Quantum physics is very logical. It is just counter intuitive. That you can't understand it, doesn't mean it is illogical. Kuhn's paradigm shift did already happen. It happened with the advent of Quantum Physics. It's just that you haven't caught up yet.
I'm sorry, but you are obviously just a tiresome crackpot. You don't understand quantum physics. You don't understand superpositions or entanglement. You give up relativity and the notion of space to save what you call logic. Your post doesn't contain any substance, and I will not answer any more of them until they do.
How about the question I stated earlier: How do you explain the double slit experiments without superpositions? Your ideas aren't worth dust before you explain this simple experiment.
You are probably right for a part of the Mac buyers, but I'm quite tired of the old cliche of Mac buyers as "oh, shiny!" people. Some of us got just tired of crappy software on crappy hardware, even if people tell me that win XP is a quite decent operating system after service pack 2 or something. Writing this on my heavily used and badly worn, three year old Macbook, I definitely don't spend much money on computers, but I have a machine and an operating system that feels very current. (I do run the latest version of Mac OS X though).
Bell's inequality says, loosely speaking, that if you have locality then you must have superpositions. Most physicists thinks we have locality, otherwise information could be transmitted faster than light. If information can be transmitted faster than light, we get problems with causality and then we are in a real mess. Then you could really start to talk about counterintuitive.
The Schroedinger equation is central to quantum physics. It describes how a state evolves with time. Again, it is not something that is specific to the Copenhagen interpretation.
What do you suggest that we should replace the principle of superposition with? How do you explain the double slit experiments without superpositions?
You don't even know how to troll properly. I'm Scandinavian, and the only reason I chose to spell Cesium in this way was because that was how it was spelled in the post. When in Rome...
You have now not only proved your illiteracy, but also your stupidity by your unfounded conclusions, you inbred gnome.
Superposition is not a part of only the Copenhagen interpretation. You obviously didn't read the Wikipedia article you link to. It doesn't even contain the word superposition.
No, no one has ever observed superposed states, since the wavefunction collapses as soon as anyone try to observe it. It is not silly guesswork. The brightest minds in modern time have failed to come up with any other explanation. Einstein was only one of them. You can not say "the property has a given state but the state can instantly change when the particle interacts with another". Read about Bell's inequality[wikipedia.org]. It has been experimentally proven that you are wrong.
We, quantum physicists, don't have a clue why the nature is not probabilistic, but we certainly care to know why. I was on a seminar yesterday were the discussion came up again for the nth time. We are though very good at describing and predicting the phenomena. It is amusing how everyone that have read or heard some popular account of quantum physics thinks they happen to be smarter than the best scientists of the last century.
The same people who think they aren't fooled still enjoy the fruits of quantum mechanics. They use the power from nuclear power plants, they use semiconductors and lasers every day. Things that wouldn't be possible without quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is very counter intuitive. Quantum mechanics is hard. It takes effort and time to understand even for the gifted. It is just sad how many people that haven't put in the effort or don't have the capacity to understand it feel free ridicule it. As Bob Dylan sang: Don't criticize what you can't understand
Oh yes. Die horrible telkom with their ridiculous prices and slow connections. The only thing I can say in their defense is that their technical support isn't totally incompetent.
Superposition of states is fundamental to quantum physics and not a part of the Copenhagen interpretation. The principle of superposition has been tested over and over again and is as far from a guess as you can come. Especially since it is counter-intuitive it has been scrutinized and tested more than most fundamental principles in science.
D-Wave Systems is quite suspect and doesn't have much respect in the scientific community. On the other hand, Quantum Computing (QC) does rest on sound scientific principles, and in the quest for it we learn a lot. The gain if we succeed would be enormous. It is easy to get the impression that quantum computing only can be used for factorizing numbers, but the big gain would rather be in other fields of science, such as medicine and biology where we would use QC to simulate e.g. proteins.
The link you provided questions quantum physics in general. Quantum physics is extremely well tested theory that is the foundation for all modern science och technology. It's not that no one has tried, but it has proved very difficult to provide a competing theory that explains even a small part of the known phenomena on the atomic level.
You are wrong. The most probably location is in the center. Sqrt(n) describes the spread of the end locations, i.e. corresponding to the standard deviation of the end locations.
Do people even need to take a stats course any more?
Your answer will never be a superposition. You prepare the initial steps into superpositions and then use superpositions in the calculations, but you will get a definite answer in the end. Of course you can run your computer many times and if your programming is such then you can get different answer for each run even if the inputs were the same.
There is different isotopes of Cesium too, it is just that they have chosen one specific isotope for the measurements. In that regard Cesium isn't unique at all. I don't know what you mean with the "random changes in their electron sphere radii", but I don't see how Cesium would be different from other alkali elements in that regard.
The last part of your comment is just false. There are problems that quantum computers would be able to solve that you can't solve with any practical classical computer, but the a quantum computer would be a very sensitive device, and finding ways to get around the very high error rate in a QC is a very active area of research.
I do hope that no one is suggesting that the clocks are made purely by cesium. What they do is that they measure the hyperfine splitting frequency of cesium and calibrate their clocks to make sure that the frequency they measure is exactly the value they should get according to the definition of a second in terms of the cesium hyperfine splitting frequency.
Quantum key distribution is already available commercially, see for example:
http://www.idquantique.com/
Quantum computers do still have a very long way to go before they are useful for anything else than factorizing very small numbers. The last record I heard of was 15, which was already quite a while ago, but I find it unlikely that they have managed to do any significant improvements since then.
Not really. You set the initial state and read out the final results, which is in principle straightforward. The only thing you are not allowed to do is to try to measure the state in between.
I'll explain it slowly for you. Your analogy is stupid and irrelevant. If you insist on using a car in the analogy, refueling the car would correspond to recharging the iPod, not replacing the battery. Replacing the battery would correspond to replacing e.g. the fuel tank. No buyer of a car would expect that it would be easy and cheap to replace the fuel tank.
You do know that the batteries are rechargable? Your analogy is just stupid. Car manufacturers do not claim that you can replace the fuel tank. Under normal usage the batteries degrades significantly, long after the warranty has expired anyway. I'm still using my ipod mini that's about 5 years old with the original batteries. Of course the battery doesn't last as long as when the ipod was new, but long enough for many hours of listening during the day. On the other hand, the fuel consumption of my 15 year old Camry is significantly higher today than it was when it was new.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't give a fuck what you think about how I use that space or whether you think it's wasted.
I think someone hit a nerve.
I rather have a small apartment and use money for traveling or working less instead of paying to store seldom used stuff.
Latex is still used in the academic world, but mostly by stick-in-the-mud professors that don't want to learn anything new.
When I read that sentence I seriously thought you were trolling. I'm a physicist, and everyone I know is using Latex.
Sigh! Better is still not measured in features or Gigawhatever. How about better in the sense "a device that doesn't make me in a bad mood using it"?
Preferably on a different continent, or planet.
Photons, not protons. And there is plenty of practical use of computers outside your home.
That would just have been too easy.
Quantum physics is very logical. It is just counter intuitive. That you can't understand it, doesn't mean it is illogical. Kuhn's paradigm shift did already happen. It happened with the advent of Quantum Physics. It's just that you haven't caught up yet.
I'm sorry, but you are obviously just a tiresome crackpot. You don't understand quantum physics. You don't understand superpositions or entanglement. You give up relativity and the notion of space to save what you call logic. Your post doesn't contain any substance, and I will not answer any more of them until they do.
How about the question I stated earlier: How do you explain the double slit experiments without superpositions? Your ideas aren't worth dust before you explain this simple experiment.
You are probably right for a part of the Mac buyers, but I'm quite tired of the old cliche of Mac buyers as "oh, shiny!" people. Some of us got just tired of crappy software on crappy hardware, even if people tell me that win XP is a quite decent operating system after service pack 2 or something. Writing this on my heavily used and badly worn, three year old Macbook, I definitely don't spend much money on computers, but I have a machine and an operating system that feels very current. (I do run the latest version of Mac OS X though).
Bell's inequality says, loosely speaking, that if you have locality then you must have superpositions. Most physicists thinks we have locality, otherwise information could be transmitted faster than light. If information can be transmitted faster than light, we get problems with causality and then we are in a real mess. Then you could really start to talk about counterintuitive.
The Schroedinger equation is central to quantum physics. It describes how a state evolves with time. Again, it is not something that is specific to the Copenhagen interpretation.
What do you suggest that we should replace the principle of superposition with? How do you explain the double slit experiments without superpositions?
You don't even know how to troll properly. I'm Scandinavian, and the only reason I chose to spell Cesium in this way was because that was how it was spelled in the post. When in Rome... You have now not only proved your illiteracy, but also your stupidity by your unfounded conclusions, you inbred gnome.
You are plain wrong on all accounts:
Superposition is not a part of only the Copenhagen interpretation. You obviously didn't read the Wikipedia article you link to. It doesn't even contain the word superposition.
No, no one has ever observed superposed states, since the wavefunction collapses as soon as anyone try to observe it. It is not silly guesswork. The brightest minds in modern time have failed to come up with any other explanation. Einstein was only one of them. You can not say "the property has a given state but the state can instantly change when the particle interacts with another". Read about Bell's inequality[wikipedia.org]. It has been experimentally proven that you are wrong.
We, quantum physicists, don't have a clue why the nature is not probabilistic, but we certainly care to know why. I was on a seminar yesterday were the discussion came up again for the nth time. We are though very good at describing and predicting the phenomena. It is amusing how everyone that have read or heard some popular account of quantum physics thinks they happen to be smarter than the best scientists of the last century.
The same people who think they aren't fooled still enjoy the fruits of quantum mechanics. They use the power from nuclear power plants, they use semiconductors and lasers every day. Things that wouldn't be possible without quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is very counter intuitive. Quantum mechanics is hard. It takes effort and time to understand even for the gifted. It is just sad how many people that haven't put in the effort or don't have the capacity to understand it feel free ridicule it. As Bob Dylan sang: Don't criticize what you can't understand
Oh yes. Die horrible telkom with their ridiculous prices and slow connections. The only thing I can say in their defense is that their technical support isn't totally incompetent.
Superposition of states is fundamental to quantum physics and not a part of the Copenhagen interpretation. The principle of superposition has been tested over and over again and is as far from a guess as you can come. Especially since it is counter-intuitive it has been scrutinized and tested more than most fundamental principles in science.
Most of strength isn't needed for the payload but for the weight of the cable, so you gain very little by making a smaller payload elevator.
I know that you are deliberately obtuse, but helium isn't an isotope of cesium.
D-Wave Systems is quite suspect and doesn't have much respect in the scientific community. On the other hand, Quantum Computing (QC) does rest on sound scientific principles, and in the quest for it we learn a lot. The gain if we succeed would be enormous. It is easy to get the impression that quantum computing only can be used for factorizing numbers, but the big gain would rather be in other fields of science, such as medicine and biology where we would use QC to simulate e.g. proteins.
The link you provided questions quantum physics in general. Quantum physics is extremely well tested theory that is the foundation for all modern science och technology. It's not that no one has tried, but it has proved very difficult to provide a competing theory that explains even a small part of the known phenomena on the atomic level.
You are wrong. The most probably location is in the center. Sqrt(n) describes the spread of the end locations, i.e. corresponding to the standard deviation of the end locations.
Do people even need to take a stats course any more?
Your answer will never be a superposition. You prepare the initial steps into superpositions and then use superpositions in the calculations, but you will get a definite answer in the end. Of course you can run your computer many times and if your programming is such then you can get different answer for each run even if the inputs were the same.
If you are Brit, they all are.
There is different isotopes of Cesium too, it is just that they have chosen one specific isotope for the measurements. In that regard Cesium isn't unique at all. I don't know what you mean with the "random changes in their electron sphere radii", but I don't see how Cesium would be different from other alkali elements in that regard.
The last part of your comment is just false. There are problems that quantum computers would be able to solve that you can't solve with any practical classical computer, but the a quantum computer would be a very sensitive device, and finding ways to get around the very high error rate in a QC is a very active area of research.
I do hope that no one is suggesting that the clocks are made purely by cesium. What they do is that they measure the hyperfine splitting frequency of cesium and calibrate their clocks to make sure that the frequency they measure is exactly the value they should get according to the definition of a second in terms of the cesium hyperfine splitting frequency.
Quantum key distribution is already available commercially, see for example:
http://www.idquantique.com/
Quantum computers do still have a very long way to go before they are useful for anything else than factorizing very small numbers. The last record I heard of was 15, which was already quite a while ago, but I find it unlikely that they have managed to do any significant improvements since then.
Not really. You set the initial state and read out the final results, which is in principle straightforward. The only thing you are not allowed to do is to try to measure the state in between.
I'll explain it slowly for you. Your analogy is stupid and irrelevant. If you insist on using a car in the analogy, refueling the car would correspond to recharging the iPod, not replacing the battery. Replacing the battery would correspond to replacing e.g. the fuel tank. No buyer of a car would expect that it would be easy and cheap to replace the fuel tank.
You do know that the batteries are rechargable? Your analogy is just stupid. Car manufacturers do not claim that you can replace the fuel tank. Under normal usage the batteries degrades significantly, long after the warranty has expired anyway. I'm still using my ipod mini that's about 5 years old with the original batteries. Of course the battery doesn't last as long as when the ipod was new, but long enough for many hours of listening during the day. On the other hand, the fuel consumption of my 15 year old Camry is significantly higher today than it was when it was new.