Those gate input synchronizations will require an entangled clock for the quantum computer, or else there will be race-run synchronization issues. You will only be able to synchronize a pair of inputs without engineering that is cognizant of this discussion. You really need to know what entanglement means on a deeper level.
Good idea. Thank you profusely for getting me back on topic. FYI, my group at the former Comsat Laboratories found that a PDP-11 computer was too slow to simulate a burst mode communications system for Inmarsat, so we constructed a bit-slice (roll your own instruction set) computer patterned after the DEC PDP-11 instruction set, but which ran over 10 times faster. This worked. The project was not budgeted to rent a Cray for the simulation, nor would it have been practical to reconfigure one to the extent necessary. This is also the group that needed a faster way to implement the Add-Compare-Select function for a satellite Viterbi decoder (Forward Error Correction), and so we built our own ACS hybrid microwave chip to do this. That project worked as well, but with an unexpected glitch that the finished system wasted too much computing power correcting eight inadvertent wiring mistakes, and it took us the better part of two years to track the source of the error down. There are limits to how well poor slow humans can manage such technological complexity. Moral to the story noted. My group installed the first Hamming code based FEC system for Intelat satellites. The point is, I'm no stranger to complex computing issues, and better yet, I can still remember how our project teams solved them, one by one. I also seem to remember, no matter how smart you are, or think you are, there is almost always someone a little bit (and more often than not, a great deal) smarter. I sometimes forget that Sciforums has many of its own experts, and I sometimes miss that narrowly targeted and technologically complex questions like the one about quantum computing gates can be asked here. A synchronization clock for a quantum computer that was based on the timing of the propagation of light and not entanglement would no doubt need to be run at lower computational speeds, confounding the idea of achieving the faster computational speeds promised by them, obviously. And evidently, an errant gravity wave passing through the room would be enough to completely disrupt a sufficiently long and complex calculation. This isn't a reason not to try them anyway. Most really advanced technology takes time to come to full fruition. I had not previously considered this to be an application of the ideas I am promoting. Tunnel vision at its worst.
Actually this thread is about observers, and what observers are. But no matter. As to quantum computers, here the notion of a synchronizing clock is somewhat different to the clock in a sequential computer. For instance, if you suppose that an interference pattern is the result of a quantum computation, then where is the system clock? If you have a which-path type of experiment (Wheeler's delayed choice), again where is the clock? I've noticed there is a big difference between classical computing and quantum computing in regard to the way space (storage) and time (synchronized steps) look. You have to more or less avoid thinking classically until there is some classical output (maybe). There is the rule of thumb that claiming you understand QM means you probably don't. But if you can build a quantum computer, that must go some way towards a demonstration that you do understand it. It's like you have to adjust what you mean by understanding.
It is the computational aspect which is fundamentally different, both the space (storage) and time (synchronized steps) are deterministic and non probabilistic, thus conceptually same as what is prevalent in classic approach. PS: what you store and how much you store to get the same result does not make the space and time aspect different from classic.
I don't think that's true. You can simulate an interference pattern with a classical computer. What the simulation requires in terms of space and time, and how storage and sequential or concurrent time are defined is very different to the actual experiment. Still, you get the "same result".
Yes you can simulate interference pattern classically. Storage and time is not defined differently (as compared to classical), what is stored and what is storage efficiency, and what is algorithm behind may be different but that does not make storage/time aspect conceptually different. To elaborate further, say you need "a" locations of space to store some data for a given calculation, if you could do the same calculations by storing lesser data and thus lesser locations, then it does not mean your storage aspect is fundamentally different.
Oh come on. Are you seriously claiming that a simulation can simulate thousands of particles going through a double slit simultaneously? No cheating--you can't assemble a pattern then output it in one "step". And there's the problem of randomness, will the simulation produce a slightly different pattern, if it runs again? Can the randomness be shown to be a consequence of uncertainty in position/momentum, say?
Those are my own equations, created in the Microsoft Word Equation Editor and pasted jpegs of their images here. Until or unless that system becomes compatible with LaTeX or something, I'm not learning another means of mathematical typesetting. My jpegs of the necessary math will display properly for a very long time after the latest and greatest mathematical symbol typesetter application de jour goes belly up. I do not intend for anyone else to be able to edit them elsewhere. In the interests of brevity, rather than explain each of variables used, I simply used the same ones originally used by Minkowski himself. You will need to verify these for yourself. Simply Google Minkowski Spacetime. It is all there. j is the square root of -1. The temporal component of Minkowski's spacetime interval is imaginary so that there is no possibility of mixing real and imaginary components. This idea too is a hoot, because in another part of his version of relativity, Minkowski rotation is presented. I'm not wasting any more effort trying to explain why that idea is without merit. Time dilation and length contraction go together, yes, but they are decidedly not the result a rotation of a time dimension into a physical one, or vice versa. In this universe, there is only energy transfer events, light travel time, and the present absolute instant of time that is the basis of quantum entanglement everywhere. Minkowski's forumae do a good job of explaining, in compact mathematical form 99% of everything you need to know about time dilation, length contraction, and if you use the boost matrix math updates, a simple and convenient way to make a lot of impractical and unworkable geometric predictions that make relativity by itself totally useless for doing quantum mechanics. I have just fixed the remaining 1% Minkowski's math doesn't, which includes quantum entanglement and real simultanaeity.
We can ask what an observer is, and we can ask what entanglement is. And I think instead of thinking about particles or classical devices, the questions should revolve around what entanglement information is. They should because if there are only interactions between particles in the universe, information must emerge from that somehow. The somehow is easy to solve with large amounts of matter, the amounts we use to build classical machines and computers, for example. Is it entangled particle states or is it the measurements of the states which are entangled? Does it make any difference? Note you can't get away from a measurement being an operator (it has to be Hermitian, but that's not such a big deal after all), an operator interacts with particles or their states, hence operators are also observers. When we recognise an interference pattern, that's an interaction too, involving a lot more particles than the number of dots.
I know your using "j" in place of "i". I know what it is. Thats no issue. I asked you why it is inside square root. Should it be there?
Were it not for entanglement, there would be no particles (bound energy) in the universe. Entanglement is what enables time, spin and linear inertia, and the conservation of energy. Were it not for entangled particles of matter or antimatter, there would be no entanglement state for unbound energy (photons) either. The doubleslit entangled photons require an entangled pair of electric charges accelerating, losing energy, with respect to each other.
When I studied physics at the University of Maryland College Park in the 1970's, it was cooler to use a j rather than i, for an imaginary number. One physics professor in particular preferred that notation. It stuck. Imaginary (complex) numbers are written that way simply to indicate, the real and imaginary parts don't mix. They work like vectors. It's no big deal. Minkowski was trying to capture time's arrow with complex math, and failed mainly because he didn't understand what time really was. Now you do. It's not something that is proportional to a velocity, invariant or otherwise, at all, because equivocating a time interval with an instant of time is division by zero in proportional math. Entanglement is the basis of time, and it is also FTL.
Dear Dan, why do you keep ducking the issue of your mathematically incorrect first expression in #88 (which error then propagates), first exposed indirectly in #93, then explicitly in #97, and now pointed to twice by The God in #108 & #112? Why not simply admit you got it completely wrong. Probably owing to a confusion between expressions for ds vs ds². And btw as inferred in #97 - j is standard notation in electrical engineering, not maths or physics where i is standard.
Which you claim are not different or not defined differently quantum or classical. And yet, they are. Since you can store something by entangling particles, and you can do something concurrently with the particles, neither of which is classically available. Entanglement isn't a part of classical information processing, and concurrence is a tricky path to take.
Flexibility in mathematical / physics notation was something that was stressed in my technical education, but not for things like the speed of light, c, Planck's constant, h, & etc, which I think are standardized symbols. At some point, I became an engineer in more than one discipline. This flexibility teaches you that the symbols used and what they mean are really arbitrary. When I use j instead of i to denote an imaginary component of a complex number, the symbols are intended as having meanings that are identical. I seem to recall, I had some angst about changing symbols the first time I saw it done as well. Your concern is noted, and I promise to try and avoid doing that again if I can. My physics professors were from all over the globe, as were my engineering associates. There were regional differences in the standardized notation, as well as in basic science concepts, in some cases. This is to be expected. Behind the former totalitarian iron curtain, the equivalent word for "freedom" translated as absolute, slavish devotion to totalitarian state authority. There was no translation for capitalism or democracy that was not viewed as either profanity or blasphemy. Symbols and their meanings can be hazardous to play around with. Just like the basic vocabulary of Iranian terrorists, no doubt.
I don't think anyone is bothering you for use of j instead of i. You are effortlessly ducking (Qreeus word) the main issue. Why? Beginning of para #3 gave some optimism but no..
I just responded in detail to that question about i and j. I'll be sure and use i next time. There is another insignificant error most people would not catch. The solution for any quadratic must contain ± (two solutions to a quadratic). Just change the - signs to + signs in the interval equation to get the other one. Post # 88 was the first time I encountered this, and I decided it wasn't important enough to adhere to the strictest conventions about quadratic roots, especially since Minkowski himself saw fit to ignore it in a few of his papers. What he cared even less about was the physical law of the conservation of energy. Because he did not, quantum physics likewise ignored relativity (with the exception of E=mc^2) from the day he finished it. As a result of this, particles of matter and antimatter are mathematically treated today as if they had no physical dimension, as though they were vertices in Euclidean geometry. Chemistry alone seems to be the only hard science that is in the least bit concerned with a particle's physical size. Multiverse theory likewise ignores the conservation of energy like it's not even there. Trust me; the conservation of energy applies everywhere, and on all scales. It's the Multiverse that "isn't there", even as an observation, let alone a hypothesis. It makes no difference to my analysis of the error that results from setting a time interval proportional to a time instant, or restricting the basis of time to nothing faster than the propagation of unbound energy. Some mechanism for holding particles together exists, and it is FTL. It is entanglement. Without adequate explanations of this, particle physics might as well be operating on the basis of the quantum equivalent of superstition. A FUNDAMENTAL force needed to hold a particle of matter or antimatter together does not exist, EVEN AS A HYPOTHESIS, other than the one I have presented. Did I really need to point this out? If particles are ideal points, a force isn't needed, you see? They are NOT points, and the force exists, physically, and not in some mathematician's simple symbol-adoled mind.
