Why Quantum Mechanic Is Wrong?, becouse without evidence was created

Quantum mechanic claims that quantum computer must be possible to build, but unfortuntly quantum computers don't working... Quantum mechanic don't have any evidence about completnes and possibility to build quantum computer and that for simulation quantum physics need exponentional computation power. So quantum mechanic is hypothetical theory. Some things in quantum mechanic are proven and some - not. Why those unproven things are included in quantum mechanic theory? Why there is tryes to build quantum computer if there no proff about concept according to which quantum computer must work? Should we try made all things, which we can imagine and which don't match with logic (multiuniverse, exponentional speedup...)?

No, some parts of quantum mechanics are hypothetical. The vast majority is not. The CPU in the computer infront of you is designed and built using sections of quantum theory, evidence that those sections work.

Absense of proof is not proof of absense. Noone has disproved the existence of God simply because there's no evidence he exists. And given the vast amount of evidence for the majority of quantum mechanics, there's even less reason to deny the other parts of quantum mechanics.

Because they are the invitable result of the axioms of quantum mechanics. QM has a handful of axioms and it predicts thousands of phenomena, most of which have been experimentally verified.

That's like saying "Why do an experiment to test a theory if there's been no experiment to test the theory?". Building a working quantum computer would be evidence that it works. And they have done. You've been shown evidence of such a thing. I've been to talks, from physicists researching the area, about how they've built quantum computers.

Quantum computers are the logical implication of the axioms of quantum mechanics.

All now existed quantum computers are unproved. Or they proves holdings on hair.

Why don't just remove hypothetical parts from quantum mechanic? Ofcourse quarks also are hypothetical particles, but they more or less fit in with leptons and can somthing explain. But hypothetical part of quantum mechanic I doubt that can somthing explain.

So I can take and connect some quantum dragon, which living in atom to quantum mechanic and then claim that it is part of quantum mechanic.

Bonus question: Does exist evidence that Pauli matrices exist?

in page 89: http://www.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/Courses/QuantInf/lect7.pdf
is saying that for simulation in 3 dimensions one quantum particle with 100 point for each dimension need 100^3 bits. And for simulation 5 such particles need 100^15=10^30 bits. For classical computer it is imposible. Now imagine that there is five planets and each planet have one Moon. Each planet has positive charge and each moons has negative charge. And all those 5 planets are enough nearly to each over to atract each over with fields (of plus or minus charge). And for each planet and for each moon is 100 point for each dimension. How much bits need to simulate this 5 planets with 5 Moons? I think that also need about 10^30 bits (or operations...).

Wrong.

Because they arise from portions of QM which are known to be true. It's like saying you know all of the technical information about a gun, but don't believe it'll kill someone if you shoot them in the head with it.

Nope.

Another (unanswered?) question: does electrons entanglement was proved with experiments? Does experimentaly Pauli matrices was verificated seems nobody can answer...
Even if quantum mechanic behave acording quantum theory in some conditions it's still don't mean that is possible to build quantum computer, becouse thermal noise may be stronger...

In quantum computer believing only scientist who working in this field, becouse don't want to lose job and fanatics. Any reasonable proves dosn't exist. NMR QC with 7 qubits get answer after 2^7 tries, instead one try. How it possible to believe in quantum computer after this?

No, they have actually been built and have been used to compute the solutions to simple problems. You're denying the existence of well documented things.

Have you ever been to Beijing? Do you deny it's existence simply because you haven't seen it with your own eyes?

Because that's like saying "If we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't exist". When Einstein formulated general relativity there was no evidence for it over Newtonian physics. By your logic, he should have chucked it in the bin because it was all, at the time, hypothetical.

No, deep inelastic scattering proves that neutrons and protons have point charged within them which couple via a force other than electromagnetism or gravity. Quarks also explain all mesons and baryons. Quarks were a concept developed because experiments said they existed.

But then you're an idiot.

No, because this is not an implication which is derivable from the axioms of quantum mechanics.

The results of quantum mechanics cannot be derived from Newtonian physics. Hence you cannot say "Newtonian physics explains quantum mechanics". Just as you cannot say "Quantum mechanics says dragons live in atoms".

Do you even understand how logic works?

*sigh*

You and I have already discussed this. Matrices are mathematical objects, they no more exist in reality than d/dx differential operators do. However, they form structures which, when certain physical quantities are assigned to the structures' components, which mirror the behaviour of certain physical systems.

For instance, the spin of electrons around atoms or quarks in hadrons form structures which are seen in Pauli matrices. Angular momentum also forms a structure like the Pauli matrices, ie if J_i is the i'th component of the angular momentum vector J = (J_1,J_2,J_3) then these have the structure [J_i,J_j] = ε_ijk J_k. The Pauli matrices, σ_i, form a structure [σ_i,σ_j] = ε_ijk σ_k. Thus you can describe angular momentum behaviours using the Pauli matrices.

Another example is that the Lorentz transformations in relativity form the Lie group SO(3,1). The Lie algebra of SO(3,1), so(3,1), is the direct product of two copies of the Lie algebra of SU(2), su(2)xsu(2). The generators of su(2) are precisely the Pauli matrices. Thus you can describe space-time transformations using the Pauli matrices.

All of these are experimentally verified, space-time transformations like rotations and boosts transform like that and the spin of electrons in magnetic fields transform like that.

People can answer, I've answered you in this thread and I've answered you in other threads. You just don't want to listen.

This and the fact you seem to think you understand Pauli matrices but obviously don't, make me feel justified in calling you are complete idiot. A staggering fool. A delusional mor0n.

Before I vote. Could the OP rephrase the question "Does quantum mechanic is wrong?" please? This time in English.

BINARIES INHERENTLY UNSTABLE,
TRINARIES INHERIT PLANAR STABILITY
HUMANS INHERIT THE WINDY RHETORIC
[Spin-Knows-A thing or two or more (circa 1531 ADE)]

DavidD
Posted on Today at 8:54 AM:

[Comments:rm-QM claims nothing, people make claims, goal for us humans? Live long, don't suffer, recreate a better World.

"Science" is a discipline at it's best, knowledge and understanding yields personal power, no Doctor StrangeLove necessary, unproven may or may not, or otherwise, show light in dark passageway to future.

How's that?

Just put in new security download today, better or different Apple TextEdit.

This is a test, one, two, three, four, five, six, pick up magnetic sticks, attach magnetic steel balls, construct some basic 3D models, take your time, get the 4D picture?

Qubits, two state; qutrit, three state, so a computer, static states or dynamic, the basic counting unit, bit or qutrit, should be reliable, redundancy helps.

Big industry, computers, it took, I read, some 900 years to identify the dimple in the clay that held the calculii from rolling out of the places to do the Roman Numerals and other recogning calculations, to call that absence by the name zero, "0".

We got time on our side, collectively speaking, if we can work to secure the Planet, and avoid a direct hit by a large comet.]

Best, rmuldavin
===========================

AlphaNumeric
Posted on Today at 1:39 PM: Your last sentence:

{{Quantum computers are the logical implication of the axioms of quantum mechanics.}}

[comments: I'd add the notion that there are many "natural" computers other than the ones we humans have manufactured over more than two ice ages, that is longer than 100 K years (167K yrs last report of human skull found in Egypt).]
===========================
DavidD
Posted on Today at 2:41 PM:

[comments:

Complexity by Mathematic or by Rhetoric, in either case, I would expect some physics, the G-string felt HUGS with the complexing of the number line into a real part ® and imaginary (sq rt minus 1) times (I) gives a two dimensional plane for each dimension. On it we can draw continuous curves in the abstract sense, let me check your link:

[Sorry, my ibook show no or very little rural telephone activity. Is this some slowdown, commerical limit, I doubt it. Maybe the link, ... a few streaks, ...there a spike. At time I think the QM is a taboo subject because either commerically many are investing or want investors and revelations are not given that would be a disadvantage...pass NSApplications!]
===========================
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted on Today at 4:57 PM: I sense your anger, are you a paid detractor, or a farmer on a tractor? Maybe one of those enclosed cabs with wireless Internet, watch that the rows are conformal.

Passing Green House Gas? Apologize for that one. Best, rm
===========================
DavidD
Posted on Today at 5:23 PM: Last week or two I read essay that large linear and circular accelerators have model mathematical makers that fit to collision data, large number of workers contributing to this.

Sure it would be easy to merely assert it is a massive boon doggle, and I assert that the emphasis should be for medical and global environmental cures, the job loss aspect would disappear as we (collectively) could share the benefits of production by automation, giving some truth to the propaganda that automation can reduce costs, not necessary raise profits that likely cause the Capital to be withdrawn and shipped overseas or across borders, actual or cybernetic.

In short, short changed are we working people, remember, the fully retired are also pure abstract mathematical capitalists, a paper check without indexing for inflation will soon be cheap wallpaper.

The sticky buck stops on the walls of tenement halls, with the sounds of silence, if you haven't lost your home by default.

Apologies for light fingered physics.
===========================

Nite, will try to follow this discussion, maybe tomorrow reading more on bit and trits,
best, rm

OK, Pauli matrices seems describing spin very well and was experimentaly verified...
But I can't understand how to create entangled electrons or atoms? Entangled photons are created when blue photon of light bunching into crystal and then going out two red photons. Besides, Alphanumeric, you never write about entangled electrons.
"In the1990-2000, several experimentalists showed that entangled photons generated
by non-linear crystals could stay entangled for distances up to 10 km." So photon entanglement is proven, but how about electrons or atoms (or maybe nucleons, or bosons)?

If you more believe in documents than in brain, then you are an idiot. What's a point to claim that they working if they working exponentionaly bad? You probably don't analise what is wroting in those documents, more deeply?

"Since one electron produces several photons instantaneously, such photons are
entangled according to Quantum Mechanics. Being statistically spread in a cone,
entangled photons can hit several samples, swap their entanglement to nuclei or to
atom electrons. Electron accelerators are thus efficient tools for irradiating
thermoluminescent materials where entangled electrons can be stored."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611109
"Recent work with electrons in magnetic materials show that at very low temperature
the electron motion does not stop [14]. Electron spins are entangled in pairs and their
innate bond with one another keep them from freezing, contrary to what classical
physics predicts" - Can't understand how electrons are entangled and what conditions need to make them entangled?
"Furthermore the entangled electrons seems to be resistant to decoherence, that is
the collapse of their entanglement, since samples, co-irradiated several months prior
to the experiments reported here, still gave intense signals. An extremely large
number of single electrons in one crystal are entangled with electrons in the other
crystal and “stored” in relative decoherence free space of impurity traps of the
crystals. It appears that the ion traps are behaving very similarly to QED quantum
cavities." - If Ion trap QC dosn't working, why I should believe in entangled electrons?

This citated make me believe in entangled electrons at 70%:
"The reported experiments are a practical implementation of the entanglement
phenomenon of Quantum Mechanics. Two particles are said to be entangled when
they are emitted simultaneously by the same atomic wave function, for example;
photons emitted by a nucleus, or an electron, and the photons temporarily form an
interactive interference pattern with one another. Such particles are quantumconnected
to each other and interaction with a measurement system by one of them
is “sensed” immediately by the entangled counterpart. Entanglement can be
swapped between two particles and two other particles. Entangled particles, such as
10
electrons, can be “stored” in ion traps or impurities within thermoluminescent crystal
lattices and remain isolated from environmental decoherence effects in the traps for
considerable amounts of time. Electrons can be forced to leave these traps and then
drop down to their respective ground state energies in the crystal lattice by thermal
heating or by stimulated luminescence. An entangled electron dropping out of its ion
trap will go through spin transitions which affect its entangled counterpart electron by
reason of spin conservation laws such that it becomes favorable for the counterpart
electron to exit its trap as a result, emitting some light while dropping to ground state,
at whatever distances the traps are located from one another. Since traps can be
entangled even though present in separate crystal lattices, such samples can be
separated by a large distance and the entangled electrons still be connected until
perturbed by thermal heating of the crystal lattice containing one of the trapped
entangled electron pairs. It appears that the trapped entangled electrons escape only
at discrete and unique temperature values, thus allowing the same glow curve
response (although much less intense than the heated crystal) to be recorded for
each non-heated thermoluminescent crystal when the temperature of the heated
crystal lattice is increased and decreased. This experiment amply demonstrates that:
- Bremsstrahlung gamma ray or X photons are entangled,
- The entangled photons can transfer their entanglement to particles (electrons)
- swapping entanglement between particles is possible and does occur,
- entangled particles can be “stored” as wave functions in ion traps that behave
as QED cavities within thermoluminescent materials,
- environmental decoherence appears extremely feeble within ion traps
containing entangled electrons since the heating and measurement
experiments were conducted over one month after co-irradiation of separate
TLD chips,
- entangled electrons appear to exit the traps only at very discrete and
characteristic temperatures during temperature increase and not in accord
with the Arrhenius equation which dictates that ordinary electron traps empty
as a function of a continuum of release temperatures. This is a significant
finding of this experiment which should provide quantitative clues for the
interaction mechanisms involved in entangled electrons within ion traps
- slave chip (non-heated entangled counterpart crystal) glow curves correlate for
the crystal lattice temperature increasing and then decreasing via cooling
(temperature turn around point) in a very symmetrical and systematic way,
- quantum liaisons can be established between locations situated 8,182 km
apart."

Photonic quantum computer can't be made, becouse even entangled shamngled photons don't want talk to each over, becouse very hard to connect them together in 3D space. QC with atoms or electrons dosn't work, becouse of thermal noise either of imposiblity manipulate electrons in way, which quantum mechanic predict, when electrons are entangled.

klingon, sindarin, hell even icelandic would do

I couldn't answer the question nor give you my opinion because i couldn't understand the question

i am quite sure that " why quantum mechanic is wrong?" does not count in the English concept.......

please specify what you mean, and give me a call when you have undertaken an English class!

Photons are bosons you idiot.

So you don't believe in anything for which evidence doesn't exist? Again, absense of proof is not proof of absense.

Firstly, I don't 'analise' anything (or anyone)!

Secondly, that's pretty damn rich coming from you. You whine about Pauli matrices but you've never read a thing about them. You don't know any of the maths of them or how they apply to physics. And despite me having explained their physical applications to you previously, you still whine about them.

And as I said, I've been to talks by people who actually have built a small quantum computer, so I believe them over the interpretation of an idiot like you on a topic you know nothing about.

Practical scalability in quantum computers

Explaination of why SOME methods of building a quantum computer suffer from noise but others do not

ow to build a 300 bit, 1 Giga-operation quantum computer
In the abstract it says "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented."

Practical implimentation of quantum computers in 'noisy' systems

Need I go on....

Yo, I read that to entangle two atoms or electrons is very hard, becouse they entanglement is through photons so need everwhere mirrors around and this sounds shitly. And thermal noise will make deconherence faster than photons through mirrors will do them job. Also entangled(?) atoms talking through phonons (high frenquency sound), what is very strange. All this problems with entanglement of two atoms or electrons sounds very imposible. So I think 50% that maybe entangled elctrons was been demostrated.

Pauli matrices invented for describing spin (of electron or prtoton, neutron) and they have nothing to do with entanglement. I only don't know does pauli matrices describing spin in 3D or not, but they work only with single particle and this means, that entanglement between two atoms or electrons wasn't doen. On the over hand entanglement between two photons was maded, but quantum computer with photons somewhy can't be builded (I am not sure, this is becouse need exponentionaly many gates or becouse need that photon interacts more with each over than just that they be entangled...).

Do you talking about D-wave? If yes then just wait few months until they will demonstrate they unworking (unsuccessful - exponentionaly slower than should be) 512 qubits quantum computer. If no, then those people are just very big optimist about very weak proofs...

Only dreams, but no working quantum computer.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512084

How to build systems which don't suffer from bad decoherence. And one of the papers I linked to describes how to impliment systems which have error correction on a level with physically attainable errors.

Why is it strange? Phonons are a well understood phenomena. They are experimentally verified.

No, su(2) was described centuries before Pauli came along. Cartan did a complete enumeration of simple Lie algebras long before Pauli worked out a physical application for su(2).

Pauli got his name attatched to them because he took the mathematical concept of su(2) and realised it had physical applications. Just like Lorentz realised that SO(3,1) was the symmetry group of Minkowski space-time.

No, Pauli matrices work for multi-particle systems. I even said so in my last post when I said they described hadronic systems. Look up meson multiplets. I've even explained them to you before.

Still not grasping it, are you? Photon based quantum computers have been built. You seem to think that because BIG (ie lots of bits) quantum computers haven't been built that ANY number of bits is impossible. Wrong! Quantum computers with bits less than 8 have been built. It's known as 'proof of concept'. The concept of quantum computers works, experiments prove it. Getting large scale quantum computing is different.

Proving it works isn't a weak proof.

It's like saying "A big fire isn't hot" because you've only ever seen small fires, which you accept are hot.

Did you miss the one which said "using methods for quantum gates that have already been experimentally implemented"? Did you bother to look at any of them or did you just reply without even thinking about it?

You're obviously not interested in physics, you whine about concepts you don't understand and you refuse to look at evidence. Why do you even bother coming to this website if all you're interested in is hearing yourself talk? Do us all a favour and stop posting. You can just sit at home and speak outloud. At least then you're the only person who has to be exposed to your ignorance.

I say this, just becouse to made more easy to you understand, that they proffs is TOTALY BULLSHIT!!!

But not proven. If 58% or somthing working instead classical 50% it don't proves that those gates working. And if gates implemented then what stoping them from building quantum computer with 2 qubits?

Show me PDF, please.

NO, wasn't build even 2 qubits quantum computer.

With exponentionaly bad qubits.

Experiments nothing had prove. Press - yes.

Alphanumeric, who you are idealist or materialist? If you are idealist then you probably believe in Manyworlds, exponentional speedup, or somthing like this, many dimensions and that our world isn't classical, but quantum or whatever. I am materialist and believing that our universe is 3 dimensional and working accoring classical physic (with smallest particles like in my theory, for example). So I don't believing in exponentional speed-up becouse it's violates laws of classical physic.

Does there is proves about superposition of excided and ground state of atom?
Does there is nontrivial (90-100% match with experiment) prove about entangled atoms or electrons?
Phonons indeed can't create superposition or entanglement.

Quantum mechanic is indeed noisy and thus shrodinger equations are wrong about exponentional wave function, which describing quantum particles and they interaction.