Barry Schwartz đŸ«–

I just cannot stand it when people say the emperor’s new clothes are resplendent, yet I look at the imperial person and the poor ruler of the empire is completely undressed. The man is stark naked!

That is why I am adamant there is no such thing as ‘entanglement’ or a ‘quantum computer’ that actually works. Only a dope or a dupe believes one part of the EM field can affect another at a distance!

And R⁶RS is a HUGE PITA to use, bereft of features, yet THIS is the ADVANCED Scheme? Golly!
#scheme

Mar 24 at 12:29pmWeb
Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago
(The people who write and approve the papers, such as Bell and Clauser, are the dopes. The people who do not bother to critically read the papers from a standpoint of logic [not ‘knowledge of physics’, blah blah blah, but knowledge of logical reasoning] are the dupes. They merely take the word of others. They often repeat each other verbatim, as if they were robots, ‘So and so showed ...’ which in fact is not the case, because ‘so and so’ is one of the dopes.)
Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago

(Being able to repeat verbatim ‘So and so showed ...’, where ‘so and so’ is a dope, is what is called in some social circles ‘Critical Thinking’ or formerly ‘Skepticism’. In the world of medical practitioners it is called being ‘Science Based’.

Of course, it is neither critical thinking, nor ‘thinking’ at all. And it certainly is not scientific. To be scientific is to DOUBT what authorities supposedly ‘show’, when it makes no logical sense. Instead you must find their error!)

Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago

(That is why I am writing R⁷RS programs that will not work in R⁶RS. There are so many it boggles the mind. That some particular person would not write such programs doesn’t make them not exist!

On the other hand, there are basically no R⁶RS programs that will not run in R⁷RS, unless you consider syntax-case essential Which I would not, even if only because the R⁶RS syntax-rules is one of the obnoxiously incapable aspects of the standard!)

Show threadWeekend Editor2d ago

@chemoelectric

I have no particular opinion on R⁶RS, but I can supply you with some critical thinking about the reality (or not) of quantum factoring:

https://www.someweekendreading.blog/dog-factoring/

Dog Factoring

Prime factoring is one of the key algorithms to modern encryption security. Does it help if you use a dog?

Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago

@weekend_editor Have you looked at my pinned toots? I can derive the correlation function of the Aspect experiment using nothing but probability theory and a probabilistic form of the Law of Malus.

It can also be derived using classical coherence theory!

What this means is that the ‘proof’ of the existence of ‘entanglement’ is fallacious. In fact it is well known (except among recalcitrant physicists) John S. Bell committed a pedestrian error in probability theory. The entire field is junk.

Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago
@weekend_editor Another thing is that nobody ever bothers to derive QM’s actual predicted results of the Aspect experiment. They are NOT what Aspect got. Aspect’s results are impossible. He got them by selecting data points. Everyone since also gets their results by selecting data points. QM predicts no violation of the Bell inequality!
Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago

@weekend_editor So what is a ‘quantum register’ actually doing?

It is probably an analog device similar to a clocked digital counter. It goes round and round but, unlike the digital counter, easily loses coherence. It is no faster than the digital counter would be.

In effect, a ‘quantum computer’ is a very bad device that works by the principle of ‘Wait a little while, then press Enter’.

Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago

@weekend_editor Thus Grover’s Algorithm, say, will actually get a result, yes. But it is, in fact, one of the slowest search algorithms ever devised. Even in theory, I mean. The theory that says it is fast is wrong. The true theory says it is very, very slow.

That is basically the whole matter. The rest requires the reader bother to study the matter for themself.

Show threadBarry Schwartz đŸ«–2d ago

@weekend_editor Oh, I forgot to mention one more thing.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence for the ‘quantum randomness’ upon which the computer is supposed to operate. Such randomness is merely a decreed doctrine of quantum physics.

As I say, a ‘quantum computer’ operates on the principle of ‘Wait a while, then press Enter’, whether or not ‘entanglement’ exists. Which it does not.â–Ș