Here, this is a recent find that very much supports the concept that a quantum computer is very possible...
Breakthrough in Quantum Computing.
And also, here's a rudimentary bit as introduction to the uninitiated.
Introduction to Quantum Comptuing
And, as I would not like to misappropriate a quote concerning Quantum Physics, though I believe it was Feynman, someone said something along these
"Anyone who claims to understand Quantum Physics is either mistaken or obviously lying. Even I do not understand Quantum Physics".
In response, you are absolutely correct that Quantum Physics has many theories, all of which cannot be proven. However, there is a loose and general
understanding of the functions of how things work in QP, and what bothers hard science Physicists, Mathematicians, and Scientists who rely upon
observation and reproducability is that Quantum Physics RELIES upon vagaries which their sciences cannot function without.
Personally I have always found it slightly humorous that "THROUGH OBSERVATION" quantum particles fall to a singular state. This, at the least, has
been reproducible, though the state to which they fall is entirely random and unpredictable. It, of course, goes back to the Cat in the Box, both
alive and dead, in dual states or EVERY state thereof.
Dismiss Quantum Physics if you will, but the fact of the matter is they are producing results using techniques which are scientifically vague on
purpose to get results, and that seems very much like magick to me.
What I am wondering is, with the advent of the first quantum computer (And the continued absence of "Common Scientific Sense" in the methodology),
will you still dismiss it?
*Note, Entanglement is just a suggestion to explain phenomenon discovered when crunching numbers concerning various quantum theories. It doesnt have
any direct proof, and should not be blindly assumed to be caused by the factors presented by scientists at this point.
I find that, at the very best, humorous. At the worst, ill-informed.
First Evidence of Entanglement of 3 Macroscopic Objects
Much Math and Explanation, Yay Wikipedia!
I wish I could recall which article it was I read that provided evidence to support the concept that space, in and of itself, was inconsisten with our
own laws of physics. It was fairly recent, within the last few months if I recall, but it may have been in a magazine more than on a website.
Though it occurs to me it may have been in either Discover or Scientific American.
As for the possibility of magic being the result of possible physics violations or other scientific oddities, it might very well be. I do not deny
that. Of course, people who can focus odd physics into an area of their choice would be a "Um, just a second." response. Humans have hard enough
times bending the laws of physics with high powered equipment, and only bending it for a small group of atoms.
Aaah, but you see, I think it is not as likely that humans themselves are doing it as much as a concerted effort of the true laws of the universe in
combination with their will. Consider, it has been time-tested and proven that quantum states are effected by observation, what this means to me is
that willpower can effect the physical existence. Through observing a thing, it is brought into our understanding of it (The consentual reality
paradigm). What this also means is that, with appropriate understanding, reality itself is mutable and tractable.
Of course, all of this science ignores my own "Beliefs" concerning the decline of magick as a reason for things. I feel it more appropriate to
state that Magick is an overlapping field that fluctuates between overlapping and intersection, currently it only intersects portions of our physical
realm and thus the effects are limited at our current point in time. I also believe that magick follows a strict set of laws itself, though they are
harder to pin down than scientific ones. I also think we are overdue for that plane to physically overlap our own.