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: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Greggers


That first video you posted, however, is getting a lot of play on these forums because of the speaker's claims about alternate dimensions, which are simply not validated by empirical evidence at this time.

Yeah I remember first seeing that video probably more than a year ago. Although the OP's video looks like it could be the same lecture just given at a different place. As for what he says about parallel dimensions, it is certainly an unverified claim, but it's not hard to see why someone might reach that conclusion. Scientists tend to believe that computing power will increase exponentially with the addition of more qubits, so something like 300 qubits would be enough to simulate every particle in the observable universe. Think about what that implies though, it means the computer is simulating a universe containing far more particles than the actual computer contains.

There's clearly something very strange happening there and it could be said that quantum computers must be exploiting parallel dimensions. That's actually one of the main reasons I think we'll never have true quantum computers capable of computing things such as Shor's algorithm or Grover's algorithm. The physics behind the idea of a quantum computer violates some sort of conservation principle imo. The core difference between a quantum object and a classical object is the number of particles making up the object. Isolated particles will do weird things but large objects made of many particles will experience decoherence and behave in a classical manner.

I believe that combining many qubits together inherently demands the construction of a classical system, because once you link together too many different things decoherence will be unavoidable. It's why we can create primitive quantum computers with a small number of qubits but we haven't been able to scale up those systems after decades of research. I mean the D-wave system is still pretty interesting but it can only solve a very specific set of problems, it cannot break classical cryptography or anything like that. I really would like true quantum computers to be possible, but the rational side of me says they some how violate the laws of physics.



Noah used qubits to build an ark.







posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
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?



Are you referring to the cosmological constant by any chance? Also, I think you might be thinking of dark energy.
edit on 3-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
No.

But using gravitational models (Newtonian or relativistic) says that there is something we can't see that is having a great effect (which seems to work like gravity) on large structures in the Universe.

So, unless gravity doesn't work the way we think it does, there is something there that we can't see.



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



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: Xeven
Shouldn't a Quantum computer be able to access data from the future?


It's not a time machine....
2


True, that, but the very nature of things quantum, perhaps, would necessarily mean that once quantum effects existed, and could be regulated, manipulated and controlled, much less recognized as quantum, they would then have always been there....such is the respective conundrum and paradox of quantum entanglement and quantum worlds, in the many worlds theory of existence.....

Difficult to wrap one's head around, but that's the essence of it, still. So, then, there would be a future and a past, but they would tend to blend....



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
By the way, here is a link that describes the relationship between Einstein's cosmological constant and dark energy (not to be confused with dark matter): hubblesite.org...
edit on 3-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Dark energy.
Sort of the opposite of dark matter. But maybe even odder.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers

Dark energy.
Sort of the opposite of dark matter. But maybe even odder.


Based on your posting history I assume you know what dark energy is. Well, to the extent that anyone knows what it is.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Dark matter, dark energy, they might be one in the same, it's something we don't know. I meant it's relativite to current models, such as relativity. It is set at a constant amount in theoretical physics if I'm not mistaken, we just don't know what, why, how it is.
edit on 3-9-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Our gravitational models are based solely on density, right?

That would be through spectrum analysis of compositions of colors basically at the simpleton level, so it's possible our models of gravity have flaws.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



Dark matter, dark energy, they might be one in the same.

Nope.
The only thing the same about them is that they are there.

Oh, there's another thing that's the same about them. We have no idea what either one is. At this point, we can only observe their effects.

One makes things stay together, the other makes them move apart.



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



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
As an interesting aside, anyone interested in the stuff we're talking about here should check out a documentary on Netflix called Einstein's Biggest Blunder (which is how Einstein himself referred to the cosmological constant).

In this documentary, a couple of physicists are positing that perhaps the speed of light has not always been constant. It does *not* contradict relativity (as light speed remains constant in all intertial frames of reference), but it does offer an alternative to expansionary inflation, plus it provides a very interesting solution for dark energy.

They are trying to figure out how they might test their hypothesis. But in any case, it is very interesting.
edit on 3-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So it's entirely possible that they are intertwined.

Two independent, unobservable forces that are there for sure, but we don't know why or how. We cannot say they aren't as co-dependant as a proton and electron are.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I guess.

But you're talking about what we can't say as opposed to what we can.

We can't say that tunneling does not involved inter-"dimensional" phenomena. But whether or not it does is irrelevant if you can build a machine which utilizes it.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I just tend to think when it comes to unknown forces that we only theoretically know of that anything may be possible.

I know you know my knowledge on this subject is very limited, but I do grasp it quite well.

Hell, we don't even know what causes gravity, we just know how to measure it. It's the dark energy/matter that makes it be. But which dark force is it? It could go either way. Is it the unknown force of expansion that causes it? Is it the unknown mass of the invisible particle that causes it?

I think we actually need to figure out WHY gravity exists, and suddenly our knowledge of dark physics will come to light.

Just my layman opinion though



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
I don't really hold to the idea that "anything is possible." That doesn't seem to be the world works.

I could be wrong though.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well in the sense you are referring to, I obviously concur, but on the cosmic level, I mean c'mon we haven't even gone to Mars.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
Speak for yourself.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Speak for yourself.


HAHA you must be fresh back from Olympus Mons, is Mars sky really blue?



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
The D-Wave computer isn't even a quantum computer. It is based purely on the classical model. However, it does leverage quantum tunneling, which is why D-Wave cites "quantum effects" in its operation.

There are electrical components that leverage quantum tunneling, and we certainly do not refer to these as quantum devices.
...
As it turns out, the D-Wave is the world's best processor for a very specific kind of mathematical calculation, whether it's a quantum computer or not.

As far as the inventor of the D-Wave, he's fond of making outlandish claims, such as his hyperbolic assertion that quantum tunneling has been proven to involve extra-spatial dimensions. Don't even get me started....
Yes, the BS was so deep in the video by the CEO of DWave that hip waders weren't enough, it was all the way up to my neck.


originally posted by: Bedlam
Who knew a simulated annealer that's not even a proper quantum computer is like 'the altar of an alien God'?

One day they'll have a real one. This isn't it.
I'm glad some people see through the hype and recognize this Dwave computer for what it is.


originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Greggers

Thank you for posting your information. I do not have any sort of computer back ground other than as an end user... I have mastered how to turn one on but myself and probably many other have no idea how far the Quantum tech stuff has advanced.
Greggers and Bedlam are spot-on about this not even being a real quantum computer, so the "D-Wave Quantum Computer" did not "Change My View of Reality Forever", but if you don't know much about computers or quantum phycsics I guess nobody should fault you for falling for the hype of the CEO, but some due diligence might have led you to the article greggers posted, which sets the record straight, so I hope you read that and wouldn't use the same thread title if making a thread on this topic today.


originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Greggers
Well he is clearly a business man before a scientist, he's trying to hype up his own product and get people interested in it. However many prominent scientists believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics so it's not actually all that crazy to be talking about parallel dimensions when it comes to quantum mechanics. I personally do not believe in that interpretation of QM.
It might not be crazy since it's one of maybe 10 possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, but his presentation doesn't even hint at the fact there are maybe 9 other possible interpretations which don't suggest anything like what he said, so his presentation comes across as very misleading when it ignores those completely.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Phage

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?


I haven't enough time to address this question you pose in the detailed manner I'd like. So, here is a brief response.

I am very dubious regarding the existence of extra spatial dimensions. I don't discount them, but I feel intuitively that they don't exist. I think the issue depends on relative equality, or more to the point equilibrium of energies and correspondence between quanta. Whether the spectrum of wavelengths is infinite, existences (I feel) always occur in 3 dimensions only, but what changes are the wavelengths?

Quantum entanglement works (perhaps), because there might be an associated 'left' and 'right-sided-ness' adopted by particles when they become entangled. It is how we 'discover' the affect of one particle has upon another that suggests they cooperate at a distance.




top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join