Please show me where Einstein said the wave function is a physical entity. Also link to a respected contemporary physicist who says same.

Or are you talking about the EPR experiment where Einstein was proven wrong?

 

"Sure, insofar as a roll of the die is a discrete probability, whereas a wavefunction is continuous. Incidentally, you can extract pi from a roll of just one ("fair") die. Unfortunately, it yields a horrible approximation! However, if you roll MANY times, the approximation gets better and better. That's the basis of the "Monte Carlo pi randomness test", except instead of dice we usually us coin tosses (as they can be much more easily converted to binary numbers."
Yes i like the area based random calculation for pi where you shoot darts at a circle inside a square. The ratio of those in the square to those in the circle provides the constant pi.



"Again, ALL physical models are incomplete. We choose the one that give the best results for the problem domain. Newton's laws break down in extremely large gravitational fields. Well guess what? Einstein's supposedly breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole. So there you go."
Yes i read that Einstein's may break down in other parts of the universe too for various reasons. We dont have a TOE yet that's what it comes down to. Oh E's also breaks down at very small scales too that's part of what is delaying a real TOE.



"Sounds like you just pulled that one out of your, um, hat. "
I wasnt wearing a hat at the time i typed that (ha ha) but hey why dont you come up with something (better, worse, the same) we could talk about that too.
What i see is very similar to antenna action. With a real antenna, the wave is absorbed by the antenna and it is converted into electrical energy and heat energy. A current flows in the antenna that wasnt there before the wave came in. So the wave caused a current flow which then caused a small amount of heat.
When a photon hits a wall it creates heat, i cant show that it creates an electrical current, but it does create heat as the antenna does.

See what you can come up with if you dont like any of that. I'd be interested to hear about it even if it cant be proved RIGHT NOW. That's another thing, ideas are not proved immediately after conception. It takes time and testing to prove (or disprove).

I think what Bob is saying is that the wave function is not quite the same as other functions. However, it is interesting that i read recently that the imaginary part in that is actually considered real now. Have to look that up i guess.
Maybe this is just a matter of interpretation.

 

Please show me where Einstein said the wave function is a physical entity. Also link to a respected contemporary physicist who says same.

Or are you talking about the EPR experiment where Einstein was proven wrong?

I never said that it was! Again, this conversation seems to be going nowhere. I have made my point several times over. Have a good day...

 

I never said that it was! Again, this conversation seems to be going nowhere. I have made my point several times over. Have a good day...

Oh ok, well i would have liked to hear your ideas too but ok, have a good day too and it was interesting.

 

Oh ok, well i would have liked to hear your ideas too but ok, have a good day too and it was interesting.

Sorry, I didn't see your post! I was responding to BobTPH there. Also taking a break from discussions so I can focus on work. Cheers.

 

Sorry, I didn't see your post! I was responding to BobTPH there. Also taking a break from discussions so I can focus on work. Cheers.

Oh i know what you mean there, i've been working on my car almost every day for the past three weeks. Finally making some progress.

 

Well that is certainly a convenient redefinition, but I can assure you that Werner Heisenberg himself would have disagreed. As far as he was concerned, it was a VERY real, physical mechanism.




You should tell that Einstein! Because these issues were raise by him and others almost 100 years ago. Schrödinger's famous cat experiment, as a matter of fact, was designed to demonstrate just why these new interpretations of quantum physics did not really make much sense.

Think about it. Just imagine you were to flip a coin and then someone tried to convince you that while in flight, the coin was actually in a superposition of two states, and the final state only occurs at the very moment that you observe the coin once it lands in the palm of your hand. You would probably laugh and point out that a high-speed camera would clearly show that the position of the coin at each moment was not in fact in some combination of states at any point in time. But the Copenhagen interpretation would have you believe just that!

So where did they go wrong? In my opinion, they mistook their statistical model for "the thing itself". Simple as that. Yes, the statistics governing quantum mechanics do indeed produce fine results. The problem is when people start philosophizing about the non-measurable metaphysical meanings of "observation" and "probability" and then go about incorporating such nonsense into physics. That said, I have no problem with quantum mechanics per se.

I was discussing this recently. There are of course multiple interpretations of QM, all of them are "valid" in that they are consistent with the theory and experiments but they are different ways of perceiving reality.

Some interpretations imply non-determinism is real and others imply there are a multiplicity of worlds and determinism is true.

 

I was discussing this recently. There are of course multiple interpretations of QM, all of them are "valid" in that they are consistent with the theory and experiments but they are different ways of perceiving reality.


Some interpretations imply non-determinism is real and others imply there are a multiplicity of worlds and determinism is true.

Well of course, it's only natural for people to be inclined toward differing interpretations of things. The problem however is when the interpretation itself gives rise to new mechanics. When quantum computers were dreamed up, their very operation depended on these newly-hypothesized physical principles.

However, quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a coherent superposition of both states simultaneously, a property that is fundamental to quantum mechanics and quantum computing.

Superposition implies, say the non-determinists, that multiple states can coexist all at once. That supposed fact is one of the most important principles for which quantum computers rely on to even be possible in the first place.

However, if the determinists are indeed correct that the wave functions are merely probabilistic equations, then the whole house of cards crumbles. Quantum computers aren't even possible.

Again, none of this would have happened if philosophical speculation had not been allowed to creep into quantum mechanics as it was being formulated. Even Newton was wise enough to avoid too much speculation. In his theory of gravity, he offered NO explanation as to WHAT it actually was. He had found the equations to predict it, and THAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH. Well we should be doing the same with QM. Throw out all of the hyperbolic metaphysics and go back to good old fashion SCIENCE.

 

Well of course, it's only natural for people to be inclined toward differing interpretations of things. The problem however is when the interpretation itself gives rise to new mechanics. When quantum computers were dreamed up, their very operation depended on these newly-hypothesized physical principles.



Superposition implies, say the non-determinists, that multiple states can coexist all at once. That supposed fact is one of the most important principles for which quantum computers rely on to even be possible in the first place.

However, if the determinists are indeed correct that the wave functions are merely probabilistic equations, then the whole house of cards crumbles. Quantum computers aren't even possible.

Again, none of this would have happened if philosophical speculation had not been allowed to creep into quantum mechanics as it was being formulated. Even Newton was wise enough to avoid too much speculation. In his theory of gravity, he offered NO explanation as to WHAT it actually was. He had found the equations to predict it, and THAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH. Well we should be doing the same with QM. Throw out all of the hyperbolic metaphysics and go back to good old fashion SCIENCE.

This is the realm of metaphysics and philosophy. We cannot grasp reality, only imperfect models of it. Consider general relativity, the question "is space really curved" is a legitimate question a student might ask but we can't answer it, all we can say is the math describing what happens has the same structure as the math that describes non Euclidean geometries.

I personally think true hard, determinism is not real, an illusion so to speak. Consider the question - what caused determinism to exist? Not an easy question to answer without first presupposing cause and effect, the very thing we seek to explain...

 

This is the realm of metaphysics and philosophy. We cannot grasp reality, only imperfect models of it. Consider general relativity, the question "is space really curved" is a legitimate question a student might ask but we can't answer it, all we can say is the math describing what happens has the same structure as the math that describes non Euclidean geometries.

I personally think true hard, determinism is not real, an illusion so to speak. Consider the question - what caused determinism to exist? Not an easy question to answer without first presupposing cause and effect, the very thing we seek to explain...

That's in interesting way to look at it.

What came first, the brain or determinism.
How do we 'determine' what determinism is. It's self fulfilling as it makes itself happy. That's like saying how do we measure a measurement. We can measure a different aspect of a measurement, but we cant actually measure the measurement itself. Some things are singular like that in that they can not be part of what they represent already, or explained based on what the already represent.
Maybe that's the paradox of reality. Maybe it can never be explained. That may seem absurd but we are so used to determining things that when we discover something we cant determine it seems like we must be missing something rather than that it really can not be explained.

 

Well of course, it's only natural for people to be inclined toward differing interpretations of things. The problem however is when the interpretation itself gives rise to new mechanics. When quantum computers were dreamed up, their very operation depended on these newly-hypothesized physical principles.

But how do you explain that there have already been calculations performed that were faster in some way using a quantum computer of some sort. Are they all lying about it? When they say they have created a 6 qubit QC do they mean it's still just on paper?
For myself, i can only know what i read about or what i have learned in the past.

 

That's in interesting way to look at it.

What came first, the brain or determinism.
How do we 'determine' what determinism is. It's self fulfilling as it makes itself happy. That's like saying how do we measure a measurement. We can measure a different aspect of a measurement, but we cant actually measure the measurement itself. Some things are singular like that in that they can not be part of what they represent already, or explained based on what the already represent.
Maybe that's the paradox of reality. Maybe it can never be explained. That may seem absurd but we are so used to determining things that when we discover something we cant determine it seems like we must be missing something rather than that it really can not be explained.

The entire subject is truly absorbing, I've grown more and more interested in this over the past few years. We can't exclude perception, consciousness from this, that is theory, measurement, model without consciousness being part of it all.

There are some philosophers and some theoretical physicists who speculate that consciousness is not an emergent property of the laws of nature, but something much more fundamental, an intimate part of reality.

That could remove the paradox of why determinism exists by postulating that determinism is itself the product of consciousness, of will, of free will, perhaps God.

But the harsh reality from a materialism perspective, is that if determinism is strictly true then we have infinite regress because every cause must itself be an effect of a prior cause. We can't use the laws of physics to explain the presence of those laws.

 

Well of course, it's only natural for people to be inclined toward differing interpretations of things. The problem however is when the interpretation itself gives rise to new mechanics. When quantum computers were dreamed up, their very operation depended on these newly-hypothesized physical principles.



Superposition implies, say the non-determinists, that multiple states can coexist all at once. That supposed fact is one of the most important principles for which quantum computers rely on to even be possible in the first place.

However, if the determinists are indeed correct that the wave functions are merely probabilistic equations, then the whole house of cards crumbles. Quantum computers aren't even possible.

I must have missed the headline where Quantum computers had disproved determinism or some interpretation of QM.

Which is quite impossible since all viable interpretations give exactly the same observable results, or do you have information the rest of is have never seen about this?

 

I must have missed the headline where Quantum computers had disproved determinism or some interpretation of QM.

Who said that they do? I certainly never did.

Which is quite impossible since all viable interpretations give exactly the same observable results, or do you have information the rest of is have never seen about this?

No they do not.

The prevailing theory, called the Copenhagen interpretation, says that a quantum system remains in superposition until it interacts with, or is observed by the external world. When this happens, the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states. The EPR experiment shows that a system with multiple particles separated by large distances can be in such a superposition. Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.[4]

A powder keg in a superposition of exploded-unexploded states MUST be a "real" thing for a fully-functional quantum computer to ever be possible. Einstein, among others, was vehemently against such notions. Well the Copenhagen interpretation may have "won the day", but there are still wise people who understand the fundamental flaws in these arguments.

Meanwhile, people such as yourself, lacking any true insight whatsoever, simply regurgitate the drivel that their new-age trans-Copenhagenist gurus push down their throats in the latest pop-sci articles. No one want to face the inconvenient truth that modern QM is based on fantasy-land ideas which have little to do with actual physics.

 

But how do you explain that there have already been calculations performed that were faster in some way using a quantum computer of some sort. Are they all lying about it? When they say they have created a 6 qubit QC do they mean it's still just on paper?
For myself, i can only know what i read about or what i have learned in the past.

Here is IBM's latest promo for their new quantum computer:

Note what is said at the end there, "We will be unveiling our first working system at the Quantum Summit in late 2023. Thank you."

There are literally BILLIONS of dollars on the line for these projects, and there is no way in hell that they are going to jeopardize that by being honest. And again, they have seamlessly blended simulated QC systems into their offerings, so at the end of the day, no one can really call them liars for it either.

 

So now you best argument is that everyone must be lying about their positive results in quantum computing?

The ironic thing is that you and I are nearly in agreement. Like you, I do not think quantum. computing will not become practical for real world problems.

But you base that in the belief that the demonstrated results on tiny problems must have been faked because your misconceptions lead you to false proof that they cannot work because they depend on an interpretation of QM that you do not like.

I state again that the accepted interpretations of QM all lead to the same observations. You have said this is wrong. And your “proof” that quantum computing cannot work depends on that. Prove that, and I will nominate you for the Nobel prize. Or at least point out a credentialed physicist who claims this, then I will consider it.

I base my skepticism on the theory of decoherence. I do not think a system with the complexity required for quantum computing of real problems can continue in superposition long enough to get the solution. The difficulties with doing even the smallest demos supports this. I have seen estimates that a single reliable qbit will requires thousands of actual qbits for error correction.

This is my last response. I am tired of refuting your unsupported claims when your only “evidence” is that “Einstein agrees with you.”. Here is some news for you since you since you obviously missed the last century. Einstein’s views on QM have been disproven over and over again.

 

The entire subject is truly absorbing, I've grown more and more interested in this over the past few years. We can't exclude perception, consciousness from this, that is theory, measurement, model without consciousness being part of it all.

There are some philosophers and some theoretical physicists who speculate that consciousness is not an emergent property of the laws of nature, but something much more fundamental, an intimate part of reality.

That could remove the paradox of why determinism exists by postulating that determinism is itself the product of consciousness, of will, of free will, perhaps God.

But the harsh reality from a materialism perspective, is that if determinism is strictly true then we have infinite regress because every cause must itself be an effect of a prior cause. We can't use the laws of physics to explain the presence of those laws.

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.

 

Here is IBM's latest promo for their new quantum computer:

Note what is said at the end there, "We will be unveiling our first working system at the Quantum Summit in late 2023. Thank you."

There are literally BILLIONS of dollars on the line for these projects, and there is no way in hell that they are going to jeopardize that by being honest. And again, they have seamlessly blended simulated QC systems into their offerings, so at the end of the day, no one can really call them liars for it either.

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

 

So now you best argument is that everyone must be lying about their positive results in quantum computing?

The ironic thing is that you and I are nearly in agreement. Like you, I do not think quantum. computing will not become practical for real world problems.

But you base that in the belief that the demonstrated results on tiny problems must have been faked because your misconceptions lead you to false proof that they cannot work because they depend on an interpretation of QM that you do not like.

I state again that the accepted interpretations of QM all lead to the same observations. You have said this is wrong. And your “proof” that quantum computing cannot work depends on that. Prove that, and I will nominate you for the Nobel prize. Or at least point out a credentialed physicist who claims this, then I will consider it.

I base my skepticism on the theory of decoherence. I do not think a system with the complexity required for quantum computing of real problems can continue in superposition long enough to get the solution. The difficulties with doing even the smallest demos supports this. I have seen estimates that a single reliable qbit will requires thousands of actual qbits for error correction.

This is my last response. I am tired of refuting your unsupported claims when your only “evidence” is that “Einstein agrees with you.”. Here is some news for you since you since you obviously missed the last century. Einstein’s views on QM have been disproven over and over again.

Hi,

I agree with you in part, but we should all remember that humans can be very clever sometimes when it comes to figuring things out. Look how much Einstein did. He did not have a machine that could measure space time itself but still came up with that theory or at least how it could explain some of the things we were seeing out there. Nobody thought too much about that, then one day suddenly someone figured it out. Even very highly trained and very knowledgeable people did not believe it at first but it turned out to be a better explanation of what was actually happening. All it takes is another Einstein and suddenly it all unfolds. It's been like that since the Greeks maybe before that.

 

So now you best argument is that everyone must be lying about their positive results in quantum computing?

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?

The ironic thing is that you and I are nearly in agreement. Like you, I do not think quantum. computing will not become practical for real world problems.

...

I base my skepticism on the theory of decoherence. I do not think a system with the complexity required for quantum computing of real problems can continue in superposition long enough to get the solution. The difficulties with doing even the smallest demos supports this. I have seen estimates that a single reliable qbit will requires thousands of actual qbits for error correction.

Well at least we can agree on SOMETHING. And I also concur that MOST aspects of quantum mechanics are sound. So it isn't that I am saying that the whole lot of it is bullocks.

But you base that in the belief that the demonstrated results on tiny problems must have been faked because your misconceptions lead you to false proof that they cannot work because they depend on an interpretation of QM that you do not like.


I state again that the accepted interpretations of QM all lead to the same observations. You have said this is wrong. And your “proof” that quantum computing cannot work depends on that. Prove that, and I will nominate you for the Nobel prize. Or at least point out a credentialed physicist who claims this, then I will consider it.

...

This is my last response. I am tired of refuting your unsupported claims when your only “evidence” is that “Einstein agrees with you.”. Here is some news for you since you since you obviously missed the last century. Einstein’s views on QM have been disproven over and over again.

It isn't that I "don't like" the interpretation. I could care less what metaphysical thoughts you or anyone may have about "the fundamental nature" of QM, even my philosophical ideas for that matter matter little. What bothers me are the inherent implications of Copenhagen-inspired interpretations which DO NOT EXIST if you adopt a more realism-based approach.

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.