tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post4272308032236249448..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Impossible or Fundamentally ImpossibleRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-8170267320061267942022-12-13T03:18:00.177-08:002022-12-13T03:18:00.177-08:00Neither you nor Scott understand the harmonic anal...Neither you nor Scott understand the harmonic analysis of Boolean functions. That where the debate is happening regarding NISQCs.MD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-61339730439487391512022-12-12T09:55:49.564-08:002022-12-12T09:55:49.564-08:00Dear Roger,
As I indicated a few days ago in a co...Dear Roger,<br /><br />As I indicated a few days ago in a comment right on this blog, no, the uncertainty principle is *not* an essential part of quantum mechanics. <br /><br />What it rests on *is*, however, an essential part of QM, namely, (i) support of the wavefunction over all space at every moment, (ii) measured states as eigenstates of a Hermitian operator, and hence, the crucial relevance of the Fourier theory. <br /><br />But people are unable to separate out this *base* from the ``uncertainty of knowledge'' etc. sort of bullshit. The latter is emphatically not even a non-essential part of QM, let alone an essential part of it. <br /><br />Any one who believes the latter is plain in the wrong, and any professor or pop-sci writer who doesn't isolate these two parts apart (the base and the unwarranted irrationality) is careless, to say the least.<br /><br />---<br /><br />About the QC and ``fred'' # 166 on Scott's blog:<br /><br />He says:<br />> ``There’s nothing in the basic laws of physics explicitly saying that you can’t build a stable stack of quarters from here all the way up to the edge of space.''<br /><br />Well, there is. Forget arbitrarily big height, even for a much smaller height (may be, like, a few km, perhaps even just a few hundred m), there would be issues. On principle. An explicit principle. <br /><br />The operative word is ``stable.'' So, you've to ask: Stable, against what? The universe is not static. It's dynamic --- there is time (in the universe). Even if you take care of all the *external* destabilizing factors, there still are the motions of the elementary particles inside each object (like a quarter). They would make not only maintaining stability impossible, but also just placing the actual quarters perfectly on top of each other. It would require controlling ~10^{20} initial conditions per quarter. <br /><br />And, controlling even just the ICs becomes important because of an explicit principle: SDIC (sensitive dependence on initial conditions).<br /><br />Counter-point: Chaotic systems too can maintain stability. Here are a couple of posts I wrote at my blog that are relevant:<br /><br />“Fundamental Chaos; Stable World”, August 2019. [ https://ajitjadhav.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/fundamental-chaos-stable-world/ ]<br /><br />“Determinism, Indeterminism, Probability, and the nature of the laws of physics—a second take…”, May 2019 [ https://ajitjadhav.wordpress.com/2019/05/01/determinism-indeterminism-probability-and-the-nature-of-the-laws-of-physics-a-second-take/ ] <br /><br />Application of the counter-point in the case of quarters: Friction at the macro-scale (van der Waal's at the micro, and bonding and tunnelling at even smaller scales) will provide the stabilizing influence.<br /><br />Overall: The principle (SDIC) is very broad, not sufficiently well studied: there is not a single model system which can be of a direct relevance to my iqWaves theory for example; and indeed, even for many systems that have been studied, all the dynamical regimes still aren't well isolated. Therefore, application of SDIC must proceed very contextually and carefully, on a case-to-case basis.<br /><br />As to the QC: As I've mentioned many times (including at Scott's blog): When it comes to the QC, I am a skeptic, albeit a soft skeptic. I don't think they are going to be able to build a *scalable* QC (one which breaks RSA, or even a much smaller QC) in any foreseeable future. ... May be they should take a course or two on mechanical vibrations *and* control (including through mechatronics). They would realize just how hard controlling any dynamical system is, especially one that involves vibrations. But anyway, to conclude, as far as I am concerned, it's *their* money...<br /><br />Best,<br />--Ajit<br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttps://AjitJadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-19226653403694054582022-12-12T08:27:06.971-08:002022-12-12T08:27:06.971-08:00I find this little bit hilarious:
"It also g...I find this little bit hilarious:<br /><br />"It also goes the other way: a hundred years ago, it would have seem impossible (given the technology of the day, but given pretty much the same laws of physics) to build a gravitational wave detector that could measure changes in distance around 1/10,000th of the diameter of a proton, between two mirrors separated by 4km. "<br /><br /> You can't. Anymore than you can measure cosmic dust polarized by the big bang over 14 billion years ago. LIGO is complete and utter bullshit. You can't measure (meaning with instrumentation AND/OR fancy publicity hyped interferometry) something magnitudes smaller than the diameter of a proton between two mirrors separated by 4km on the surface of the Earth. I know all about the CLAIMS that LIGO made, but I also know the very mirrors themselves, and every single atom of structure (the building, the earth, and attendant billions of people surrounding said structure) in between the two sensors is vibrating far more and at much closer range than the (entirely imagined and thus fabricated) signal they were supposedly looking for. Whatever the hyped claims, the signal to noise ratio is so astronomically absurd that even if they actually could screen out all possible extraneous sources (which they simply can't, and they even publicly admitted they had to stop walking around their own facility while testing or it could compromise their little 'test') and get past the wee bitty problem of 'space vibrating' (it can't even according to Einstein, curved space exists only as static geometry in a mathematical block universe that doesn't move and can't accommodate things that do move).<br /><br /> In addition, would anyone like to calculate the comfortable odds of such a hypothetical detection the moment you turned the stupid thing on? Like really? What do you think those odds are? So much for remotely intelligent skepticism at Cal Tech.<br /><br />I also notice LIGO has been fairly quiet for quite some time (years). Where are all these miraculous gravity detections that were going to 'revolutionize' astronomy? The only thing LIGO actually found was even more funding.CFTnoreply@blogger.com