Caporegime
I think magnolia has just invented quantum trolling.
Trying to get my head round quantum computers
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
Soldato
Quantum mechanics just makes people tetchy, we should stop funding immediately before the world is over run by angry people and their equally miffed felines.
Soldato
I started a physics degree at uni many years ago and this kind of thing is why i didnt continue after year 1 and moved to engineering instead.
A cat in a box is neither alive or dead (is both) until we open the box and observe it??. What a load of ********. The cat is clearly alive or dead in the box, we just dont know which one it is.
A cat in a box is neither alive or dead (is both) until we open the box and observe it??. What a load of ********. The cat is clearly alive or dead in the box, we just dont know which one it is.
Associate
That's my view too.
I also don't know if I'm interested or not interested enough to investigate any further
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,010
The cat analogy might be a bit rubbish, i.e. when you measure if its dead or alive, as its a cat you can determine the point in time it died by decay and body temp etc, so you can see if opening the box killed it or if it was already dead.
The point is that quantum mechanics is all based on probabilities rather than certainties, and the act of trying to measure the state affects the state. At least with our current technology.
The point is that quantum mechanics is all based on probabilities rather than certainties, and the act of trying to measure the state affects the state. At least with our current technology.
Soldato
I dont believe this to be true. The state is what the state is, and by observing it we simply know which one it is.
I have in my left hand a red ball and a black ball. I put one of them in my right hand.
The notion that my right hand contains both a red ball and a black ball until you observe it is absurd. The further notion that there is a divergance of reality at this point so that one reality is a red ball and one reality is a black ball is also absurd.
All you know if there is a 50% chance of the ball being black or red. The ball is one of them, and will always be one of them. Thats it.
It's just a thought experiment. You can't determine the state of what's inside the box without looking (and "looking" can be using any sensing device such as a camera, thermometer, radiation sniffer, whatever). The very act of looking can determine the outcome. This is literally the case on a quantum level as observation requires photons, which have momentum. This momentum affects the position of what you're looking at, so changes its properties (look at Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle).
See my post above.
Soldato
I know its just a thought experiment meant to demonstrate the principle but its no use because of how silly it is.
Your statement above is wrong or badly worded, the outcome has happened whether we look or not. The act of observing simply informs you what outcome has happened, it doesnt change the outcome.
Your second explanation makes more sense so why bother with a silly thought experiment in the first place.
And your evidence for this is...?
Soldato
Get a glass box, job done. Folk are missing the tricky bit, have you ever tried to get a cat in a box?
Soldato
Common sense?
Are we talking about the cat now or sub atomic particles, because i absolutely take your point on the interaction of photons. I just disagree with stupid thought experiments.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,010
Going off on a slight tangent I find the double slit experiment quite interesting, where the observation of the atoms during the test, rather than just observing the outcome, will create a different outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Quantum mechanics is mad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Quantum mechanics is mad
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,747
No it hasn't, the act of looking at it determines the state before that it exists in a superfluity of states its in both states at the same time until you force it into one or the the other, thats the point. Photons or electrons will travel through both points at the same time until you observe it then it'll pass through one or the other. This has been demonstrated. Look up the collapse of wave function.
And you are correct, it is very, very silly. And very very wierd. Someone once said if you don't find quantum mechanics profoundly disturbing then you havn't understood it at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,452
He's right though that it's a poor analogy to use to describe quantum states simply because a cat can only be in 1 state, either alive or dead and the act of observing won't change that state even if you didn't know the state beforehand. They really need to come up with a more apt analogy because schrodingers cat is very misleading to people who don't understand the basics as it doesn't explain fully that on the quantum level it can be both states at the same time and the act of observing defines the state.
Maybe they need Schrodingers TV where a television is showing 2 channels at the same time but it only shows 1 of those channels when you actually look at the screen
Soldato
Different solutions use quantum phenomena in different ways.
However the ones with Qubits that are getting the most press at the moment (i.e. IBM/Intel etc.) is the easiest to understand, effectively using (effectively not understood) quantum events as "Packets" of computational time, we are able to perform a number of logical operations which can be built up into complex programs. The interesting thing about it all is the amount of theoretical storage you get as you increase the numbers of Qubits on a chip, I remember working out that at about 512 Qubits then you had more theoretical data storage than would be possible using most of the worlds existing transistors, or something silly like that.
If you are interested in Qubit (rather than annealing) style quantum computing, I highly recommend you sign up to the IBM Quantum Experience website and start making your own program using their tools (you can even run them on their smaller 5 Qubit machine as a general member of the public), the tutorials they have are especially enlightening.
https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx
However the ones with Qubits that are getting the most press at the moment (i.e. IBM/Intel etc.) is the easiest to understand, effectively using (effectively not understood) quantum events as "Packets" of computational time, we are able to perform a number of logical operations which can be built up into complex programs. The interesting thing about it all is the amount of theoretical storage you get as you increase the numbers of Qubits on a chip, I remember working out that at about 512 Qubits then you had more theoretical data storage than would be possible using most of the worlds existing transistors, or something silly like that.
If you are interested in Qubit (rather than annealing) style quantum computing, I highly recommend you sign up to the IBM Quantum Experience website and start making your own program using their tools (you can even run them on their smaller 5 Qubit machine as a general member of the public), the tutorials they have are especially enlightening.
https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx
Soldato
Going off on a slight tangent I find the double slit experiment quite interesting, where the observation of the atoms during the test, rather than just observing the outcome, will create a different outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Quantum mechanics is mad
What is mad is the theory of quantum mechanics.
Are particles waves or particles or both? Neither, our theoretical ponderings are entirely wrong. Is my view.
This current theory about particles existing in all states at once is a get out from understanding the true nature of things. Things like fixing the speed of light no matter the frame of reference are also get outs. We have fitted a theory to observations without being able to explain why.
Soldato
Exactly, so why is it considered some 'fashionable' way of trying to explain it for dumb people?
I can picture it now. A scientist turned tv presenter doing some 9pm science show on bbc2 trying to explain how the universe works, spewing out this crap about cats in boxes like its actually scientific fact whilst showing unrealistic CGI black hole graphics.