On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 10:11:41 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:40:01 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:10:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/13/2019 1:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> > What are YOU talking about? I just made a GUESS about the >>>>> decoherence >>>>> > time! Whatever it is, it doesn't change my conclusion. If there's a >>>>> > uncertainty in time, are you claiming the cat can be alive and dead >>>>> > during any duration? Is this what decoherence theory offers? AG >>>>> >>>>> Yes, part of the cat can be alive and part dead over a period >>>>> seconds. >>>>> Or looked at another way, there is a transistion period in which the >>>>> cat >>>>> is both alive and dead. >>>>> >>>>> But the main point is that this time had nothing to do with >>>>> Schroedinger's argument (he knew perfectly well the time of death was >>>>> vague); his argument was that Bohr's interpretation implied that the >>>>> cat >>>>> was in a super-position of alive and dead from the time the box was >>>>> closed until someone looked in. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed. Without decoherence, the cat would be in a superposition of >>>> alive and dead from the time the box was closed until someone opened >>>> it. With decoherence, it would be in that superposition for a very short >>>> time, the decoherence time, when it would be in state, |decayed>|dead> >>>> or |undecayed> |alive> before the box was opened, provided it was >>>> opened after the decoherence time. So, as I see it, decoherence just >>>> moves the "collapse" earlier, before the box is opened, and does not >>>> resolve S's problem with superposition. The cause of the problem, or >>>> paradox if you will, is the superposition interpretation of the >>>> radioactive >>>> source. AG >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> How would you describe the "states" of qubits in IBM's Q (quantum >>> computer)? >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> I am not familiar with the theory on which quantum computers are based, >> so I >> cannot answer this question. AG >> > > > > > My point i really that quantum computers with actual (physical) qubits are > running in labs (IBM, Google, ...) as we speak. >
The issue is whether the interpretation of superposition I object to, is somehow necessary for quantum computers to function. Is it? AG They are real things manifesting all the basic questions about quantum > phenomena being posed. So it makes more sense to answer the questions about > real things than thought-experiment examples. > > In an OpenQASM program, what is happening (superpositions?, > entanglements?) in the physical quantum computer when it runs? > > @philipthrift > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58c2403b-0efe-4621-bed1-84ea5767789e%40googlegroups.com.
