bunchberry @ bunchberry @lemmy.world

帖子

0

评论

167

加入于

1 yr. ago

Quantum computers will always exist as a coprocessor, like a GPU or an NPU. You cannot run an operating system on your GPU either. Your GPU is worse for a lot of general purpose tasks your CPU can do, but it excels at very specific kinds of tasks, and so your CPU delegates those specific tasks to the GPU. That is how quantum computers work in practice, they are never stand-alone computers. They are always attached to a classical computer that delegates tasks to it. They won't ever replace regular computers. Even if in the distant future they manage to build quantum optical chips that run at room temperature at can be made consumer-affordable, they will just be sold as QPUs which you would install into your regular personal computer if you need one.

Quantum computers only provide a significant advantage at breaking a very specific class of asymmetric ciphers (those where the trapdoor function is either based on the discrete logarithm problem or the factorization problem) which we already have replacements for that are quantum-resistant (the trapdoor function is replaced with one based on the lattice problem). If quantum computers became a serious threat, it would not be difficult to just swap out those ciphers. The main issue would be people who have collected encrypted messages and held onto them with the hopes of cracking them in the future.

I’ve used LLMs quite a few times to find partial derivatives / gradient functions for me, and I know it’s correct because I plug them into a gradient descent algorithm and it works. I would never trust anything an LLM gives blindly no matter how advanced it is, but in this particular case I could actually test the output since it's something I was implementing in an algorithm, so if it didn't work I would know immediately.

Putting aside the fact that you cannot "experimentally prove" anything as proof is for mathematics, claiming you can experimentally demonstrate fundamental uncertainty is, to put it bluntly, incoherent. Uncertainty is a negative, it is a statement that there is no underlying cause for something. You cannot empirically demonstrate the absence of an unknown cause.

If you believe in fundamental uncertainty, it would be appropriate to argue in favor of this using something like the principle of parsimony, pointing out the fact that we have no evidence for an underlying cause so we shouldn't believe in one. Claiming that you have "proven" there is no underlying cause is backwards logic. It is like saying you have proven there is no god as opposed to simply saying you lack belief in one. Whatever "proof" you come up with to rule out a particular god, someone could change the definition of that god to get around your "proof."

Einstein, of course, was fully aware of such arguments and acknowledged such a possibility that there may be no cause, but he put forwards his own arguments as to why it leads to logical absurdities to treat the randomness of quantum mechanics as fundamental; it's not merely a problem of randomness, but he showed with a thought experiment involving atomic decay that it forces you to have to reject the very existence of a perspective-independent reality.

There is no academic consensus on how to address Einstein's arguments, and so to claim he's been "proven wrong" is quite a wild claim to make.

"[W]hat is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination." (John Bell)

The government isn't known to use up-to-date technology.

Diamat is compatible with quantum theory but which way you interpret it ultimately depends upon where you stand on the issue of the thing-in-itself. As diamat denies that things can be considered in isolation but only in their interconnections with other things, it calls into question the physical reality of things-in-themselves, which led to a heated disagreement between Bogdanov and Lenin over this topic, where Bogdanov believed we should throw out the concept of the thing-in-itself whereas Lenin believed it was still a meaningful concept.

If you side with Lenin then Einstein's ensemble interpretation would be most compatible with that worldview. This is because quantum mechanics does not allow you to always break things up into individual "things," such as in entangled systems. This is not a feature unique to quantum mechanics but to any statistical theory, including classical statistical mechanics, and so you have to conclude that the inability to divide things up into separable things must be due to the theory "missing" something, it must therefore not be complete. Models that propose what the missing thing is, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory or Hooft's cellular automata models, would also be compatible with such a worldview.

If you side with Bogdanov then Rovelli's relational interpretation (which is also similar to the Benoit-Pris contextual reality interpretation) would be most compatible with that worldview as this interpretation drops the postulate from the get-go that the universe can be considered in terms of discrete objects and instead views it in terms of discrete events which can only be understood within a particular context, in relation to everything else. Unlike the ensemble interpretation, relational quantum mechanics is compatible with the view that quantum mechanics is complete and isn't missing something.

I would recommend you read the book Helgoland by the physicist Carlo Rovelli where he discusses interpretations of quantum theory as well as the Bogdanov-Lenin dispute. That book is of course in favor of relational quantum mechanics. You can check out the writings of the physicists Einstein, Bohm, Hooft, Anthony Rizzi, Leslie Ballentine, etc, if you want something more along the lines of the other direction.

Quantum immortality is crackpot quantum woo pseudoscience.

You're the one instigating this. I do not care to engage in the fight you desperately want, outright lying about what I said in order to desperately squeeze out an argument you desperately are seeking out. Go fight with someone else.

Someone needs to tell you the truth. There is only so nice it can be worded.

Not to be rude but if you have no professional background in physics then it is unlikely what you have written is something so groundbreaking that it's going to be stolen. Nothing wrong with writing hobby papers for fun but I think you need to put into perspective what you are actually doing.

CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING CIVIL WAR IS COMING

Bullet-proof vest wouldn't have saved him as he was sniped in the neck. The head is a moving target and harder to hit, which is why the less professional sniper missed Trump, he tried to shoot him in the head and Trump happened to move his head at that very second, and aiming for center of mass can be risky in case they are wearing something bullet proof. The neck is clearly exposed and more stable of a target than the head. The sniper knew what they were doing.

Literally right-wingers 24/7 are praising political violence, calling for the eradication of all Palestinians, glorifying the gunning down or running over of protestors, praising the murder of homeless people, praising the execution of minorities by cops, constantly glorifying the suicide rate of trans people, etc. Literally you can go on Twitter and find any of these right-wing accounts crying about how we shouldn't glorify violence and read their post history and you will likely not even have to go back more than 1 day to find them glorifying violence.

I have seen so many right wingers post something along the lines of "leftists are so psychotic for being happy he was killed, we should kill all leftists in response!"

The interference pattern disappears if anything becomes entangled with the which-way information at all, it doesn't need to even be an "observer" (unless you are using "observer" broadly enough that it can include even a single particle). You can replace the entire measurement device with a single particle that interacts with the particles at the slits in such a way that it becomes perfectly correlated with the which-way information that the observer has no awareness of (such as if a moat of dust interacts with the particle because the experimenter did not isolate it well) and that is sufficient for the interference pattern to disappear.

I have been desensitize to it because my twitter timeline has been flooded with toddlers having their skulls hollowed out by the IDF. A live-streamed holocaust has kind of made violence seem not that abnormal to me, so it comes across as strange when politicians cry about people advocating for violence, when literally most of them support industrial-scale genocide of hundreds of thousands that I see dying on a day-to-day basis. That alone has changed me from a "violence is inherently bad" type mofo to a "I would celebrate if most of these American politicians were [redacted]" type mofo. Why should I care if a person who loves mass murder of children dies? It's called karma.

It comes across to me as they simply lack empathy for other "kinds" of people. If you actually felt the same pain and empathy when watching the video of Kirk get merked, you should feel that a thousand times over when seeing a thousand videos of the IOF massacring children, many sniped in the same way Kirk got merked, and then you should look upon Kirk in disgust for supporting that and dehumanizing the Palestinian people. But the fact is these people don't. They don't see other "kinds" of people different from them as in fact "people." Let's be real, they don't feel the same kind of empathy for Palestinian fathers dying as they do a white fascist dying. They constantly mock the deaths of minority groups like trans people. They suddenly have empathy and demand pacifism and valuing the sanctity of all life when a white fascist dies, but are silent in every other case.

They don't even explain it in physics class. That is kind of the schtick of the Copenhagen interpretation. You just assume as a postulate that systems are in classical states when you look at them and in quantum states when you do not, and from those two assumptions you can prove using Gleason's theorem that the only possible way the former can map onto the latter is through the Born rule. But there is no explanation given at all as to how or when or by what mechanism this transition actually takes place.

Many Worlds isn't much better because they posit that the classical world does not even exist, yet that clearly contradicts with what we directly observe in experiments, so if that is true it necessarily means that the classical world is an illusion, and so then you still have to explain how the illusion comes about, which they do not. Dropping the postulate that there is indeed a classical world also disallows you from deriving the Born rule through Gleason's theorem, and so it then becomes unclear how to do it at all without some arbitrary additional postulate, and the arbitrary nature of it means there are dozens of proposals of different postulates and no way to decide between them.

Modern physics is of the form (1) there is a quantum state, (2) you look at it, (3) a miracle happens, (4) you perceive a classical state, and then you are repeatedly gaslit into believing quantum mechanics is a complete theory of nature and it's impossible for there to ever be anything more fundamental than it and any physicist who thinks there might be, even if they are literally Albert Einstein, is a crank crackpot. They then take on the same playbook as the Christians where when you point out their explanation seems to be logically incoherent, they say, "God has no obligation to make sense to you" as an excuse to be incoherent and making no sense, but just replace "God" with "nature" and the same argument is repeated verbatim.

How are you any better than a neonazi? Either you outright support a modern day holocaust or you are in denial of it. I genuinely don't understand how a supposed human being can be so low. Americans in general are just disgusting people all around. Your beloved holocaust-loving candidate also ran on being "tough on the border" and having the "most lethal military in the world." You people are just jingoistic, ultranationalist fascist freaks, completely brainwashed by your state and incapable of having a shred of empathy for others, gleefully cheering at the dismemberment of hundreds of thousands of babies and begging for just more militarization and aggression while your country is falling the fuck apart. Wake up. Normal human beings with a conscience who are not part of your brainwashed jingoistic bubble aren't fine with industrial-scale genocide and endless war just because the person who does it is blue, but I know you brainwashed Americans cannot possibly even grasp that idea because the ultranationalistic brainwashing has rendered you incapable of conscious thought.