I don't appreciate the tone of your post, nor the way you have twisted what I said.
I've written of all this before:
The double slit experiment was first performed using electrons in 1961 when they were found to exhibit wave-particle duality in the same way as photons of light.
In 2012, physicists conducted the experiment usng molecules containing over 100 atoms.
The fact of the matter is that all matter has an associated wavelength. The more massive the object and the faster it is moving, the shorter its wavelength.
A person of mass 75 kg running at 8 km/h has a very small wavelength of 4.016×10^-36 m which is about 700 billion, billion times smaller than the classical electron radius.
If the laws of quantum physics also apply to large objects then could bowling balls be entangled?
It is hard to design or imagine an experiment where a sub-atomic trait like spin of a statistically averaged mass like a bowling ball could even be measured.
A double slit experiment of bowling balls might create a lot of plastic shards as bowling balls fired from a random azimuth ball emitter crashed randomly into the massively impervious substance around the slits. Neutron star mass perhaps? A material more out of Dr. Who than something I could buy at a chemical supply house. Saw a spaceship made of neutron star mass (allegedly) on Dr. Who New Year's Eve.
Last edited:
Time out! Let’s=review the bidding on what win the Nobel Prize in physics 2022 for proving that quantum mechanics is correct. Spooky action at a distance, “the universe is not real locally,” and all that jazz.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/w...plains-einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance/
https://www.astronomy.com/science/w...plains-einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance/
Just how DO you entangle particles?
The majority of quantum entanglement experiments use photons as the entangled particles.
A non-linear optical crystal is used to convert a single high-energy photon into a pair of photons with half the energy.
Detection results which show the pair of photons wind up with the same polarisation more often than classical statistics would predict provide evidence for quantum entanglement.
Physicists don’t really understand how measuring an entangled system suddenly reverts it to a classical, unentangled state, or whether entangled particles are actually communicating in some way.
However, quantum computers, which rely on entanglement, are real - just ask Google! https://www.livescience.com/google-hits-quantum-supremacy.html
The majority of quantum entanglement experiments use photons as the entangled particles.
A non-linear optical crystal is used to convert a single high-energy photon into a pair of photons with half the energy.
Detection results which show the pair of photons wind up with the same polarisation more often than classical statistics would predict provide evidence for quantum entanglement.
Physicists don’t really understand how measuring an entangled system suddenly reverts it to a classical, unentangled state, or whether entangled particles are actually communicating in some way.
However, quantum computers, which rely on entanglement, are real - just ask Google! https://www.livescience.com/google-hits-quantum-supremacy.html
This would be the case if all observers eye balls were in exactly the same 'space time' position >
without even 1mm difference. *Infinitesimally minute differences still count.
This all due the actual arc of motion itself.
So, the speed of light is Relative and not Absolute.
* Once we reach a given point of 'minuteness', we enter the realm of Quantum Physics.
IMO quantum computers is a squam, a smart way to get fundings essantialy from those who cracking code is the essence.
I made an effort to understand how it works.... well I failed.
I made an effort to understand how it works.... well I failed.
Last edited:
If I could go off-topic for a moment, The usually secretive "Galu the Googler" has revealed that he attended Physics College! 😀
Albeit, apparently in the time of Rutherford and Chadwick... 🙄
Fact: Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger won the 2022 Nobel prize for experimentally confirming the Quantum Mechanics that all sane people trust.
Fact: The speed of light IS the same for all observers. Einstein was right on that one.
Fact: Macroscopic Quantum effects are possible. See "Schrodinger's Cat". The Quantum Computer people are trying to entangle molecules.
Anyway, I am glad that esteemed forum mathematician @mchambin shares my dismay at this Quantum Computer malarky. Google say they have solved a maths problem at trillions of times faster than a digital computer could.
But the problem was some incomprehensible nonsense about a sequence of random numbers. How does that help? 😕
I am currently working on a tri-state digital computer architecture which is extremely interesting. I may tell you about it soon.
Sorry about the poor quality of this post, but frankly, if I post good stuff most of you ignore it anyway. 🙁
Albeit, apparently in the time of Rutherford and Chadwick... 🙄
Fact: Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger won the 2022 Nobel prize for experimentally confirming the Quantum Mechanics that all sane people trust.
Fact: The speed of light IS the same for all observers. Einstein was right on that one.
Fact: Macroscopic Quantum effects are possible. See "Schrodinger's Cat". The Quantum Computer people are trying to entangle molecules.
Anyway, I am glad that esteemed forum mathematician @mchambin shares my dismay at this Quantum Computer malarky. Google say they have solved a maths problem at trillions of times faster than a digital computer could.
But the problem was some incomprehensible nonsense about a sequence of random numbers. How does that help? 😕
I am currently working on a tri-state digital computer architecture which is extremely interesting. I may tell you about it soon.
Sorry about the poor quality of this post, but frankly, if I post good stuff most of you ignore it anyway. 🙁
Using groundbreaking experiments, Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger have demonstrated the potential to investigate and control particles that are in entangled states.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/popular-information/
Seems this is further work started long ago and some feel she should have been mentioned
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...story-behind-the-2022-nobel-prize-in-physics/
See a 'puter being built. I don't think our living room is big enough unless we move out of it. The garage might be suitable. 😉 I couldn't see a keyboard or screen. Our freezer couldn't keep it cold enough.
https://quantumai.google/hardware
https://quantumai.google/hardware
This is the best description of how quantum computing works I've seen. Most explanations are just hand waving, muttering incantations about entanglement etc.
This is actual maths. It's long, but worth it IMO!
True and it deals with spooky aspects well - eventually. 5year old video. MS are pretty good at explaining "things" within their field. 😉 I still hate windows though - mostly due to the rather commercial way they progress it. Not that I blame them.
That may be because what you are actually saying can get lost amongst all those giant images! 🙂
P.S. I have revealed before that I have an Applied Physics degree. The course covered a wide range of basic topics in physics.
If I'd been more interested in maths, I would have studied for a Mathematics & Physics degree which would have included quantum physics.
The directorate’s fingerprints now show up in the form of fundamental research advancing the field and even inside the most advanced computers built at giant tech firms. The highly publicized race to build the world’s best quantum computer is proof of this: both Google and IBM use the same basic building block in their machines to create quantum behavior, known as transmon qubits, which was invented under the directorate’s sponsorship. Historically, the NSA has been the single largest funder of academic quantum computing research, says Herrera.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/02/01/1044561/meet-the-nsa-spies-shaping-the-future/
Keen interest
https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Pres...sa-nist-and-nsa-recommend-how-to-prepare-now/
It reminds me of the year 2000 bug. Another good subject for hype. Currently it looks like the scale of a QC is too small to achieve anything capable of breaking encryption. 😉 Or maybe it isn't. However it might. The fact seems to be that it is capable at least in theory of handling certain tasks at a much higher speed than conventional computing. Replace them though - I wonder. The cooling requirements are one tricky aspect. Nature in the 80's published articles about room temperature super conductors. They are still none existent as far as I am aware even though something along that line had been produced by someone according to their paper.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/02/01/1044561/meet-the-nsa-spies-shaping-the-future/
Keen interest
https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Pres...sa-nist-and-nsa-recommend-how-to-prepare-now/
It reminds me of the year 2000 bug. Another good subject for hype. Currently it looks like the scale of a QC is too small to achieve anything capable of breaking encryption. 😉 Or maybe it isn't. However it might. The fact seems to be that it is capable at least in theory of handling certain tasks at a much higher speed than conventional computing. Replace them though - I wonder. The cooling requirements are one tricky aspect. Nature in the 80's published articles about room temperature super conductors. They are still none existent as far as I am aware even though something along that line had been produced by someone according to their paper.
@AjohnL, is there a reason we should be watching this video. I am only 25 minutes into the @gpauk microsoft one and already feel tired enough to go to bed.
Bur it's neat with all those matrices full of ones and zeroes. And it never occurred to me to write zero as 1 over 0. It must be useful...
Will get back to it tomorrow.
I don't know why Galu the Googler considers these giant images.
Is you ancient laptop 640x480? I'll have you know I am 1080p here. Proper computer. 😀
Bur it's neat with all those matrices full of ones and zeroes. And it never occurred to me to write zero as 1 over 0. It must be useful...
Will get back to it tomorrow.
I don't know why Galu the Googler considers these giant images.
Is you ancient laptop 640x480? I'll have you know I am 1080p here. Proper computer. 😀
It seems that that IBM and Google use the devices described in the video. There may be a whole series of them to fully cover how they handle the maths. As lithography is involved I wondered how it will handle the forthcoming end of Moore's law. That is expected soon,
Forecasts and roadmaps
In April 2005, Gordon Moore stated in an interview that the projection cannot be sustained indefinitely: "It can't continue forever. The nature of exponentials is that you push them out and eventually disaster happens." He also noted that transistors eventually would reach the limits of miniaturization at atomic levels:In 2016 the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, after using Moore's Law to drive the industry since 1998, produced its final roadmap. It no longer centered its research and development plan on Moore's law. Instead, it outlined what might be called the More than Moore strategy in which the needs of applications drive chip development, rather than a focus on semiconductor scaling. Application drivers range from smartphones to AI to data centers.[118]
IEEE began a road-mapping initiative in 2016, "Rebooting Computing", named the International Roadmap for Devices and Systems (IRDS).[119]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law#Forecasts_and_roadmaps