Quantum computers on topological defects?

[Jarek]

Nice article discussing possibility of building quantum computers on topological defects in liquid crystals: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.13094

There was demonstrated e.g. interference ( https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/1 ... .85.094503 ), tunneling ( https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.110 ... B.56.14677 ), Aharonov-Bohm ( http://www.tau.ac.il/~yakir/yahp/yh33 ) for fluxons - topological defects in superconductor.
Here is de Gennes' " An analogy between superconductors and smectics A": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 987290186X

So could we violate Bell, build quantum computers on such "macroscopic quantum phenomena"? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscop ... _phenomena )

ps. "Simulation of Bell Correlations in Walker Systems": https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/20 ... 1/download

[minkwe]

Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work.

[Heinera]

Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work.

None of these assume that Bell's theorem is correct. They only assume that QM is a correct physical model of the world.

[Jarek]

The main point is that topological defects also behave like "quantum objects" - in superconductor/superfluid, but also liquid crystals.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.13094 also propose Bell states (fig 5):

[gill1109]

Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work.

Dear Michel

I have over the years established various different refinements of Bell's theorem which (I believe) show that networked computer simulation of loophole-free Bell experiments is impossible, without violating locality or free choice of detector settings. I would be interested, Michel, if you could tell me what is wrong with the mathematics (in particular, the probability theory) in my papers. Of course, I use ideas which I learnt from Bell's and others' work. The "Bell game" has a long history. The use of a network computer analogy as a pedagogical device to aid understanding of Bell's theorem has a long history, too.

NB, my question to you is not about physics, it's about computer simulations! Of course, you can just say that you are not interested in computer simulations - but then I wonder why you wrote some beautiful ones, yourself.

2020: Gull's theorem revisited
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

2015: Event based simulation of an EPR-B experiment by local hidden variables: epr-simple and epr-clocked
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106

2012: Statistics, Causality and Bell's Theorem
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103

2003: Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059

2001: Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137

[FrediFizzx]

And..., of course we have more nonsense from Gill. "Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work." 100 percent true!
.

[gill1109]

And..., of course we have more nonsense from Gill. "Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work." 100 percent true!

OK Fred, yes, we all know your opinion. But I don't assume that Bell's theorem is true. I prove my own theorems, theorems about networked computer simulations. Many of those papers of mine have been cited 50 or 80 times. Nobody has shown me any errors in the mathematics (probability theory). Plenty of people with expertise in that area have studied my proofs and some have sharpened the results.

You are interested in Monte Carlo computer simulations. Michel is. Joy is too, it seems. Let's study them, scientifically, using appropriate mathematical tools. On another thread, we have discussed CHSH urn models, and I wrote simulations of that model.

[FrediFizzx]

And..., of course we have more nonsense from Gill. "Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work." 100 percent true!

OK Fred, yes, we all know your opinion. But I don't assume that Bell's theorem is true. I prove my own theorems, theorems about networked computer simulations. Many of those papers of mine have been cited 50 or 80 times. Nobody has shown me any errors in the mathematics (probability theory). Plenty of people with expertise in that area have studied my proofs and some have sharpened the results. ...

You have NO proofs. They have been all shot down now. So, just stop talking nonsense about that. And it is not my opinion. It actual facts now that you can't do anything about. So, time to get real, get over it and move on.
.

[gill1109]

And..., of course we have more nonsense from Gill. "Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work." 100 percent true!

OK Fred, yes, we all know your opinion. But I don't assume that Bell's theorem is true. I prove my own theorems, theorems about networked computer simulations. Many of those papers of mine have been cited 50 or 80 times. Nobody has shown me any errors in the mathematics (probability theory). Plenty of people with expertise in that area have studied my proofs and some have sharpened the results. ...

You have NO proofs. They have been all shot down now. So, just stop talking nonsense about that. And it is not my opinion. It actual facts now that you can't do anything about. So, time to get real, get over it and move on.

Time for you, Fred, to stop boasting and bullying, but to write and publish a paper showing to the whole scientific community that my theorems are wrong. Good luck.

[FrediFizzx]

And..., of course we have more nonsense from Gill. "Anything based on the assumption that Bell's Theorem is correct, will never work." 100 percent true!

OK Fred, yes, we all know your opinion. But I don't assume that Bell's theorem is true. I prove my own theorems, theorems about networked computer simulations. Many of those papers of mine have been cited 50 or 80 times. Nobody has shown me any errors in the mathematics (probability theory). Plenty of people with expertise in that area have studied my proofs and some have sharpened the results. ...

You have NO proofs. They have been all shot down now. So, just stop talking nonsense about that. And it is not my opinion. It actual facts now that you can't do anything about. So, time to get real, get over it and move on.

Time for you, Fred, to stop boasting and bullying, but to write and publish a paper showing to the whole scientific community that my theorems are wrong. Good luck.

No worries. Paper is already in the works. Your theories are junk and the paper will show that in exquisite detail.
.