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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.)
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.
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.
But if experience has taught me anything, it’s that the quantum hype train never slows down. In the past 24 hours, at least four people have emailed to ask me about a new paper entitled “Factoring integers with sublinear resources on a superconducting quantum processor.” Even the security expert Bruce Schneier, while skeptical, took the paper surprisingly seriously.
The paper claims … well, it’s hard to pin down what it claims, but it’s certainly given many people the impression that there’s been a decisive advance on how to factor huge integers, and thereby break the RSA cryptosystem, using a near-term quantum computer. Not by using Shor’s Algorithm, mind you, but by using the deceptively similarly named Schnorr’s Algorithm. The latter is a classical algorithm based on lattices, which the authors then “enhance” using the heuristic quantum optimization method called QAOA.
For those who don’t care to read further, here is my 3-word review:
No. Just No.
Since this idea needs a name, I’d hereby like to propose Cargo Cult Quantum Factoring.
I try not to poo-poo marketing hype efforts. That's a good article but the basic problems with Quantum Computing is not making qubits, it keeping them all in the SAME QM superposition in the presence of noise causing decoherence. It's not like a classical parallel computer where you can break operations into X number of processors.
Entering a new realm of ultra-fast single spin control
creates new questions regarding the physics of these systems and their application for quantum information processing. For example, the dominant source of control
errors for this resonance method are unknown. Pulse engineering for magnetically driven spin qubits in similar
devices have led to significant improvements in control
fidelity, achieving error rates below 0.05% However,
these strategies can only be translated to the electric
driving approach discussed here once the sources of error
are well understood and characterized.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerh...l-not-break-cryptocurrencies/?sh=73d2817c167bI do have to wonder a little why they didnt try using electric fields sooner since the CRT oscilloscope has been doing this since the dawn of time.
Does sound promising just hope it gets us there soon. There have been many promising new ideas popping up in the past and yet we still dont have the entire device.
If we do get there, it's going to radically change things in many areas of technology and life in general, and unfortunately that means in military offence and defense and in highly classified data base hacking. I get this image where some hacker opens up a phone book and turns to a random page and with eyes closed drops one finger down onto the page, then using that name and address hacks into their bank account and uses their credit cards.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|K||Mounting LM317 TO-3 case||Power Electronics||13|
|P||NSD618 TO220 case datasheet please||Datasheets, Manuals & Parts Identification||3|
|F||How to apply the the conditional probability and chain rule formulas in a multivariable case?||General Science, Physics & Math||0|
|The Case Against Patents||Off-Topic||24|
|The Case Against Patents||Off-Topic||18|
by Aaron Carman
by Aaron Carman
by Aaron Carman
by Aaron Carman