Counterfactual computation

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 17:15:29 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 11:41:40 +0200) it happened
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in
qc8e8j$b2t$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

My attention was drawn (by George, thanks!) to Kwiat's web page
below:

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/#single-photon-sources


I found a paragraph about "Counterfactual Computation" in there,
near the end. I cite: "... one can perform a measurement on a
quantum computer and obtain information about the solution to a
problem without the computer actually running". It's not even a
first-of-April article and they even managed to get it published
in Nature.

I suppose that if it doesn't need to be run, it doesn't need to
exist at all. Their funding money can be cut, too.

Jeroen Belleman

It is not the only weird statement I have come across about
'quantum'.

Well as long as we 'photon', 'spooky action at a distance', 'more
or less dead cats', and have supper and positions, OK I have
stated in an other group that it feels to me like a big hoax.
[...]

I'd agree, to a point. Classical physics works fine for light,
except for its interaction with matter. I'd like to see a
classical derivation of h.

The argument with the cats seems to deny that all quantum
effects are only detectable by statistics.

Jeroen Belleman

Whether an atom bomb detonates or not is a matter of quantum
statistics, which makes it a fairly macro event. Some got un/lucky
that way and didn't go off.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Johnny B Good]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 10:15:36 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

====snip====

Neural nets we are, are funny things, and if QM holds true I am sure
nature is already using it.

Professor Jim Al-Khalili is convinced that our sense of smell relies
heavily on it, as does the European Robin for its sense of the Earth's
magnetic field and the frog for its ability to have metamorphosed from
the tadpole stage into its adult form as he explained in the second of a
two episode TV documentary entitled "The Secrets of Quantum Physics" sub-
titled, "Let There Be Life".

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v85cj>

--
Johnny B Good

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 13:10:52 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
<nrjgeetd0vkcfud0u3ll41hft3kaj3csud@4ax.com>:

Do they tunnel or something?
Yeah, well that's the story I heard. Low voltage zeners are heavy doped
and you get tunneling with reverse bias.

GH

Sounds reasonable. A tunnel diode is basically a
less-than-zero-voltage zener.

No
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 07:38:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 13:10:52 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
nrjgeetd0vkcfud0u3ll41hft3kaj3csud@4ax.com>:

Do they tunnel or something?
Yeah, well that's the story I heard. Low voltage zeners are heavy doped
and you get tunneling with reverse bias.

GH

Sounds reasonable. A tunnel diode is basically a
less-than-zero-voltage zener.

No
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode

Read the Technical Comparisons section. About what I said.

But you think QM is a hoax, so tunnel diodes don't exist.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 07:26:29 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
<pvjieel9mltir5u83hnaj63o4thdbjkt7b@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 07:38:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 13:10:52 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
nrjgeetd0vkcfud0u3ll41hft3kaj3csud@4ax.com>:

Do they tunnel or something?
Yeah, well that's the story I heard. Low voltage zeners are heavy doped
and you get tunneling with reverse bias.

GH

Sounds reasonable. A tunnel diode is basically a
less-than-zero-voltage zener.

No
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode

Read the Technical Comparisons section. About what I said.

But you think QM is a hoax, so tunnel diodes don't exist.

Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls falling from a specific height go through.
You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes.
That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls.
In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls it is all normal no magic.
No QM needed.

I have worked with tunnel diodes, these exist.
I have not worked with cats that were both alive and dead.
If you do not - cannot think of such a mechanical device I will draw one on paper with green pen on white for you.
You should really read up on physics and what happend in that Copenhagen event and the alternatives that were presented to QM.

In this world mathemagicians like to take credit for everything, including but not limited to string theory and multi-verses and what not.
I am more an experimentalist.
Neural nets like me (probably you too) have a different sort of math.
That is why the ball player can catch a ball without the barriers the mathemagician
puts up who needs a lot of equations, wind speed - and direction sensor, 3D vision system, air pressure, weight of ball, gravitational constant, what not
and especially on top of all: TIME.

Time is an interesting thing, the granularity of time is an other interesting thing, you who works with pick-a-second pulses.
You were in that oval office, you should have stayed there, and prevented so many wars perhaps.
Now there is an idiot there who is into triggering a world war and does not even know he is played by a bunch of religious fanatic idiots the republicans.

OK, my view.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 14:44:59 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 07:26:29 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
pvjieel9mltir5u83hnaj63o4thdbjkt7b@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 07:38:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 13:10:52 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
nrjgeetd0vkcfud0u3ll41hft3kaj3csud@4ax.com>:

Do they tunnel or something?
Yeah, well that's the story I heard. Low voltage zeners are heavy doped
and you get tunneling with reverse bias.

GH

Sounds reasonable. A tunnel diode is basically a
less-than-zero-voltage zener.

No
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode

Read the Technical Comparisons section. About what I said.

But you think QM is a hoax, so tunnel diodes don't exist.

Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls falling from a specific height go through.
You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes.
That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls.
In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls it is all normal no magic.
No QM needed.

OK, now make a ball disappear from one side of a brick wall and appear
instantly on the other side.

I have worked with tunnel diodes, these exist.
I have not worked with cats that were both alive and dead.
If you do not - cannot think of such a mechanical device I will draw one on paper with green pen on white for you.
You should really read up on physics and what happend in that Copenhagen event and the alternatives that were presented to QM.

In this world mathemagicians like to take credit for everything, including but not limited to string theory and multi-verses and what not.
I am more an experimentalist.
Neural nets like me (probably you too) have a different sort of math.

I believe that consciousness and creativity are precisely QM effects.
But that's just me.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-05-25 21:21, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 14:44:59 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 07:26:29 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
pvjieel9mltir5u83hnaj63o4thdbjkt7b@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 07:38:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 13:10:52 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
nrjgeetd0vkcfud0u3ll41hft3kaj3csud@4ax.com>:

Do they tunnel or something?
Yeah, well that's the story I heard. Low voltage zeners are heavy doped
and you get tunneling with reverse bias.

GH

Sounds reasonable. A tunnel diode is basically a
less-than-zero-voltage zener.

No
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode

Read the Technical Comparisons section. About what I said.

But you think QM is a hoax, so tunnel diodes don't exist.

Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls falling from a specific height go through.
You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes.
That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls.
In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls it is all normal no magic.
No QM needed.


OK, now make a ball disappear from one side of a brick wall and appear
instantly on the other side.

Show us where it says so and we'll try to shoot it down.
These faster-than-light tunnel stories are just dumbed-down
nonsense.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 5:22:08 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 14:44:59 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 07:26:29 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
pvjieel9mltir5u83hnaj63o4thdbjkt7b@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 25 May 2019 07:38:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 13:10:52 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
nrjgeetd0vkcfud0u3ll41hft3kaj3csud@4ax.com>:

<snip>

I believe that consciousness and creativity are precisely QM effects.
But that's just me.

Who also believes what he reads on climate change denial web-sites and in creationist (intelligent design) propaganda.

Merely gullible John Larkin, rather than just John Larkin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 12:21:59 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
<v75jee9aeibi66qk2f0ldcrqna8180mtsr@4ax.com>:

pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls falling from a specific height go through.
You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes.
That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls.
In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls it is all normal no magic.
No QM needed.


OK, now make a ball disappear from one side of a brick wall and appear
instantly on the other side.

That is not what is happening AFAIK in a tunnel diode,
'instantly' would violate a lot of physical laws, for example it would be FTL,
Einstein would roll over.

I have worked with tunnel diodes, these exist.
I have not worked with cats that were both alive and dead.
If you do not - cannot think of such a mechanical device I will draw one on paper with green pen on white for you.
You should really read up on physics and what happend in that Copenhagen event and the alternatives that were presented to QM.

In this world mathemagicians like to take credit for everything, including but not limited to string theory and multi-verses
and what not.
I am more an experimentalist.
Neural nets like me (probably you too) have a different sort of math.

I believe that consciousness and creativity are precisely QM effects.
But that's just me.

You may well be right, I do believe everything is connected,
every electron is affected by every other electron in the known universe,
we do know that.
There goes free will, we are all part of the same cosmic process, whatever that is.

My opinion on photon is that it is just a mathematical model.

In an ocean with waves I look at the electron orbiting in an atom
as a pole with a ball (the electron) on a wire.
Only when the wave pattern is just right will the ball be swept lose from the pole.
An electron escapes in the PMT, is then accelerated and multiplied,
and the physicist then cries: 'PHOTON detected'.
As if that wave pattern was not there.

Mathematically wave patterns can lead to freak waves, huge waves, superposition
of waves can lead to incredible huge waves that can do unexpected things.
And everything in this universe (ocean) creates waves,
What the ocean is made of? fishysicks talk often about virtual particles popping in and out of existence these days,
De Broglie pilot wave theory, if particles are wave patterns than the freak waves can turn into / are particles..
I am to some large extent with De Broglie.
His theory was one of those proposed in that Copenhagen event, the dead and alive cat theory won the lottery.
........

There but for fortune...

Wonder a thousand years from now, earth wind and fire was the basic elements long ago,
and it was dare not argue with that!

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 1:25:15 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 12:21:59 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
v75jee9aeibi66qk2f0ldcrqna8180mtsr@4ax.com>:

pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls falling from a specific height go through.
You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes.
That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls.
In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls it is all normal no magic.
No QM needed.


OK, now make a ball disappear from one side of a brick wall and appear
instantly on the other side.


That is not what is happening AFAIK in a tunnel diode,
'instantly' would violate a lot of physical laws, for example it would be FTL,
Einstein would roll over.

Of course you would focus on that rather than the point he is trying to make that the electron will tunnel through the barrier it should not be able to cross. While the electron can and will do this, the ball will not, making your claim invalid.

I have worked with tunnel diodes, these exist.
I have not worked with cats that were both alive and dead.
If you do not - cannot think of such a mechanical device I will draw one on paper with green pen on white for you.
You should really read up on physics and what happend in that Copenhagen event and the alternatives that were presented to QM.

In this world mathemagicians like to take credit for everything, including but not limited to string theory and multi-verses
and what not.
I am more an experimentalist.
Neural nets like me (probably you too) have a different sort of math.

I believe that consciousness and creativity are precisely QM effects.
But that's just me.

You may well be right, I do believe everything is connected,
every electron is affected by every other electron in the known universe,
we do know that.
There goes free will, we are all part of the same cosmic process, whatever that is.

"Being connected" and being connected in some meaningful way are two different things.

No one knows what consciousness is and free will is part of that. So it is pointless to discuss free will until we understand what consciousness is.


> My opinion on photon is that it is just a mathematical model.

Of what exactly? All science is just mathematical models. It's not like nature has any appreciation of our limited ability to understand.

In an ocean with waves I look at the electron orbiting in an atom
as a pole with a ball (the electron) on a wire.
Only when the wave pattern is just right will the ball be swept lose from the pole.

"Just right". Sounds vague enough to be something JL says.

An electron escapes in the PMT, is then accelerated and multiplied,
and the physicist then cries: 'PHOTON detected'.
As if that wave pattern was not there.

So please explain the nature of the "just right" wave pattern that fits the facts.

Mathematically wave patterns can lead to freak waves, huge waves, superposition
of waves can lead to incredible huge waves that can do unexpected things.
And everything in this universe (ocean) creates waves,
What the ocean is made of? fishysicks talk often about virtual particles popping in and out of existence these days,
De Broglie pilot wave theory, if particles are wave patterns than the freak waves can turn into / are particles..
I am to some large extent with De Broglie.
His theory was one of those proposed in that Copenhagen event, the dead and alive cat theory won the lottery.

So in your mind particles are waves, but waves can't be particles???

There but for fortune...

Wonder a thousand years from now, earth wind and fire was the basic elements long ago,
and it was dare not argue with that!

Don't forget water!

The big difference was a thousand years ago they didn't believe scientists, aka gentlemen, should experiment. Science is something obvious they should be able to figure out by simply thinking about it. Once we started actually doing experiments to answer questions, science took off and has been accelerating ever since. Forget how things will be different in a thousand years. Expect things to be dramatically different in 100 years... other than politics.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Martin Brown]

On 24/05/2019 17:23, George Herold wrote:

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:00:31 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 5:41:46 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
My attention was drawn (by George, thanks!) to Kwiat's web
page below:

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/#single-photon-sources

I found a paragraph about "Counterfactual Computation" in there,
near the end. I cite: "... one can perform a measurement on a
quantum computer and obtain information about the solution to a
problem without the computer actually running". It's not even a
first-of-April article and they even managed to get it published
in Nature.
I'm not sure, but if you really cared you might write and ask.
I barely understand any of this stuff.. (non-linear optics and
fancy x-tals.)

I don't care enough, maybe. The usual answer is 'shut up and
calculate', and indeed that works. What I have an issue with
is the unnecessary mysticism surrounding it all.

I don't think the mysticism is entirely unjustified. It is decidedly
hard to interpret how Bell's inequality holds without some difficulty.
I would find it unacceptable to have non-local variables with FTL
communication as a get out of jail free card for "explaining" QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Original_Bell's_inequality

When we have a more complete theory it may be obvious how entanglement
actually works in detail, but at the moment it looks a bit worryingly
like Newton's classical gravity acting at a distance with infinte speed.

Yeah I can't really help that. Conceptually, it's not all that different
than doing double slit interference 'one photon at a time'.
Which is still kinda 'mysterious' to me.

In a handwaving sort of way you can visualise it as the particle
exploring all possible paths available to it. This happens to result in
the path of shortest time being the central white light fringe and path
differences of a few wavelengths having peaks of probability too.

The problem is that you cannot know which slot your photon went through
if you want to see the interference pattern.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 23:14:29 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<d2ff9b04-e54b-417a-91a7-a0d14419a3ab@googlegroups.com>:

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 1:25:15 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 12:21:59 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
v75jee9aeibi66qk2f0ldcrqna8180mtsr@4ax.com>:

pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls
falling from a specific height go through.
You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes.
That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls.
In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls
it is all normal no magic.
No QM needed.


OK, now make a ball disappear from one side of a brick wall and appear
instantly on the other side.


That is not what is happening AFAIK in a tunnel diode,
'instantly' would violate a lot of physical laws, for example it would be
FTL,
Einstein would roll over.

Of course you would focus on that rather than the point he is trying to make
that the electron will tunnel through the barrier it should not be able to
cross. While the electron can and will do this, the ball will not, making
your claim invalid.

He was not making any point but threw up some wrong dogmatic statement.
That 'barrier' only exists in the QM interpretation of things,

Neural nets like me (probably you too) have a different sort of math.

I believe that consciousness and creativity are precisely QM effects.
But that's just me.

You may well be right, I do believe everything is connected,
every electron is affected by every other electron in the known universe,
we do know that.
There goes free will, we are all part of the same cosmic process, whatever
that is.

"Being connected" and being connected in some meaningful way are two different
things.

You miss the point.
What you call meaningful is part of the self centered subnet needed for the subsystem called humming bean,
also sometimes referred to as human being, to maintain itself.
If it even can be viewed that way, it is just a knot in the wave pattern.

No one knows what consciousness is and free will is part of that. So it is
pointless to discuss free will until we understand what consciousness is.

consciousness is simple.
If you drop the mystification and 'I think so I am' crap (Descartes),
then look at a a light shade with a photocell system.
It (that system) is conscious of light,
Period.
It is not conscious of itself, but we can easily fix that by adding a micro and speech synthesizer that says:
"Hi I can see clearly now now" (if light), and "Cannot see a d*mned thing" if dark.

As simple as that.

My opinion on photon is that it is just a mathematical model.

Of what exactly? All science is just mathematical models. It's not like nature
has any appreciation of our limited ability to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

In an ocean with waves I look at the electron orbiting in an atom
as a pole with a ball (the electron) on a wire.
Only when the wave pattern is just right will the ball be swept lose from
the pole.

"Just right". Sounds vague enough to be something JL says.

Resonances, try looking at water and objects and wave patterns in it,
everything that moves in that water causes a ripple (look at surface for simplicity)
The ripples add, superposition.
NOT a specific frequency but the SUM of all that exists (is) at any given point is what affects the electron
at that point (point if you look at electron as a point charge).
The frequency of the wave at that point and its amplitude and direction is set by the rest of the universe (what happened in that pond of water).
If that wave at that point has the right properties then and only then the electron is knocked loose in that PMT
and 'photon' is cried.

This is very important to see.

An electron escapes in the PMT, is then accelerated and multiplied,
and the physicist then cries: 'PHOTON detected'.
As if that wave pattern was not there.

So please explain the nature of the "just right" wave pattern that fits the
facts.


Mathematically wave patterns can lead to freak waves, huge waves, superposition

of waves can lead to incredible huge waves that can do unexpected things.
And everything in this universe (ocean) creates waves,
What the ocean is made of? fishysicks talk often about virtual particles popping
in and out of existence these days,
De Broglie pilot wave theory, if particles are wave patterns than the freak
waves can turn into / are particles..
I am to some large extent with De Broglie.
His theory was one of those proposed in that Copenhagen event, the dead and
alive cat theory won the lottery.

So in your mind particles are waves, but waves can't be particles???

Read again,
I just stated that the 'popping in an out of existence' virtual particles are like (and are) freak waves.

There but for fortune...

Wonder a thousand years from now, earth wind and fire was the basic elements
long ago,
and it was dare not argue with that!

Don't forget water!

Indeed.

The big difference was a thousand years ago they didn't believe scientists,
aka gentlemen, should experiment.

I don't know, Archimedes was such an experimenter,
but religions, sun orbiting the earth, earth at center of universe, inquisitions, witch burning, etc
was not helping.

Science is something obvious they should
be able to figure out by simply thinking about it. Once we started actually
doing experiments to answer questions, science took off and has been accelerating
ever since. Forget how things will be different in a thousand years.
Expect things to be dramatically different in 100 years... other than
politics.

In history there seem to be sort of ripples too,
from nothing to iron age, then thousands of years same, then few hundred years ago 'trickety,
steam engine, radio, and likely total destruction and religion again in the next (global war)
then archaeologists will dig up stuff thousands of years later
WoW! those guys made micro-circuits, how did that do that with the simple tools
of those days, like we now wonder about the pyramids.

Or we just go extinct and the mosquitos win.
Those will live from smaller animals.
Or a totally new advanced species will rule...
Us being able to make tools is not so different from crows (those do that too).
The best equipped species for the environment will live,.
If humming beans do not make it to other solar systems we will go extinct anyways when the sun engulfs the planets in it final burning stage.



So...
again, we are all just a subsection of nature.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 26/05/2019 06:24, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 12:21:59 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
v75jee9aeibi66qk2f0ldcrqna8180mtsr@4ax.com>:

pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls falling from a specific height go through.
You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes.
That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls.
In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls it is all normal no magic.
No QM needed.


OK, now make a ball disappear from one side of a brick wall and appear
instantly on the other side.


That is not what is happening AFAIK in a tunnel diode,
'instantly' would violate a lot of physical laws, for example it would be FTL,
Einstein would roll over.

But there is no classical equivalent for this or for Josephson junctions
or SQUIDs. I was always impressed by the staircase current vs voltage
waveform of a JJ in a magnetic field as the flux linked was increased.

I have worked with tunnel diodes, these exist.
I have not worked with cats that were both alive and dead.
If you do not - cannot think of such a mechanical device I will draw one on paper with green pen on white for you.
You should really read up on physics and what happend in that Copenhagen event and the alternatives that were presented to QM.

In this world mathemagicians like to take credit for everything, including but not limited to string theory and multi-verses
and what not.
I am more an experimentalist.
Neural nets like me (probably you too) have a different sort of math.

I believe that consciousness and creativity are precisely QM effects.
But that's just me.

You may well be right, I do believe everything is connected,
every electron is affected by every other electron in the known universe,
we do know that.
There goes free will, we are all part of the same cosmic process, whatever that is.

Inverse square laws never go quite to zero but they do get very small.

The influence of gravity reaches a lot further than electrostatic charge
because it is always attractive. Charge separation is uncommon in nature
- most things are electrically neutral.

My opinion on photon is that it is just a mathematical model.

All of physics is a mathematical model. And QM works to predict
diffraction patterns for photons and for silver ions or buckeyballs. The
problem for heavier objects is getting the momentum right to have a long
enough wavelength to diffract off physical structures.

In an ocean with waves I look at the electron orbiting in an atom
as a pole with a ball (the electron) on a wire.
Only when the wave pattern is just right will the ball be swept lose from the pole.
An electron escapes in the PMT, is then accelerated and multiplied,
and the physicist then cries: 'PHOTON detected'.
As if that wave pattern was not there.

A photon is in a very real sense a pattern of electromagnetic waves with
a long enough temporal extent to have a defined frequency and error. It
is a tenet of time vs frequency that something compact in one domain is
broad in the other. A photons properties must be a compromise.

Gaussian distributions give you reasonably nice properties in both
domains. But there are other shapes that are possibilities.

Mathematically wave patterns can lead to freak waves, huge waves, superposition
of waves can lead to incredible huge waves that can do unexpected things.
And everything in this universe (ocean) creates waves,
What the ocean is made of? fishysicks talk often about virtual particles popping in and out of existence these days,
De Broglie pilot wave theory, if particles are wave patterns than the freak waves can turn into / are particles..
I am to some large extent with De Broglie.
His theory was one of those proposed in that Copenhagen event, the dead and alive cat theory won the lottery.
.......

There but for fortune...

Virtual particle effects have been measured in the lab - see Casimir effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Wonder a thousand years from now, earth wind and fire was the basic elements long ago,
and it was dare not argue with that!

Any new theory has to include what we know now and explain all of the
experimental observations to date. If there is a more complete theory
then it will reduce to present day physics like QM, QCD and GR in the
weak field limiting case. It may also be rather unweidly for normal use.

Nobody bothers to do GR corrections for car braking systems today.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-05-26 10:39, Martin Brown wrote:

On 24/05/2019 17:23, George Herold wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:00:31 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 5:41:46 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
My attention was drawn (by George, thanks!) to Kwiat's web
page below:

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/#single-photon-sources


I found a paragraph about "Counterfactual Computation" in there,
near the end. I cite: "... one can perform a measurement on a
quantum computer and obtain information about the solution to a
problem without the computer actually running". It's not even a
first-of-April article and they even managed to get it published
in Nature.
I'm not sure, but if you really cared you might write and ask.
I barely understand any of this stuff.. (non-linear optics and
fancy x-tals.)

I don't care enough, maybe. The usual answer is 'shut up and
calculate', and indeed that works. What I have an issue with
is the unnecessary mysticism surrounding it all.

I don't think the mysticism is entirely unjustified. It is decidedly
hard to interpret how Bell's inequality holds without some difficulty.
I would find it unacceptable to have non-local variables with FTL
communication as a get out of jail free card for "explaining" QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Original_Bell's_inequality

When we have a more complete theory it may be obvious how entanglement
actually works in detail, but at the moment it looks a bit worryingly
like Newton's classical gravity acting at a distance with infinte speed.

Entanglement means that some aggregate property of an EM signal is
conserved across conversions. The LO and IF in a super-heterodyne
receiver are entangled, because you can reconstruct the original
RF by mixing them together again. This is precisely what Zeilinger
did with light in his article "Imaging with undetected photons".

Yeah I can't really help that. Conceptually, it's not all that different
than doing double slit interference 'one photon at a time'.
Which is still kinda 'mysterious' to me.

In a handwaving sort of way you can visualise it as the particle
exploring all possible paths available to it. This happens to result in
the path of shortest time being the central white light fringe and path
differences of a few wavelengths having peaks of probability too.

Particles don't follow multiple paths at once. Waves do. Photons aren't
particles, they are quantized interactions between matter and EM waves.
There is no such thing as a discrete photon in transit. There will never
be a pea-shooter for single photons at determined instants.

The problem is that you cannot know which slot your photon went through
if you want to see the interference pattern.

That's not a problem. Interference is a fundamental property of waves.

Jeroen Belleman

 

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 11:41:46 PM UTC-10, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

My attention was drawn (by George, thanks!) to Kwiat's web
page below:

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/#single-photon-sources

I found a paragraph about "Counterfactual Computation" in there,
near the end. I cite: "... one can perform a measurement on a
quantum computer and obtain information about the solution to a
problem without the computer actually running". It's not even a
first-of-April article and they even managed to get it published
in Nature.

I suppose that if it doesn't need to be run, it doesn't need to
exist at all. Their funding money can be cut, too.

Jeroen Belleman

Hi Jeroen,
My comments on quantum ideas in this thread:

1 There are several ways to describe each phenomenon.

2 Quantum mechanics uses partial truths and wrong ideas.

3 A quantum computer made of an element computes self-serving
results, not general answers about cryptography, as an example.

4 Electrons use 2 space dimensions and one time like dimension
to be owned by one proton. That is a bond.

5 Electrons exclude other 2 dimensional bonds to foreign protons.

6 The flat bonds stack with no thickness for superconductivity.
Ohm = cycles of unpairing and pairing PER SECOND.
Ohm = per second. Mobility is seconds per cycle of unpairing
and pairing. Mobility = second = 1/R. Superconductors have
no unpairings of an electron and a proton as the current goes in
circles of the circuit. The bond is not broken. One electron
stays paired with the same proton, even for a meter long circuit.

7 Quantum theory is now being replaced. A deterministic theory
of which electron is paired with which proton will be seen.

8 Entanglement of 2 photons is due to the molecular bonds near
each other that emit the photons.

9 Molecular bonds have units of measure: velocity. So
the index of refraction is explained.

10 BBO Barium Boron Oxygen light frequency conversion can be
emulated by a non-linear circuit element, like a diode. Input
a 1MHz voltage signal to a diode to forward bias it. The
harmonics in the output current will not be only 1 MHz.
A set of filters and rectifiers will deliver a low frequency
that can be used in more stages to tailor the spectrum output.

 

[delo]

I suppose that if it doesn't need to be run, it doesn't need to
exist at all. Their funding money can be cut, too.

Jeroen Belleman

IMHO (albeit I agree with You) You made a classical assumption,
quantum computer must be quantistically evaluated.

delo

 

[Martin Brown]

On 26/05/2019 19:44, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2019-05-26 10:39, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/05/2019 17:23, George Herold wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:00:31 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 5:41:46 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
My attention was drawn (by George, thanks!) to Kwiat's web
page below:

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/#single-photon-sources



I found a paragraph about "Counterfactual Computation" in there,
near the end. I cite:  "... one can perform a measurement on a
quantum computer and obtain information about the solution to a
problem without the computer actually running". It's not even a
first-of-April article and they even managed to get it published
in Nature.
I'm not sure, but if you really cared you might write and ask.
I barely understand any of this stuff.. (non-linear optics and
fancy x-tals.)

I don't care enough, maybe. The usual answer is 'shut up and
calculate', and indeed that works. What I have an issue with
is the unnecessary mysticism surrounding it all.

I don't think the mysticism is entirely unjustified. It is decidedly
hard to interpret how Bell's inequality holds without some difficulty.
I would find it unacceptable to have non-local variables with FTL
communication as a get out of jail free card for "explaining" QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Original_Bell's_inequality

When we have a more complete theory it may be obvious how entanglement
actually works in detail, but at the moment it looks a bit worryingly
like Newton's classical gravity acting at a distance with infinte speed.

Entanglement means that some aggregate property of an EM signal is
conserved across conversions. The LO and IF in a super-heterodyne
receiver are entangled, because you can reconstruct the original
RF by mixing them together again. This is precisely what Zeilinger
did with light in his article "Imaging with undetected photons".


Yeah I can't really help that.  Conceptually, it's not all that
different
than doing double slit interference 'one photon at a time'.
Which is still kinda 'mysterious' to me.

In a handwaving sort of way you can visualise it as the particle
exploring all possible paths available to it. This happens to result in
the path of shortest time being the central white light fringe and path
differences of a few wavelengths having peaks of probability too.

Particles don't follow multiple paths at once. Waves do. Photons aren't
particles, they are quantized interactions between matter and EM waves.
There is no such thing as a discrete photon in transit. There will never
be a pea-shooter for single photons at determined instants.

Yes there is. And it has been done many times. With a suitably dense
filter and a monochromatic source you can do Young's slit experiment so
that there is never more than one photon in the apparatus at a time. It
became a lot easier to demonstrate once Boksenberg's Image Photon
Counting System became available which does what it says on the tin. It
has even been done in real time at one of the RI Christmas Lectures.

The problem with that is that electrons and neutrons *are* usually
thought of as particles and they show wave diffraction effects too. So
do silver ions and buckeyballs when their momentum is just right to have
a wavelength suitable for being diffracted. The wave-particle duality is
just that - the quantum mechanical wave model provides the mathematics
for figuring out where you might detect a photon (or other particle).


eg
https://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/c60/

The problem is that you cannot know which slot your photon went through
if you want to see the interference pattern.


That's not a problem. Interference is a fundamental property of waves.

It is the fundamental problem. Particles can behave like waves too!

There are a couple of interesting quirks for the wavefunction though.
The probability envelope for a photon (or particle) in transit must be
exactly zero for all regions ahead of its starting point+ct which means
that a symmetric Gaussian distribution just will not do.

Various authors have tried to find a bridge between the quantum world
and field theory by extending the mathematics to include photon
propagation. I am inclined to think this one is barking up approximately
the right tree:

http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/APPPwf.pdf

I will freely admit that I find it hard to imagine what a single photon
for a longwave transmission at 200kHz must look like. We generally make
rather a lot of them in coherent radio transmissions. Each individual
one carries very little energy on its own.

To have a frequency defined to 6 sig fig its linear extent must be of
the order of a million wavelengths. Likewise for the neutral hydrogen
line at 1420MHz except that frequency is accurate to about 13 decimal
digits (and even then perhaps limited by our experimental technique).
21cm x 10^13 = 2 x 10^9 km.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Chris Jones]

On 25/05/2019 01:03, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2019 10:15:36 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 11:41:40 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <qc8e8j$b2t$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

My attention was drawn (by George, thanks!) to Kwiat's web
page below:

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/#single-photon-sources

I found a paragraph about "Counterfactual Computation" in there,
near the end. I cite: "... one can perform a measurement on a
quantum computer and obtain information about the solution to a
problem without the computer actually running". It's not even a
first-of-April article and they even managed to get it published
in Nature.

I suppose that if it doesn't need to be run, it doesn't need to
exist at all. Their funding money can be cut, too.

Jeroen Belleman

It is not the only weird statement I have come across about 'quantum'.

Well as long as we 'photon', 'spooky action at a distance', 'more or less dead cats',
and have supper and positions, OK I have stated in an other group that it feels to me
like a big hoax.

Unbreakable encryptions, sometimes I wonder..
maybe it is me not understanding something basic,
but in my not so humble opinion things went already wrong with the Copenhagen conference.
Copenhagen Interpretation.

I have given this joke several times, regarding the math working out,
this was in 2013:
quote
QM is and always will be mathematical probabilities.
It has nothing to do with reality.

Three scientist, after working on QED for years,
where admitted to the mad house.
One day, after years of treatment, doctor decided to test if they were ready
to be let lose in society again.
He called them into his office, asked a few simple questions:
He asked the first one: "How much is 3 + 5?"
"August" answered the first one.
The doctor replied, "Wrong, you have to stay a bit longer."

Then he asked the second one: "How much is 15 + 4?"
"January" was the reply.
"Wrong", doctor said, "You have to stay a bit longer too."

Finally he asked the last one: "How much is 4 x 7?"
"28" the third one replied.
"Correct", the doctor said, "You are cured, you can leave.".

While guiding the third one out of the gate of the madhouse, doctor had some doubts.
"How did you arrive at that number 28 he asked?"

"Simple", answered the third one, "I multiplied August with January".

And there, but for fortune, go today's scientists.
end quote
----

Now maybe it is not so bad, but I do not see a kwantuum computah in the local shop.
Almost like the 100% better battery system that is invented every few weeks,
x^n would now have NY powered from a battery the size of a sugar cube.

OTOH
If you knew how that QM computah works, and IF you know the errors, then
you can say without running it what the problem is!

Neural nets we are, are funny things, and if QM holds true I am sure
nature is already using it.

From an other perspective, every electron in the know universe is feeling the effect of every other electron,
that is how radio works for example.
It is all about resonances, and what is working?
Maybe that kwantuum computah could be exited by merely thinking about it (neurons jiggle electrons too).
But I still would like one for sale in the shop to play with...


disclaimer
eeeehhh
end disclaimer

Tunnel diodes are cool. Electrons can't overcome the potential
barrier, so they just appear on the other side.

I miss tunnel diodes.

Meh. I think they are the reason why none of my Tek 475s will trigger
properly any more, so I'm not so fond of them.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/05/2019 19:44, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2019-05-26 10:39, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/05/2019 17:23, George Herold wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:00:31 AM UTC-4, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 5:41:46 AM UTC-4, Jeroen
Belleman wrote:
My attention was drawn (by George, thanks!) to Kwiat's
web page below:

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/research/#single-photon-sources




I found a paragraph about "Counterfactual Computation"
in there, near the end. I cite: "... one can perform
a measurement on a quantum computer and obtain
information about the solution to a problem without
the computer actually running". It's not even a
first-of-April article and they even managed to get it
published in Nature.
I'm not sure, but if you really cared you might write
and ask. I barely understand any of this stuff..
(non-linear optics and fancy x-tals.)

I don't care enough, maybe. The usual answer is 'shut up
and calculate', and indeed that works. What I have an
issue with is the unnecessary mysticism surrounding it
all.

I don't think the mysticism is entirely unjustified. It is
decidedly hard to interpret how Bell's inequality holds
without some difficulty. I would find it unacceptable to have
non-local variables with FTL communication as a get out of
jail free card for "explaining" QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Original_Bell's_inequality



When we have a more complete theory it may be obvious how
entanglement actually works in detail, but at the moment it
looks a bit worryingly like Newton's classical gravity acting
at a distance with infinte speed.

Entanglement means that some aggregate property of an EM signal
is conserved across conversions. The LO and IF in a
super-heterodyne receiver are entangled, because you can
reconstruct the original RF by mixing them together again. This
is precisely what Zeilinger did with light in his article
"Imaging with undetected photons".


Yeah I can't really help that. Conceptually, it's not all
that different than doing double slit interference 'one
photon at a time'. Which is still kinda 'mysterious' to me.

In a handwaving sort of way you can visualise it as the
particle exploring all possible paths available to it. This
happens to result in the path of shortest time being the
central white light fringe and path differences of a few
wavelengths having peaks of probability too.

Particles don't follow multiple paths at once. Waves do. Photons
aren't particles, they are quantized interactions between matter
and EM waves. There is no such thing as a discrete photon in
transit. There will never be a pea-shooter for single photons at
determined instants.

Yes there is. And it has been done many times. With a suitably
dense filter and a monochromatic source you can do Young's slit
experiment so that there is never more than one photon in the
apparatus at a time. It became a lot easier to demonstrate once
Boksenberg's Image Photon Counting System became available which
does what it says on the tin. It has even been done in real time
at one of the RI Christmas Lectures.

This is completely beside the point. Of course you can attenuate
a light source so that the time between detections exceeds the
light-speed delay of the apparatus. Detection events will still
be random with a Poisson distribution. This behaviour can be
perfectly explained by a semi-classical model, where the probability
of detection depends on the power density of the incident wave.
No particle-like photons needed.

The impossible photon pea-shooter I was referring to was to
fire photons at a *regular* predictable rate. *That* is never
going to happen.

The problem with that is that electrons and neutrons *are* usually
thought of as particles and they show wave diffraction effects
too. So do silver ions and buckeyballs when their momentum is just
right to have a wavelength suitable for being diffracted. The
wave-particle duality is just that - the quantum mechanical wave
model provides the mathematics for figuring out where you might
detect a photon (or other particle).
[...]

It is the fundamental problem. Particles can behave like waves
too!

Particles interact with fields and fields can sustain
waves. There is nothing truly mysterious about that. Have you
ever seen plastic beads levitating in a field of ultrasonic
sound waves, or sand particles on a vibrating membrane? Arguably,
they form interference patterns, but it's not the particles
causing that, it's the waves that do. The particles merely collect
in the nodes.

There are a couple of interesting quirks for the wavefunction
though. The probability envelope for a photon (or particle) in
transit must be exactly zero for all regions ahead of its starting
point+ct which means that a symmetric Gaussian distribution just
will not do.

That is causality. An effect cannot occur where
the wave that carries it hasn't reached yet.

Various authors have tried to find a bridge between the quantum
world and field theory by extending the mathematics to include
photon propagation. I am inclined to think this one is barking up
approximately the right tree:

http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/APPPwf.pdf

Mmmh.

I will freely admit that I find it hard to imagine what a single
photon for a longwave transmission at 200kHz must look like. We
generally make rather a lot of them in coherent radio
transmissions. Each individual one carries very little energy on
its own.

To have a frequency defined to 6 sig fig its linear extent must be
of the order of a million wavelengths. Likewise for the neutral
hydrogen line at 1420MHz except that frequency is accurate to
about 13 decimal digits (and even then perhaps limited by our
experimental technique). 21cm x 10^13 = 2 x 10^9 km.

Quite a stretch, indeed.

Jeroen Belleman

 

There are a couple of interesting quirks for the wavefunction
though. The probability envelope for a photon (or particle) in
transit must be exactly zero for all regions ahead of its starting
point+ct which means that a symmetric Gaussian distribution just
will not do.

That is causality. An effect cannot occur where
the wave that carries it hasn't reached yet.

Interestingly that isn't quite true. I recall from my long-ago relativistic quantum class that solutions to the Dirac equation don't go identically to zero outside the light cone, but do decay exponentially there.

Otherwise you can't satisfy the patching condition at the light cone boundary.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs