tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post6967879662838768985..comments2021-09-10T12:52:48.773-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Questioning quantum supremacyRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-28552400091396446852016-04-28T17:10:12.152-07:002016-04-28T17:10:12.152-07:00When you turn an infinity into a finite number by ...When you turn an infinity into a finite number by integral butchery, you are only off by infinity. If you don't know what your numbers are attached to, it's hard to consider your answer correct. <br /><br /> I am very much aware that younger people think renormalization is ok, but that's primarily because 1.)they were taught that it's ok, 2.) they didn't dare challange or question the dippy process for fear of ridicule in a climate of elitist snobbery, and 3.) They had to hurry on to the next piece of math to swallow and regurgitate on command for the next test. Academia is not the source of knowledge and understanding, it is the dispersion point for indoctrination and dogmatized information.<br /><br /> If you really want to understand something, never ask someone who's job is utterly dependent upon a status quo of systemised mediocrity. If you really want to understand how something works, study it as it is coming apart. CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-8733681220814863382016-04-27T16:08:11.669-07:002016-04-27T16:08:11.669-07:00Renormalization is less "dippy" than he ...Renormalization is less "dippy" than he suggests but speaking of sperm whales, Melville talked about one that was 90 feet long. However, no such giant has ever been recorded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-56802464064272184302016-04-27T14:04:41.799-07:002016-04-27T14:04:41.799-07:00Quantum smauntum. The man who helped develop the d...Quantum smauntum. The man who helped develop the damn thing knew there was something seriously wrong with it from the get go. How do we know this? Because the guy said so in one of his more lucid moments when he wasn't abusing bongo drums: <br /><br /> "The shell game that we play to find n and j is technically called renormalization. But no matter how clever the word, it is what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. .... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."<br /><br />Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/renormalization-a-dippy-process-r-feynman.235191/<br /><br /> Quantum Computing is literally nothing more than a slightly warmed over version of Douglas Adam's Infinite Improbability Drive. It basically works on the same level of required bullshit, and was also researched and funded by the government. CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-7604049104722945102016-04-27T11:43:01.258-07:002016-04-27T11:43:01.258-07:00That quote seemed to come from a lecture. I tracke...That quote seemed to come from a lecture. I tracked it down:<br /><br />"It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time [perturbative expansions with an infinite number of terms; path integrals over an infinite number of paths]. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the checkerboard with all its apparent complexities. But this is just speculation." (The Character of Physical Law, 1964 Cornell Lectures)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-67411272194188692792016-04-27T11:07:00.591-07:002016-04-27T11:07:00.591-07:00I made a few comments on his blog and included you...I made a few comments on his blog and included your 35 second explanation but I have a little treat for you. The argument about Turing complexity from Feynman has a contradictory statement from Feynman himself about math relating to physics:<br /><br />"What goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to the laws as we understand them today, takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now, how could all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky little bit of space-time is going to do?"<br />— Richard Feynman<br /><br />He was clearly skeptical that we had the right explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com