On 8/21/2018 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:28 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker
<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker
<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker
<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
<mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at
time = 0, and 100 microseconds later it has
produced a result that required going through
2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than
is possible for 200 things to go through in
100 microseconds even if they changed their
state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44
seconds), then physically speaking it **must**
have been simultaneous. I don't see any other
way to explain this result. How can 200
things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
It's no more impressive numerically than an
electron wave function picking out one of 10^30
silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
interact with (which is also non-local, aka
simultaneous).
Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is
a 1 followed by 301 zeros.
What is "this". It's the number possible phase
relations between the 1000 qubits. If we send a 1000
electrons toward our photographic plate through a 1000
holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase
relations. The difference is only that we don't control
them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".
The reason I think the quantum computer example is important
to consider is because when we control them to produce a
useful result, it becomes that much harder to deny the
reality and significance of the intermediate states.
Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view
of it as a computation, from a physical viewpoint it is
nothing unusual. If I poked a 100 pinholes in a screen and
shone my laser pointer on it there would the same number of
"intermediate states" between the screen and a photo detector.
Okay. But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of
the computation, in a way that is easier to look over.
For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation
for the factorization of a large prime. We can't so easily
verify the statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what
they should be.
This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of
silver halide molecules in your plate, but more than a
googol times the 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.
What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and
consistently compute over these 10^301 states, in this
system composed of only 1000 atoms?
Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that
can account for this?
I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it.
All those qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order
to arrive at an answer. So they all have to be in the same
world. Your numerology is just counting interference
relations in this world, they don't imply some events in
other worlds.
Where are these interference relations existing? We've already
established there are not enough atoms to account for all the states
That's because the states aren't things, they are entanglements,
i.e. relations between things. That's why the numbers are in
exponential in the number of things. They are not things
themselves, so it's specious to compare them to atoms.
in the whole observable universe (one world), nor are there
enough Plank times to account for iterating over every possible
state involved in the computation in (one world). So where are
all of these states existing and being processed?
Also note that you can only read off 200bits of
information (c.f. Holevo's theorem).
True, but that is irrelevant to the number of
intermediate states necessary for the computation that
is performed to arrive at the final and correct answer.
But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate
your qubits. So you're putting in a lot more
information than you're getting out.
You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a
superposition.
Those "intermediate states" are just interference
patterns in the computer, not some inter-dimensional
information flow.
What is interference, but information flow between different
parts of the wave function: other "branches" of the
superposition making their presence known to us by causing
different outcomes to manifest in our own branch.
Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer
that is probably correct. So you have to run it multiple
times to have confidence in the result.
I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of
the measurement and construction of the computer. If your
algorithm computes the square of a randomly initialized set
of qubits, then the only answer you should get (assuming
perfect construction of the quantum computer) after
measurement will be a perfect square.
Right. There are some quantum algorithms that give
probability 1 answer.
Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography
where there's heavy reliance on factoring primes and
discrete logarithms. They should be able to solve
protein folding and similar problems that are out of
reach of classical computers. But they're not a magic
bullet. Most problems will still be solved faster by
conventional von Neumann computers or by specialized
neural nets. One reason is that even though a quantum
algorithm is faster in the limit of large problem size,
it may still be slower for the problem size of
interest. It's the same problem that shows up in
classical algorithms; for example the
Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm for matrix multiplication
takes O(n^2.375) compared to the Strassen O(n^2.807) but
it is never used because it is only faster for matrices
too large to be processed in existing computers.
So where do you stand concerning the reality of the immense
number of intermediate states the qubits are in before measured?
It's just like flipping two rocks in a pond and being amazed
at the immense number of points at which ripples interfere
before they determine the wave that hits the sand bar.
Except there are more ripples than bits in the Hubble volume, and
more state transitions than there have been Plank times in the
age of the universe.
Not ripples, the analogy is intersection of ripples. The huge
numbers are combinatorics. They are abstract "states" only in the
sense that the /*relation*/ of two different atoms in a ripple is
a state.
So here we have an "abstract" thing with concrete effects on our reality.
I said they were abstract "states". They are relations between states.
As relations they are no more or less abstract than other relations.
But you are counting seeds and calling them strawberries when you
enumerate them as states.
Brent
I thought you were one for "if it kicks back, then its real".
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
