. In this case, we deal with computation bits—which carry information about the result of the function, and phase bits—which carry information about the structure of the function," Jan-Åke Larsson explains.

Quantum algorithms

They have used the simulation tool to study some of the quantum algorithms that manage the structure of the function. Several of the algorithms run as fast in the simulation as they would in a quantum computer.

"The result shows that the higher speed in quantum computers comes from their ability to store, process and retrieve information in one additional information-carrying degree of freedom. This enables us to better understand how quantum computers work. Also, this knowledge should make it easier to build quantum computers, since we know which property is most important for the quantum computer to work as expected," says Jan-Åke Larsson.

Jan-Åke Larsson and his co-workers have also supplemented their theoretical simulations with a physical version built with electronic components. The gates are similar to those used in quantum computers, and the toolkit simulates how a quantum computer works. With its help students, for example, can simulate and understand how quantum cryptography and quantum teleportation works, and also some of the most common quantum computing algorithms, such as Shor's algorithm for factorization. (The algorithm works in the current version of the simulation but is equally fast—or slow—as in classical computers).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:54 pm

***
Will We Ever Have a Quantum Computer?

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/978303 ... 2wQuKL1vSI

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Aug 20, 2020 6:13 am

***
The Argument against Quantum Computers, the Quantum Laws of Nature, and Google's Supremacy Claims: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.05188.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Esail » Sun Aug 23, 2020 9:06 am

The concept of a quantum computer is in question as it relies upon the assumption that a quantum system bears simultaneously information about two mutually exclusive outcomes. This has to do with Bell's Theorem. If nonlocality is refuted measured values exist before measurement and mutually exclusive values cannot exist simultaneously.

I've developed a model that correctly predicts the quantum measurement results with entangled photons thus refuting Bell's theorem. It can be found on ResearchGate
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's Theorem"
DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29860.22403
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 23, 2020 9:24 am

Esail wrote:The concept of a quantum computer is in question as it relies upon the assumption that a quantum system bears simultaneously information about two mutually exclusive outcomes. This has to do with Bell's Theorem. If nonlocality is refuted measured values exist before measurement and mutually exclusive values cannot exist simultaneously.

I've developed a model that correctly predicts the quantum measurement results with entangled photons thus refuting Bell's theorem. It can be found on ResearchGate
"On a contextual model refuting Bell's Theorem"
DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29860.22403

Your model for the singlet correlations is manifestly nonlocal. Both Fred and I have tried to explain this to you but you are unable to see that. Let alone outcome independence, your model blatantly violates even parameter independence (i.e., setting independence). Therefore it violates special relativistic causality. In other words, it harbors nonlocality of worst possible kind.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Esail » Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:19 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Esail wrote:Your model for the singlet correlations is manifestly nonlocal. Both Fred and I have tried to explain this to you but you are unable to see that.

***

The model is local. Neither your arguments nor Fred's are valid rebuttals.
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:44 am

Esail wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Your model for the singlet correlations is manifestly nonlocal. Both Fred and I have tried to explain this to you but you are unable to see that.

The model is local. Neither your arguments nor Fred's are valid rebuttals.

Sorry, your model is manifestly nonlocal. As I noted above, it violates even special relativistic causality. Note that even quantum mechanics does not violate special relativistic causality.

The simple fact that you are unable to write down two functions, A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob, where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b", is a clear-cut proof that your model violates "setting independence."

But you don't have to worry about my opinion or Fred's. Simply send off your paper to some respectable physics journal. They would be delighted to publish it if your model is indeed local.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Esail » Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:37 am

Joy Christian wrote:
The simple fact that you are unable to write down two functions, A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob, where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b", is a clear-cut proof that your model violates "setting independence."



***


The functions A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob are calculated in the program spec above where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b".
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Aug 24, 2020 1:35 am

Esail wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
The simple fact that you are unable to write down two functions, A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob, where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b", is a clear-cut proof that your model violates "setting independence."

The functions A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob are calculated in the program spec above where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b".

In that case, I recommend that you submit your paper to Physical Review Letters or Nature. Your model should be brought to the immediate attention of the wider physics community.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby gill1109 » Mon Aug 24, 2020 1:47 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Esail wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
The simple fact that you are unable to write down two functions, A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob, where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b", is a clear-cut proof that your model violates "setting independence."

The functions A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob are calculated in the program spec above where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b".

In that case, I recommend that you submit your paper to Physical Review Letters or Nature. Your model should be brought to the immediate attention of the wider physics community.

***

Exactly. However, the establishment conspiracy might prevent publication in those journals. But if Esai's program is valid he can also win several thousand Euro from me, and more importantly, get the Nobel prize within a year or two, just by advertising his program on internet fora like this. He will have engineered those quantum correlations in a classical (local realistic) physical system: several classical computers connected by classical wired connections, accepting random settings as input from two outside sources, completely out of his control. I see no program above. I don't see it on other threads here, either. I know it cannot exist. The entire physics community has been convinced for more than 40 years that such a program is impossible. Its existence would totally destroy the entire quantum computing hype and make enormous financial investments of the biggest companies and the biggest national states a total waste. So his work would cause quite a splash! But he hasn't delivered the goods yet! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Every year there are several people squaring the circle, showing that pi is a rational number, and showing that Bell's theorem is false. It's a continuous noise which can be amusing to listen to, and sometimes even useful to listen to (since some of those people are actually really smart and though they typically didn't do what they claim to have done, there is something original and of value in their work). I can give you several examples from the field of Bell's theorem...
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:17 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Esail wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
The simple fact that you are unable to write down two functions, A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob, where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b", is a clear-cut proof that your model violates "setting independence."

The functions A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob are calculated in the program spec above where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b".

In that case, I recommend that you submit your paper to Physical Review Letters or Nature. Your model should be brought to the immediate attention of the wider physics community.

***

Exactly. However, the establishment conspiracy might prevent publication in those journals. But if Esai's program is valid he can also win several thousand Euro from me, and more importantly, get the Nobel prize within a year or two, just by advertising his program on internet fora like this. He will have engineered those quantum correlations in a classical (local realistic) physical system: several classical computers connected by classical wired connections, accepting random settings as input from two outside sources, completely out of his control. I see no program above. I don't see it on other threads here, either. I know it cannot exist. The entire physics community has been convinced for more than 40 years that such a program is impossible. Its existence would totally destroy the entire quantum computing hype and make enormous financial investments of the biggest companies and the biggest national states a total waste. So his work would cause quite a splash! But he hasn't delivered the goods yet! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Every year there are several people squaring the circle, showing that pi is a rational number, and showing that Bell's theorem is false. It's a continuous noise which can be amusing to listen to, and sometimes even useful to listen to (since some of those people are actually really smart and though they typically didn't do what they claim to have done, there is something original and of value in their work). I can give you several examples from the field of Bell's theorem...

I do not agree with everything that you are saying. The establishment does have a few rotten apples with loud voices who would go as far as resorting to boarderline criminal activities to defend their dogmatic belief in Bell's theorem. But with patience and persistence, the establishment can be persuaded. I have been able to do that after many years of effort. As some in this forum know, after initial resistance because of the false propaganda concerning my work against Bell's theorem, the establishment has finally allowed the publications of three of my anti-Bell's-theorem papers linked below and at least two more papers are on their way:

(1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2,

(2) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526,

(3) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Esail » Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:56 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Esail wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
The simple fact that you are unable to write down two functions, A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob, where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b", is a clear-cut proof that your model violates "setting independence."

The functions A(a, lambda) = +/-1 for Alice and B(b, lambda) = +/-1 for Bob are calculated in the program spec above where the setting "a" freely chosen by Alice is completely independent of the setting "b" freely chosen by Bob, and where lambda is also completely independent of "a" and "b".

In that case, I recommend that you submit your paper to Physical Review Letters or Nature. Your model should be brought to the immediate attention of the wider physics community.

***

I've done so already without success. Either they were not interested in publishing it or they brought up arguments that were not convincing. Any submission takes time as you know, sometimes more than six months. Right now it is under peer review in another journal.
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Esail » Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:03 am

gill1109 wrote: I see no program above. I don't see it on other threads here, either.

You'll find the spec under the thread "No spooky action at a distance" on page two last post, where you have already posted.
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:44 am

Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby gill1109 » Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:51 pm

Esail wrote:
gill1109 wrote: I see no program above. I don't see it on other threads here, either.

You'll find the spec under the thread "No spooky action at a distance" on page two last post, where you have already posted.

Ah, you mean here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=444&start=20#p11236
You start off fixing alpha and beta in the same part of the program. I want to be allowed to input any values of alpha and beta I like. Part of the program must be devoted to detector A, and this part must ask me: "what is alpha?" And in a different part of the program devoted to detector B, it must ask "what is beta?". A different part of the program is devoted to the source. It creates a pair of particles. It does not know alpha and beta.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Heinera » Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:25 pm

Congratulations to Scott Aaronson, who has just been awarded the 2020 ACM prize in computing. It comes with a nice $250,000.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:38 pm

Heinera wrote:
Congratulations to Scott Aaronson, who has just been awarded the 2020 ACM prize in computing. It comes with a nice $250,000.

:lol: That does not surprise me. He is always after money. He would do anything for money. Here is a nice review of his book from Amazon.com:

Guy Wilson wrote:
A Fantasy Like No Other

The author of this book is a staunch proponent of the fashionable quest for the so-called quantum computers. But the practically viable versions of quantum computers remain a theoretical fantasy and most likely will eventually join the "not even wrong" type of theories like superstring theory.

Although entertainingly written, the book is simply a propaganda tool for the author's fantasy. Quantum computers are supposed to be superfast and superefficient computers, far exceeding the capabilities of "classical" computers. They are supposed to be governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, as opposed to those of Newtonian mechanics. In particular, they are supposed to be based on quantum mechanical concepts such as superposition and entanglement. But it is by no means clear that these concepts are fundamental to Nature. Consequently, some very prominent thinkers in both physics and computer science communities have questioned the viability of quantum computers. Moreover, decades have sped by and millions of dollars wasted, as team after team of quantum-computer builders have failed to produce a convincing model of a "scalable" quantum computer.

There are very good reasons for this failure. For example, the cornerstone of the belief that the concepts of quantum mechanics are fundamental to Nature---namely the so-called Bell's theorem---has recently been disproven by Joy Christian (whose book on the subject, "Disproof of Bell's Theorem", can be found on Amazon.com). And with the advent of Cuffaro's recent paper, "On the Necessity of Entanglement for the Explanation of Quantum Speedup", there no longer exists a justifiable reason to believe in the viability of scalable quantum computers since entanglement is just a man-made illusion. There are also many other arguments against quantum computers, some of which the author seems to be aware of. But he is dismissive, or even derisive of these arguments, for a very simple reason: His bread is deliciously buttered by the lucrative investments in the idea of quantum computers. We are talking about millions, if not billions of dollars. Needless to say, most of this money is coming from the taxpayer's pocket. The author conveniently neglects to mention this fact, as well as the fact that his bread is buttered by this money. In the book, he essentially puts forward an argument to convince us why we should continue to finance his fantasy---why we should continue to pour money into the Black Hole of quantum computers.

And here is my refutation of Scott Aaronson: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomograph

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:07 am

.
Will Quantum Computing Ever Live Up to Its Hype?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -its-hype/
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library