|
|
Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk
Posted:
May 15, 2007 5:52 AM
|
|
On 14 May 2007 12:12:07 -0700, Vend <vend82@virgilio.it> wrote:
>On 14 Mag, 14:40, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> But that would be an excellent scientific question, IMO.
>> >> Some of the crackpots in spacetime physics think they can know the
>> >> answer to that question, BTW. What with big bangs and all that crap.
>>
>> >I don't think they think so.
>>
>> At least you agree that they're crackpots. ahahaha...
>
>No.
No matter. They are still a bunch of fucking time travel-believing
crackpots, especially the little con artist in the wheelchair.
ahahaha... BTW, did you know that nothing can move in spacetime?
That's why Sir Karl Popper called spacetime Einstein's block universe
in which nothing happens. ahahaha...
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
ahahaha...
>> >> Asking why quantum interactions are probabilistic is a very sensible
>> >> and reasonable question. Answering it would do wonders for our
>> >> understanding of the universe.
>>
>> >How are you supposed to test an answer to such question?
>>
>> Simple. Fundamental answers would allow us to calculate observed
>> phenomena from first principles. We would know the exact probability
>> of an interaction based solely on the energies/masses involved.
>
>An answer to a question in the form "why does the law of physics X
>exists?" don't allow you to calculate anything.
>An answer to a question in the form "what is the law of physics
>explaining the observed phenomena" allow you to predict future
>observation.
Nonsense. If you knew exactly why bodies are attracted to one another,
you would know exactly how to calculate gravity from first principles.
>This is what quantum mechanics does: you can calculate the
>probabilities of events using the laws that include state
>superposition. The fact that you don't like it can't change the
>reality.
This is bullshit. Quantum mechanics never uses state superposition to
calculate anything. That's a lie. It uses probability which is not the
same thing as superposition.
>> >The interference/diffraction experiments i mentioned are good
>> >examples.
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Quantum_version_o...
>>
>> Nonsense. Double slit experiments in no way validates the concept of
>> superposition.
>
>They are explained by the theory which includes state superposition.
>In fact, the only way a particle can interfere with itself is that it
>has no definite position at a given time, but a superposition of
>positions.
Particles interfering with themselves is just more stupid
crackpottery. None of you have any clue as to what is going on in
double slit experiments. You are just talking out of your asses. You
assholes do not even know why particles move in the first place. You
believe that they move for no reason, as if by magic. You believe in
all sorts of magical crap. You are a cult, not a science. ahahaha...
>> Besides, don't even get me started on the crackpottery
>> of the physicist's concept of photon, a point (zero size) particle
>> that can nevertheless have a wavelength (size).
>
>So how do you explain the fact that it propagates as a wave (capable
>of interfering with itself or other photons) and yet is detected in a
>definite point of space at a definite time?
First off, the wave stuff is a macroscopic phenomenon since anybody
with two neurons between their ears can figure out that the universe
is discrete. That should tell you that a wave is composed of many
particles traveling together. Second, you have no clue as to what is
makes photon (or any particle) move. If you did, you would understand
that we are moving in an immense sea of energetic particles (a
lattice). There are all sorts of particles flying about and going
through both slits. You people are just too stupid to figure it out.
>Anyway, you can do the experiment with electrons or even
>buckminsterfullerenes (nano-sized carbon soccerballs), if you don't
>like photons.
It does not matter. In my understanding, when a particle moves, it
interacts with the lattice particles, causing all sorts of particles
to start moving. This is the reason for EM fields.
>> Talk about chicken
>> feather voodoo physics!
>
>Voodoo is a religion. Thus voodoo physics, if it existed, would be
>similar to your Bible physics.
>Nothing to do with science.
You sure fooled me. When some wild-eyed, geeky-looking asshole starts
talking about properties having multiple states simultaneously or
particles being in two places at one, voodoo immediately comes to
mind. You may not think your science is a religion but that's exactly
what it is. At least voodoo practitioners have an excuse. You don't.
You're just stupid.
>> The problem with physicists is that their
>> arrogance and pomposity are such that "the most stupid procedures in
>> their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence", to quote one
>> of my favorite authors. ahahaha...
>
>Can you provide an example of arrogance and pomposity?
>It seems to me that physics are quite happy to critically analyze
>their theories. Otherwise we would't have Einstanian Relativity and
>Quantum Mechanics.
You're kidding? Physics is so full of crap, your leaders would be put
in jail for fraud were it not for the fact that yours is an organized
religion with political power. ahahaha...
>> >> This is so typical of ass kissers in
>> >> the physics community. They believe in all sorts of crap that have no
>> >> empirical basis (e.g., vibrating superstrings, compacted dimensions,
>> >> time travel, wormholes, black holes, spacetime curvature causing
>> >> gravity, variable time, virtual photons, etc...) and yet, when a
>> >> question arises that shows their ignorance and stupidity, they invoke
>> >> the usual lame "this is not a scientific question" copout. Yours is a
>> >> chicken shit science with no real answers. Worst, you don't even care
>> >> about getting the real answers. You're fucking pathetic.
>>
>> >Can't you discuss in a civil way?
>>
>> Nope. I am unabashedly antagonistic and disrespectful to the physics
>> community. They deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule. As
>> Feyerabend put it so eloquently, you "must be cut down to size and
>> given a more modest position in society". ahahaha...
>
>Fine, but you should be aware that name calling makes you appear
>childish and incompetent.
I don't care. None of you puts food on my table.
>> >> Truth is, the essence of science is prediction and the essence of
>> >> prediction is finding the answers to why questions.
>>
>> >Actually, science deals with "How" questions.
>>
>> So say the physicsits in order to excuse their crackpottery and
>> ignorance. The fact remains that all of science is about causality.
>
>So say the philosophers of science.
>Asking the cause of something is fine but you have to stop at some
>point unless you would get caught in an infinite regression of causes.
No you don't. Not every cause is an effect in need of a cause.
>Philosophy of Science says that the proper point to stop is when you
>can explain all the observations made so far and assuming an
>additional causal entity won't provide more explanatory power.
Yeah, that's your chicken shit philosophy, not mine. My philosophy is
that everything can and should be understood.
>> >> If you don't know
>> >> the why of something, your science is chicken shit. This is true in
>> >> medicine, biology, chemistry, neurology, etc... They all use a causal
>> >> chain of reasoning. Why is physics exempt from why questions? I'll
>> >> tell you why. Your science is chicken shit. That's why. ahahaha...
>>
>> >> >The question I asked to you is a scientific question: I'm asking you
>> >> >to predict the result of an experiment given the initial conditions.
>>
>> >> And I am asking you to show me an experiment where multiple states of
>> >> a quantum property can be observed.
>>
>> >And you are evading the question.
>>
>> >You don't see superposed quantum states with your naked eyes much like
>> >you don't see atoms.
>> >You deduce the existence and the properties of these entities from the
>> >data you can measure.
>>
>> You never deduced it. That is what the Copenhagen interpretation is
>> about. It is an *interpretation*, not a logical fact deduced from
>> observation.
>
>Quantum superposition exists in any formulation of quantum mechanics.
>Educate yourself.
Bullshit. As I wrote earlier, probability is not the same as quantum
superposition. Superposition is a stupid notion. It is stupid on the
face of it. You assholes are so arrogant as to think that coming up
with weird crap makes you look smart. It doesn't. You look stupid as
fuck. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>> However, using simple logic and observation, physicists can deduce an
>> answer to the question I am asking if they were willing to get their
>> heads out of their asses for a minute. Why are quantum interactions
>> probabilistic? That is the question.
>
>Some interpetation of QM try to address that, but no matter what the
>question always reduces to "why do the laws of physics are the way
>they are", which is not a scientifically answerable question.
It is not answerable to you because you're stupid and you have been
conditioned by your education to be stupid. ahahaha...
>Anyway, can you provide an answer that allow to calculate the same
>probabilities we estimate from experiments?
I am working on it, in my spare time. It has to do with interactions
and the precise energies involved.
>> You don't know and yet you feel
>> qualified to tell us without either logic or observation that quantum
>> states are superposed. This way you can create a crackpot "science"
>> called quantum computing in order to obtain grants and fleece
>> investors. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Laughable indeed.
>
>Quantum computing is not a science, it's a technology. And the
>prototypes built so far seem to work (some applications of quantum
>cryptography are even commercial). How can you explain how they work
>without resorting to state superposition?
This is bullshit, of course. QC does not work regardless of the
claims. It's a fucking hoax and a lie. And quantum cryptography is not
QC. It is based on the probabilistic nature of quantum interactions.
What the fuck does probability have to do with superposition?
>> >> Or, one where a particle has both
>> >> decayed and not decayed.
>>
>> >I don't know about this one. Perhaps the Quantum Zeno Effect
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
>>
>> Are you kidding? That is precisely what the Copenhagen interpretation
>> is about, Schrödinger's cat and all that. The cat is said to be in a
>> superposed state of being both dead and alive when nobody is looking.
>
>It's a thought experiment made to highlight a problem in the
>Cophenagen interpetation.
>Interpetations with decoherence don't have this problem.
>
>> This crap reminds me of a kid I knew who insisted that he could jump
>> as high as building but only when nobody was looking. ahahaha...
>
>Always a liar?
>Actually this happens at nanoscopical level. It's called 'tunneling
>effect', and it's the phenomenon that make the tunneling microscope
>work.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
What the fuck is the matter with you? Are you autistic or something?
What does QT have to do with this discussion or Schrödinger's stupid
thought experiment? The point is that superposition of states is an
interpretation, not a law of nature. It is a stupid interpretation on
the face of it. Children would laugh at you people. That's how stupid
it is. Schrödinger obviously had mental problems. ahahaha... The
physics community gets away with their crap because it is a political
and religious organization whether they admit it or not. But not for
long. The day of reckoning is looming on the horizon. ahahaha...
>> Physicists don't need dope, IMO. The assholes were born intoxicated.
>> ahahaha...
>>
>> >> If you don't know why particle decay is
>> >> probabilistic, what makes you so sure that states are superposed? You
>> >> are basing QC on a non-scientific conjecture. You are either hoaxers,
>> >> crackpots or frauds. Or maybe a combination of these things.
>>
>> >> >The theory you dislike so much and call 'absurd' can do that. Can you
>> >> >say the same of your theory?
>>
>> >> And which theory is that? The theory that proves empirically that
>> >> quantum states are superposed? Just because QM makes good predictions
>> >> does not mean that its interpretations are entirely correct, amigo.
>>
>> >You just said that science was all about making predictions.
>>
>> Yes, and predictions come from understanding the why of phenomena. For
>> example, a physician knows what treatment to use on a patient because
>> he/she knows that the patient is sick because he contracted a
>> particular virus. Causality is the backbone of science.
>
>And why does that particular make the patient sick?
>The answer to that question involves a long chain of reductions that
>eventually reachs quantum physics.
So what? The point is that doctors constantly seek answers to why
questions.
>> >> I
>> >> haven't seen any phenomenon predicted by QM that is based on the
>> >> assumption that quantum states are superposed. On probability yes, but
>> >> superposition, I don't think so. Besides, I never said that QM is
>> >> absurd. It certainly has many absurd things (superposition is one of
>> >> them) in it (because of the chicken shit syndrome) but I rather like
>> >> QM compared to say, spacetime physics which is complete crap.
>>
>> >Then I reiterate my question about how you explain the results of
>> >interference experiments without a theory that involves quantum
>> >superposition. You may win a Nobel if you can :D
>>
>> ahahaha... You can pack your Nobel up your ass for all I care. I would
>> explain to you why you're wrong only you did provide an explanation to
>> show that interference experiments require superposition. You did not.
>
>I'm not saying that superposition is required to explain such
>experiments.
You said it above.
> I'm claiming that there is no other known explanation. If
>you think you have one please provide it.
I can indeed provide an infinitely more plausible explanation than the
crap you conjured out of your asses, but this is not the place for it.
I gave you a hint above.
>> You people have managed to create a religion of crackpottery. Your
>> concept of a photon is laughable to say the least. You even believe
>> that bodies in motion remain in motion for no reason at all, as if by
>> magic.
>
>And you think that they should stop for no reason at all, as if by
>magic.
Nope. I believe that rest is a natural state. But I am sure that will
go over your head. But don't feel bad. It took me years to deprogram
myself.
>Of course if you weren't so lazy to look at the experiments described
>in a school text book you would had found out who is right.
I have received enough education in your voodoo science to know that
you're full of shit. ahahaha...
>> Chicken feather voodoo physics is what you practice. ahahaha...
>> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
>Your continuous references to chicken feathers remind me of a well
>known experiment where a feather and a marble fall at the same speed
>in the void.
>I bet that in your physics they should fall at different speeds. Did I
>win? :DDD
You're so fucking pathetic in your arrogance of supposing that you are
the only smart people in the world. And yet, the stupid crap that
comes out of your "science" is enough to make a grown man cry. You
assholes are about to be dethroned in the not distant future. Mark my
words. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Physics From the Bible!
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm
|
|
