The Case Against Quantum Computing

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
10,426
So what has it got to do with physics then?
Observation and measurement is why we build things like the LHC, so we can learn new things in physics and verify theories. We needs it to explore reality, not to generate 'reality'.
 

xox

Joined Sep 8, 2017
789
Observation and measurement is why we build things like the LHC, so we can learn new things in physics and verify theories. We needs it to explore reality, not to generate 'reality'.
You've missed the point. The role of "the observer" is one of the cornerstones of "quantum weirdness". I am simply suggesting that it should be thrown out of physical theories.
 

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
10,426
You've missed the point. The role of "the observer" is one of the cornerstones of "quantum weirdness". I am simply suggesting that it should be thrown out of physical theories.
You've said that several time but it's a meaningless suggestion. People to free to have 'their own' (sometimes mystical nonsense IMO) physical theories, it's just an interpretation.
 

xox

Joined Sep 8, 2017
789
You've said that several time but it's a meaningless suggestion. People to free to have 'their own' (sometimes mystical nonsense IMO) physical theories, it's just an interpretation.
Remember, QM states that the very act of observation causes wave-function collapse. Thus, the theory itself is flawed because its supposed mechanisms are based on questionable "interpretations". So once again, delete the nonsense, and go back to what is legitimately verifiable.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
9,552
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.)
I think this point has been argued in the past. I cant remember the name of this particular argument but it centers on which comes first, the brain or the physics. I think it is because when you really get down to it the brain and the measurement are so uniquely tied together that it becomes arguable which one takes precedence. I guess by 'brain' the meaning is the interpretation.
You want to argue that physics takes precedence, while others may argue that the brains interpretation or rendering of the information takes precedence. I dont think this argument has ever been settled though.

Some things can simply never be separated. Maybe this is one of those cases. I'll try to find out again what this argument is called i forgot over the years and years. It may be again one of those pure philosophical arguments which in themselves have different interpretations.

This hints on what i am looking for but dont think this is the entire argument...
Neuroscience Weighs in on Physics’ Biggest Questions - Nautilus
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
9,552
That was interesting. He was pointing out the difference between a mathematical theory and a physical theory and saying that it's hard to go from the math theory to the physical world.

Maybe that's what we are stuck with. If the world is too complicated it may have to stay that way, where we have certain math that goes with certain physical situations.

The other thing could be the old, wrong person in the wrong industry at the wrong time.
This reminds me of the difference between the people that work in developing secure communications and the mathematicians. The comm people develop a great great idea about how to transmit information securely and believe whole heartedly that it is beyond cracking and publish it with that expectation, only to have a mathematician break the code in an hour. That speaks volumes i think about who is doing what. It's only the ones that can meld both disciplines that make the best history books.
It's interesting that one or two of the biggest problems of our time right now is so practical and doable and yet still not achieved. Secure transmission, secure storage.

I understand where he is coming from about the Copen. interpretation. He believes it is somehow magic and therefore not part of physics, or at least that's how he leans.
I might go that route too if i didnt see some experiments that actually show that there is something that if we didnt know better we would call magic too. There seems to be too many things that just can not be explained using a more reasonable method.
In his favor, the pilot wave theory has been demonstrated by i think it was silicone oil drop on a water surface. Supposedly the oil resonates and makes changes in the water surface which in turn keeps pushing and i guess directing the silicon oil drop along. However, i have also read that the idea does not hold at very high frequencies. It's called the hydrodynamic analogy (i think).

I am wondering now if a true TOE would have to be just a map of theories and physical phenomena that has to be maintained in order to explain the world in full. There may be missing parts we cant see or detect.

It is interesting to talk about this in any case, and as to the wavefunction collapse it still looks to me like an antenna/wave type of action. I am not sure if that is a deep enough explanation though.
 

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
10,426
Pilot wave is still a 'fringe' theory IMO. It implies faster-than-light signalling is possible and throws a monkey-wrench into causality (discard all of quantum field theory and the special and general theory of relativity). Cats and dogs, living together, etc ...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/famo...ve-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/
But a series of bouncing-droplet findings since 2015 has crushed this dream. The results indicate that Couder’s most striking demonstration of quantum-like phenomena, back in 2006 — “the experiment that got me hooked on this problem,” the fluid dynamicist Paul Milewski said — was in error. Repeat runs of the experiment, called the “double-slit experiment,” have contradicted Couder’s initial results and revealed the double-slit experiment to be the breaking point of both the bouncing-droplet analogy and de Broglie’s pilot-wave vision of quantum mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Top