|
|
Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk
Posted:
May 17, 2007 3:17 PM
|
|
In article <5b0if1F2qk2afU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ***{Fine. How do you know you did that, other than by counting the
> > clicks on the photon detector? Maybe you actually released a million
> > photons, and only got one click. --MJ}***
>
> Keep the energy low enough and you can control the radiative emission.
>
> See
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113453230/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=
> 1&SRETRY=0
***{The above link contained an abstract of an article making claims
about single photon emitting diodes, but no proof. To get to the actual
article, a $25 dollar fee is required, which, of course, I'm not about
to pay. Why not? Because I have asked many people for such references
over the years, and, upon examination, none of their claims held up.
Based on that track record, I could go broke chasing such links at $25 a
pop, before I found what I was looking for.
Of course, maybe I just haven't asked the right person yet. Therefore
here is my suggestion: why not try to become the "right person"
yourself, by actually stating some reasoning in defense of your claim
that there exist methods by which we can be sure exactly how many
photons are being emitted from a device? If a photon detector clicks
once, by what logic does that prove only one photon was emitted? Don't
you have to first verify that your detector clicks in response to every
photon that has been emitted, in order to verify that you do, in fact,
have a single photon source? And how, pray tell, do you verify that your
detector does that, without knowing that your photon source sends out
one and only one photon when you command it to do so?
Indeed, when one contemplates the results of a "single-photon,
double-slit" experiment, why does not the gradual buildup of an
interference pattern constitute proof that the source is emitting more
photons than the experimenters think it is emitting? By what logic is
that interpretation to be discounted, and preference given to the
bizarre notion that single photons are interfering with themselves?
--Mitchell Jones}***
> and also
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5733/454
***{The above link leads to another abstract. This one claims that the
authors have created a triggered source of single photons with well
defined polarization that "has many potential applications for quantum
information processing." It does not, however, (a) contain any
supporting evidence, and (b) it does not even hint that such a source
has been used in any "single-photon, double-slit" types of experiments.
Moreover, when I attempted to read the actual article, a message
appeared telling me that I would have to pay a subscription fee to read
it. However, again, I am not about to pay such a fee, given the obvious
fact that if you thought the article contained anything relevant, you
could have simply quoted it in your post or restated the argument in
your own words.
Bottom line: the link as cited does not constitute support for your
claim. If you intend to defend your position, I suggest you post a
specific argument intended to accomplish that, or else cite a reference
to a publicly available source of such reasoning.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Likewise there are devices that emitt single electrons, yet an
> interference pattern is built up from a multiple slit passthrough over
> time.
***{You say that such devices exist. Fine. Let's hear the reasoning by
which we can be sure there is a one-to-one correspondence between
electrons emitted and electrons detected. How do we know, for example,
that there wasn't a million electrons emitted for every electron
detected? --MJ}***
> Bob Kolker
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
|
|
