Dirkman wrote:So I guess you've already heard about the paper that was posted https://www.inverse.com/article/59507-full-quantum-supremacy-paper and pulled back by them , announcing quantum supremacy (completing a task that wouldve required millennia for a supercomputer)
Why do you think they pulled it back?
Dirkman wrote:Why do you think they pulled it back?
Jarek wrote:
Quantum computers are a big problem for hypothetical local realistic models...
Jarek wrote:
So what stops people from simulating Shor's algorithm with your model to break used asymmetric cryptography?
I am not stopping anyone.
Jarek wrote:I am not stopping anyone.
Recreating working Shor's algorithm with your model would immediately convince everybody - in contrast to a hundred of theoretical papers.
So maybe just propose how would you realize its building blocks: quantum gates ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic_gate ) and measurement ?
Claiming to have local realistic model it shouldn't be a problem (?) ... and using it anybody could build such simulation - If looking promising, e.g. I would gladly work on that.
I was optimistic for such local realistic hidden variable models a decade ago, but this optimism was cooled down by Shor: while we have superposition also classically e.g of waves, Shor is able to restrict ensemble of such waves on one branch of calculation, and read result for such restricted ensemble on another branch of calculation - wanting to realize it in local realistic way, the causality needs to go back to the branching moment: this algorithm directly exploits time symmetry.
Can your model overcome this difficulty?
Jarek wrote:Your papers are focused on EPR-like settings. To show that it is more universal, you need to provide constructions of:
- Hadamard gate used to get the initial superposition,
- gates for calculation - it is sufficient to get CNOT (controlled-NOT), others can be built from it,
- measurement process.
Jarek wrote:Yes, I have seen your "computing ALL quantum correlation" claim a few times (as the only response to all criticism).
If so, it should also agree for setting of Shor's algorithm, factorizing numbers in polynomial time, breaking e.g. RSA - if you want anybody to agree with your belief, this is the ultimate way. QC are the final test for hidden variable models.
You can say that "you don't care", but your actions say just the opposite - your fight with quantum computers clearly shows that you have tried but it didn't work.
It is extremely educative to localize this obstacle: understand where the superiority of QC comes from, why we cannot quickly simulate them.
Jarek wrote:
This is exactly the type of criticism I was talking about - you were not able to get QC with your model, so you neglect QC.
Dirkman wrote:
They made it official today.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 18 guests