The answer is very very simple. Quantum computers are in a superposition state of both existing and not existing at the same time

Seriously though there are some real quantum computers they just have limited qubits right now so they cant do too much yet.
That means we have them, but at the same time we dont have them that can do significant problems yet.

Elon Musk is said to have one too now. Not sure of it's capabilities yet. It's a very complex looking machine.

Check this out...
Are Quantum Computers Real? | Pure Storage

If you have billions of dollars at your disposal and can build a 1000 qubit machine, then it should only be a matter of connecting a bunch of them together to create one that can do actually-useful quantum computations. But that has not happened. Decoherence is the hobgoblin that they seem to be blaming at the moment. But as I have said, only time will tell who is right....

 

Hi,

Hey stop that! You're making this too clear and concise. If you keep doing that we wont have anything to argue about

I'll have to give your last two lines some more thought that's an interesting view. Should we take it that far though or declare a 'local' realism of some sort, or a sort of realism over a limited time span. Maybe there's some recurrence relationship. It's been suggested that the universe could be expanding, contracting, expanding, etc., again and again, and that would mean everything simply repeats over and over.
We also have no real concept definition of what eternity is or what the origin of everything, and i mean everything everything, is.
This reminds me of a verse in the Bible where God states that he is the "Alpha and the Omega" which is said to mean that He is and always was and has no end. We cant seem to conceive of something that "always was" because our limited time frame of life even for what we think is the life of the universe is still wayy wayy wayy too short to be able to judge something that could potentially be that long of a time period. Even if you dont believe in God per se, there could be something like that we dont understand yet.
An interesting thought (among many others i guess) is if the universe really does expand and contract over and over again, how many times has this occurred in the past, and how many times does it have to repeat in order to produce humans like us. If it took a trillion trillion trillion times we'd never know it because everything from one of the past times would have been destroyed including any records or space probes.

I guess this gets very deep and perhaps it's beyond the limit of human understanding that's what makes it so hard to figure out.

As far as quantum computing goes though, i can see something becoming of this because humans get very clever over the years as they study what has come before them and improve on it. Decoherence is a big big problem, but all it takes is one person to find a way around it and bingo, the jackpot.

I frankly do not understand the subject of "quantum computing" I think it requires a much deeper appreciation of quantum physics and the accompanying mathematics, than I have. It's extremely interesting but I simply do not have the insights I need to form an opinion on this, I wish I did, if I had more time I could perhaps make some effort, but it wouldn't be a simple undertaking I'm sure.

Now here is someone you might find interesting, the late Prof. John Barrow, the first video is a little about him and his views on physics and whether the world is "simple or complex" and the second is a fascinating talk by him on the constants of nature.

A truly interesting man, written numerous pretty interesting books too.

 

Money makes people do all sorts of crazy things, and that includes making claims about the supposed abilities of their technological offerings in order to garner more investment and interest in their products. Universities also award big bucks to fund QC research. Do you seriously think that a researcher would turn down such grants in favor of explaining why such investigation are in fact fruitless?

I would quote Einstein, but I won't, since you apparently do not consider him to be a "a credentialed physicist". In your eyes, he was once-and-for-all "proven wrong". How quaint...

In any case, I do believe we are on the cusp of a REAL computing revolution. Hybrid analog/digital systems will one day outperform current computing technology by several orders of magnitude. And it isn't very far away either. So that is pretty exciting.

Yes the business end of it is really a shame we have to put up with this all too much these days because money surely has become everything in our entire civilization now. Thank no one for doing anything about that or even trying to.

Einstein was in fact proven wrong about hidden variables, but unfortunately there is an even deeper truth that there may be more to it than that and none of the researchers think of everything at the time the experiments are being done. That is why when others come after them they think of more catches to the previous experiment, then more after that, and so on and so forth. Right now as we speak i think there are two more levels deeper than the original experiments to prove the non existence of hidden variables. I think they dub it 'super determinism'. That's where basically everything about everything comes into question including the environments effects on the experiment, if any. In fact, as i always like to say, the effects from the entire universe may have to be taken into account at the time of the experiment(s) unless we can prove first some sort of localism. The universe is a system even though it is huge, and systems have components that are interdependent. This means we may never have the complete answer to some of these deep questions unless we can really come up with a real and working TOE.

It may now be necessary to put the word "proven" into quotes when it is used because the next guy always seems to find a loophole now which brings the "proof" into question. The real test is what can be predicted from the so called "proof", and is that prediction or set of predictions enough or will we run into something that can not be predicted from that proof in the future.

I think maybe the reality of reality can be explained in one simple acronym we are all probably familiar with:
"WTF!"

ha ha

 

I frankly do not understand the subject of "quantum computing" I think it requires a much deeper appreciation of quantum physics and the accompanying mathematics, than I have. It's extremely interesting but I simply do not have the insights I need to form an opinion on this, I wish I did, if I had more time I could perhaps make some effort, but it wouldn't be a simple undertaking I'm sure.

Start by looking at the "old quantum theory", then moving on, compare that to the Copenhagen interpretation. Noting the differences, it should soon become clear why they must necessarily be inherently incompatible. And from the later we can get quantum computers, while the former contains not a single shred of the necessary components. But also note that the older theories do not wax on about philosophical details either.

Now here is someone you might find interesting, the late Prof. John Barrow, the first video is a little about him and his views on physics and whether the world is "simple or complex" and the second is a fascinating talk by him on the constants of nature.

A truly interesting man, written numerous pretty interesting books too.

I love his point about the dual simple/complex nature of the problem, too; No matter what equations we come up with to predict physical systems, the accurate prediction of almost any given ACTUAL system will nonetheless be a much more complicated affair - No computational system on Earth could possibly compete with the vast interconnected complexities of the universe!

For some reason, the constants of nature have always fascinated me as well. In fact, this is one of my every own conjectures: The fine structure constant is precisely equal to 2πμc/Rk, where μ = 10^7, c is the speed of light, and Rk is the Von Klitzling constant.

 

Start by looking at the "old quantum theory", then moving on, compare that to the Copenhagen interpretation. Noting the differences, it should soon become clear why they must necessarily be inherently incompatible. And from the later we can get quantum computers, while the former contains not a single shred of the necessary components. But also note that the older theories do not wax on about philosophical details either.




I love his point about the dual simple/complex nature of the problem, too; No matter what equations we come up with to predict physical systems, the accurate prediction of almost any given ACTUAL system will nonetheless be a much more complicated affair - No computational system on Earth could possibly compete with the vast interconnected complexities of the universe!

For some reason, the constants of nature have always fascinated me as well. In fact, this is one of my every own conjectures: The fine structure constant is precisely equal to 2πμc/Rk, where μ = 10^7, c is the speed of light, and Rk is the Von Klitzling constant.

Check out his book on this very topic:

 

This is fascinating too:

 

Somewhat relevant to some of the side discussion in this thread.

QM and consciousness

 

Somewhat relevant to some of the side discussion in this thread.

QM and consciousness

Humans thinking they are the center of the universe again. There is no 'there' there.

 

Humans thinking they are the center of the universe again. There is no 'there' there.

Yes, Sabine agrees.

 

Humans thinking they are the center of the universe again. There is no 'there' there.

Well as she points out, we can't say what the reality is until that reality is observed, take away observation and what do we have left? The observer is part of the reality, an essential part of the theory.

 

 

Yes i just read yesterday that Penrose was quoted as saying that he believes that consciousness may not be a calculatable thing.

He also worries that fusion energy may take another 50 years because he said he remembers when they said it would take 50 years to develop and it's been 50 years now and still looks like not until 2040 and that's not a commercial unit that's just for a test that proves that they can get more power out of it than they put in. That worries me too now because not one of these experiments ever had shown more power out than they had put it, right now it's just experiments to show that they can keep it burning for a time longer than one picosecond (ha ha).
It worries me more now because i dont think i will be able to see this in my lifetime, if it ever does really happen.

He also says that the money should be put into things we can use today in the area of renewable energy.

As to quantum computing, I think in an explanation of all that it may be said that quantum computing insists upon itself.

 

Well as she points out, we can't say what the reality is until that reality is observed, take away observation and what do we have left? The observer is part of the reality, an essential part of the theory.

The Laws of Physical Reality

1) Objective physical reality MUST exist, although complete and faithful measurement will always be impossible due to the inherent limitations of sensory input.
2) Subjective reality arises from the imposition of impressions from objective reality itself, which can then use to ascertain (within some degree of error) a prediction.
3) Nothing which cannot be directly confirmed by observation should make up the foundation of any given physical theory. Things which can only be inferred shall henceforth be labeled "associated speculations" of said theory, and no "underlying meaning" shall be asserted whatsoever.

Perhaps if we followed those three simple laws, much more progress would be made in physics. Let the philosophers ponder "implications of the observer" lines of thought. Physics is NOTHING MORE than making accurate predictions using some set of mathematical models. The "underlying meaning" is meaningless in that context.

 

No, that would put us back to the early 20’th century.

 

Well as she points out, we can't say what the reality is until that reality is observed, take away observation and what do we have left? The observer is part of the reality, an essential part of the theory.

The observer is part of the reality because they interact with universe, just like a tree or a rock. There is nothing special about us, as humans, with our thoughts of grandeur. The observer is simply making a measurement that causes a change (sometimes at the micro-level) in the system just like simple circuit theory. The battery, wire, switch and lamp existence are totally independent of our observation.

Think about what we see as we observe far distant galaxies in the sky. We are not seeing a possible 'reality' generated today by a conscious observation, we are seeing a 'reality' of billions of years ago when the universe was a far different place with measurements that wouldn't be possible unless what we are measuring happened billions of years ago.

Is there some 'magic' trick that makes us mentally time-travel to influence these events so they only seem to have happened billions of years ago? I don't think so.

 

The observer is part of the reality because they interact with universe, just like a tree or a rock. There is nothing special about us, as humans, with our thoughts of grandeur. The observer is simply making a measurement that causes a change (sometimes at the micro-level) in the system just like simple circuit theory. The battery, wire, switch and lamp existence are totally independent of our observation.

OK, but is the "observer" really even necessary from the standpoint of making measurements? Wouldn't it be more concise to talk about the "specific nature of the observation"? That is, we have wires and plates and all sorts of components which inadvertently interfere with a "strictly faithful" measurement. Those objects are of course going to influence the measurement. In that particular respect however, consciousness is of little interest to the physicist. (That said, there may one day be some viable theory which CAN successfully incorporate "consciousness" into the equations. But that would be more along the lines of focusing on the "consciousness of the thing being observed" rather than the "observer of the thing being observed", if that makes any sense.)

Think about what we see as we observe far distant galaxies in the sky. We are not seeing a possible 'reality' generated today by a conscious observation, we are seeing a 'reality' of billions of years ago when the universe was a far different place with measurements that wouldn't be possible unless what we are measuring happened billions of years ago.


Is there some 'magic' trick that makes us mentally time-travel to influence these events so they only seem to have happened billions of years ago? I don't think so.

Well exactly. And precisely why "action at a distance" implied by current entanglement theories MUST be a flawed conclusion. As I have already described in this thread, entanglement can be much more succinctly understood via symmetry; the spin of particles are eigenvectors operating inside of a Lie group (known as the "spin group"), and as such, obeys certain rules. So regardless whether or not a beam of light is directed through this polarizer or that (as Bell's experiments do), we nonetheless should not automatically assume that the symmetry of the Lie algebra has somehow been broken. Measurement of one entangled photon NECESSARILY reveals the spin state of the other, not because it was "selected at the moment of measurement", but rather because it is intrinsically embedded within the system itself.

 

OK, but is the "observer" really even necessary from the standpoint of making measurements? Wouldn't it be more concise to talk about the "specific nature of the observation"? That is, we have wires and plates and all sorts of components which inadvertently interfere with a "strictly faithful" measurement. Those objects are of course going to influence the measurement. In that particular respect however, consciousness is of little interest to the physicist. (That said, there may one day be some viable theory which CAN successfully incorporate "consciousness" into the equations. But that would be more along the lines of focusing on the "consciousness of the thing being observed" rather than the "observer of the thing being observed", if that makes any sense.)

An observer is anything that detects a quantum particle.

 

The Laws of Physical Reality

1) Objective physical reality MUST exist, although complete and faithful measurement will always be impossible due to the inherent limitations of sensory input.
2) Subjective reality arises from the imposition of impressions from objective reality itself, which can then use to ascertain (within some degree of error) a prediction.
3) Nothing which cannot be directly confirmed by observation should make up the foundation of any given physical theory. Things which can only be inferred shall henceforth be labeled "associated speculations" of said theory, and no "underlying meaning" shall be asserted whatsoever.

Perhaps if we followed those three simple laws, much more progress would be made in physics. Let the philosophers ponder "implications of the observer" lines of thought. Physics is NOTHING MORE than making accurate predictions using some set of mathematical models. The "underlying meaning" is meaningless in that context.

Hi again,

That's very interesting but i do not believe that we can make all encompassing laws of any kind for things we dont have complete information on yet. Unfortunately that makes all three of those 'laws' sort of moot. That doesnt mean that for a time they are meaningful, but because we dont know what is coming in the future we cant make such rules stick for more than the time for which they are valid for. Isnt that intereresting; valid for the time for which they are valid for. I think this is a good example of something that insists upon itself. It is self contained within the structure under which it was developed and prevails for some time, that's about it. It seems incredibly profound, yet it is not. It's just a rule we can use for the time being and hope it lasts, or maybe hope something better comes along.

One idea that has come about is that the universe itself may be evolving. If that is true we have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is to come. But even without that, there could be an enormous amount of information we would have to know to solve everything for all eternity.
There is also the "tree falls in the woods" aspect of this. If humanity dies off completely in some years in the future, does it even matter that there may be such a thing as physical reality. That's a different aspect though i know.

So far everything we know has been invented to fit what we can measure up to this point in time. Before we can make all encompassing rules we have to PROVE that what we see is going to be a constant for all eternity.

So my 'all encompassing view" is that we have some rules we can use for now and hope to understand more, but even if we knew everything about everything right now that doesnt mean it will not change in the future anyway. There are examples already that help to illustrate this such as archeology.

The worst mistake we can make is to assume that we cant make any mistakes.

 

An observer is anything that detects a quantum particle.

A quantum particle does not NEED to be observed in order to have some effect in the universe.

 

A quantum particle does not NEED to be observed in order to have some effect in the universe.

Who said it needs to be observed to have an effect? I sure didn't.