It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

This CIA-Backed D-Wave Quantum Computer Will Change Your View of Reality Forever

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You're right of course -- it's not crazy to mention the possibility of extra spatial dimensions (or even entire alternate universes) when discussing quantum strangeness. The problem I have is when people claim falsely that the riddle of quantum strangeness has been solved.

Niels Bohr argued famously that it could never be solved, that it was a black box. Einstein disagreed. So far, Bohr remains vindicated, and only time will tell if Einstein gets the last laugh.




posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

But, lucky for us, transistors actually do what they're supposed to do.
Now, do they do it because we're right? Or lucky?
Happy probabilities and whatnot.
edit on 9/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers

But, lucky for us, transistors actually do what they're supposed to do.
Now, do they do it because we're right? Or lucky?
Happy probabilities and whatnot.


Transistors doing what they are supposed to do presupposes no knowledge whatsoever of how they actually do it at the quantum level.

In short, they don't do it because we're right, and they don't do it because we're lucky. They just do it, and we do not know precisely how.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




In short, they don't do it because we're right, and they don't do it because we're lucky.

So. It was just luck, not knowledge of quantum mechanics, that led to the invention of transistors?
www.pbs.org...



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers

But, lucky for us, transistors actually do what they're supposed to do.
Now, do they do it because we're right? Or lucky?
Happy probabilities and whatnot.


Transistors doing what they are supposed to do presupposes no knowledge whatsoever of how they actually do it at the quantum level.

In short, they don't do it because we're right, and they don't do it because we're lucky. They just do it, and we do not know precisely how.

What?

Transistors do what they do because we designed them to do that.

What exactly is the quantum level? Is it the wiki version? Because, um, no that's not correct. The internet sometimes lies.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nice to see you back Phage


(sorry for offtopic)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers

But, lucky for us, transistors actually do what they're supposed to do.
Now, do they do it because we're right? Or lucky?
Happy probabilities and whatnot.


Transistors doing what they are supposed to do presupposes no knowledge whatsoever of how they actually do it at the quantum level.

In short, they don't do it because we're right, and they don't do it because we're lucky. They just do it, and we do not know precisely how.

What?

Transistors do what they do because we designed them to do that.

What exactly is the quantum level? Is it the wiki version? Because, um, no that's not correct. The internet sometimes lies.


I started this conversation off with quantum tunneling in mind, which is in fact the "quantum effect" leveraged by the D-Wave processor. Quantum tunneling is the phenomena whereby a certain percentage of electrons will pass through a solid barrier that they should not be able to pass through based on classical mechanics. But due to the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles, the electron is often thought of as existing partially in a wave-like state which is often referred to as a probability distribution.

Quantum mechanics, being perhaps the most successful mathematical model in human history, can accurately predict the number of electrons that will pass through a given barrier, depending upon that barrier's characteristics. However, quantum mechanics cannot say HOW this happens.

As Phage suggested with his "happy probabilities" comment, that's precisely what it boils down to.

The point I was making is that it is wrong to claim that we have definitive proof that quantum tunneling involves extra-spatial dimensions. This has not been experimentally observed and is not known.


edit on 3-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




The point I was making is that it is wrong to claim that we have definitive proof that quantum tunneling involves extra-spatial dimensions. This has not been experimentally observed and is not known.

This is correct.
No idea of why entanglement works either. The math says it does. The experiments say it does. It seems to work just like the math says it should. Any idea why? Nope. Science isn't so big on why. It's more about how. How seems to work when it comes to things like computers.

And, for that matter, spaceships. We don't know exactly what gravity is, but we have a real good idea about how it works.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
He lost me at hello.

So he owns a company that makes expensive computers and then spouts a lot of predictions that make reference to what his company is offering??

Did I miss something because this wasn't what I was expecting, his casual use of the parallel universe is a little disturbing, especially as there is no proof it exists?



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers




In short, they don't do it because we're right, and they don't do it because we're lucky.

So. It was just luck, not knowledge of quantum mechanics, that led to the invention of transistors?
www.pbs.org...


No. I did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it. Knowledge of quantum mechanics is extremely important to many electrical devices.

But quantum mechanics, while maintaining a perfect track record when it comes to predicting the probability distributions of subatomic particles, does not offer descriptive explanations for why subatomic particles engage in what is commonly referred to as "quantum strangeness." In particular, Einstein had a problem with quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation, calling them "spooky action at a distance."

Both of these phenomena are important to quantum computers.

Quantum tunneling, another strange phenomena associated with quantum physics, is accurately predicted by quantum mechanics equations with 100% accuracy -- unfortunately, these equations do nothing to explain why it happens.

As Richard Feynman famously said, "Anyone who who says they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics."



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

So, you get my point.

Science is not so big on why. That's for philosophy.

But for building machines, how works just fine.

Philosophy is not so good for building machines.



edit on 9/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers




The point I was making is that it is wrong to claim that we have definitive proof that quantum tunneling involves extra-spatial dimensions. This has not been experimentally observed and is not known.

This is correct.
No idea of why entanglement works either. The math says it does. The experiments say it does. It seems to work just like the math says it should. Any idea why? Nope. Science isn't so big on why. It's more about how. How seems to work when it comes to things like computers.

And, for that matter, spaceships. We don't know exactly what gravity is, but we have a real good idea about how it works.


Well, we could get into a semantic debate about the difference between why and how and about to what extent science cares about these things, but I digress, because you and I appear to agree about the important bit: The guy who invented the D-Wave chipset has absolutely no idea whether alternate dimensions exist.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I think we are likely in agreement on the physics aspect. We do know spooky action at a distance is real, and it fits well within the model of relativity. We just don't know how or why. It breaks our psychological barriers, but not our mathematical ones.

As far as the extra-spacial dimensions, ehh who knows.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




and it fits well within the model of relativity

Not so much.
Relativity has problems at the very tiny level. Doesn't play well with quantum mechanics.


edit on 9/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's also a tried and tested method that mathematically is correct so far though right?



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

As with relativity, quantum mechanics has not been shown to be non-viable (falsified). And not for lack of trying.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Exactly, it's those tiny particles that are missing a step in their equation that leads to theoretical dark matter to fill in the gaps.

Or am I completely off target?



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Greggers

I think we are likely in agreement on the physics aspect. We do know spooky action at a distance is real, and it fits well within the model of relativity. We just don't know how or why. It breaks our psychological barriers, but not our mathematical ones.

As far as the extra-spacial dimensions, ehh who knows.


We are in total agreement, except for the bit about "spooky action at a distance" fitting well within relativity. Relativity has no explanation for it, and as Phage mentioned, Relativity breaks down at the subatomic level.

The Holy Grail of Physics would be a quantum theory of gravity, a so-called theory of everything. String theory is the closest thing we have, but there are multiple different versions of it and so far many of its testable predictions (such as super symmetry) are not panning out in tests at CERN. However, I mention string theory because it does predict extra-spatial dimensions (not to be confused with alternate universes, of course.) If they exist, these would be tiny, subatomic spatial dimensions curled up in the fabric of space.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Dark matter is, indeed, a gap.
It's there, apparently. It, like everyday matter, seems to cause gravity. But beyond that...



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Doesn't relativity mention and equate the math for an unseen force (aka dark matter) at a certain factor in these equations though?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join