Practical infeasibility of quantum computing as conseqence of the same of quantum tomography?

Mok-Kong Shen

unread,

Nov 5, 2015, 12:50:03 PM11/5/15

to

It seems that both quantum error correction and quantum tomography are
necessary for practical realization of quantum computing, since the
hardware needs to be verified for correctness in design, manufacture
and maintenance. Is that true? If yes, then since, according to Wiki,
quantum tomography is practically infeasible for more than a few
qubits due to exponentially increase of work with the number of qubits,
the practical infeasibility of quantum computing would be a direct
consequence IMHO.

M. K. Shen

John Heath

unread,

Nov 6, 2015, 1:30:02 PM11/6/15

to

They have been trying to make a quantum computer for 20 years now. It seems to be close not never a real functional quantum computer. There is always some problem with this or that. At some point you have question quantum theory that predicts a quantum computer. Entanglement of qubits is central to a quantum computer. To this date no one has done a successful experimental proof of entanglement of two particles or photons. It is always a statistical averaging of many particles with the smoke and mirrors of 30 percent random noise to satisfy a Bell test. Maybe we should pay more attention to the finer details of a Bell test. Perhaps Dr Einstein was right when he said God does not throw dice.

FrediFizzx

unread,

Nov 6, 2015, 2:00:02 PM11/6/15

to

"John Heath" <heath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6ac5152-c4b7-4ad7...@googlegroups.com...

The D-Wave system is probably the closest they will get to quantum
computing. See the discussion at,

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=216

For Bell tests,

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=212

Bell was wrong and Einstein was right after all.

John Heath

unread,

Nov 8, 2015, 11:10:04 AM11/8/15

to

The way Grover and Shor's algorithms are being used to aid qubit result searches suggest random noise would do just as well. I do not see speed up for the D-Wave computer. I am open to examples where they have a speed advantage over conventional computers but all I can google up is fancy words about everything but the main point of speed up. I lean towards Joy Christian views on entanglement but for different reasons related to length contraction. I am free to voice my opinions but if you make your living in physics this is not always the case. Business and obligations to share holders can inhibit freedom of thought. I am not naively expecting the world to be perfect as private money is needed so compromises can be made to say thank you. But not to the point of reliving the Paul Marmet story again. That is too much of a compromise.

John Heath

unread,

Nov 8, 2015, 11:20:03 AM11/8/15

to

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:

Not sure I would go as far to say Bell was wrong. His logic was sound. It is the way test results are interpreted. A photon being length contracted to a piece of paper has only the option of a x or y polarization. However in the case of an event with a photon it is in our frame of reference not the length contracted FoR of the photon. I say this as the test equipment to do a Bell test is in out FoR so the photon must conform to our FoR in order to test its polarization. With these conditions the photon must be given full status of 3 dimension therefore 3 polarization possibilities of x y and z. To not do so would be a violation of special relativity. 3 possible polarizations changes non classical probabilities back to classical probabilities therefore the " entangled " photons fails a Bell test. When thought of this way the very notion of entanglement itself fails a Bell test when the full weight of special relativity for length contraction is taken into account.

John Heath

unread,

Dec 13, 2015, 2:00:03 PM12/13/15

to

Earth calling Mr Shen. Can you hear me out there in the cloud somewhere. Would like to discuss entropy , encryption and Diehard algorithms but you are not responding?

Mok-Kong Shen

unread,

Dec 20, 2015, 12:20:03 PM12/20/15

to

I have in the meantime quoted some IMHO remarkable passages on this
issue from a number of sources and posted that together with a few
tiny humble comments of mine at:

http://s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7457176/1/

M. K. Shen

John Heath

unread,

Dec 21, 2015, 1:40:03 PM12/21/15

to

Thank you. I could have some follow up questions later so please check this thread now and then.