Does the physical world exist?

PART 1

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by john_bmth

 

I can't believe you don't understand this basic concept about the nature of reality. Technology doesn't create the science, technology is built around the science. I'm sure you understand this but you realize how silly you sound so know message board pride has kicked in and you will continue to push your silly statements.

...and around we go on Matrix Rising's fantasy ride, where everything is topsy turvy. Up is down, facts are fiction, right is wrong and evidence is conjecture. Buckle yourselves in!

You said this:

A bit is a human construct! They don't "exist", they are purely conceptual. Just what exactly do you think a bit is? Do you really think that bits are actual physical components that are soldered into your computer? Show me a photograph of a bit And just how exactly do you think a computer works? You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

You then said:

Jeez, how are you failing to grasp this concept? A quantum computer and a qbit are human concepts and constructs, quantum computers don't exist in nature any more than the RAM or CPU in my computer does. None of this has anything at all to do with entanglement.

Saying qubits and bits are human constructs is just like saying x-rays or microwaves are human constructs. I have to believe you just have dug yourself into a hole that pride will not let you escape from. What you're saying is just silly.

How are you struggling with this very basic concept? Seriously, even a child would have grasped it by now. X-rays exist in nature, correct. Have you ever seen a microwave oven, complete with rotating platter and digital timing interface roaming around in the wild? Of course not! You seem completely unable to grasp the difference between the physical construction of something and it's conceptual usage, as defined by man. Your line of thinking is as absurd as this: "Tables are made from wood, wood exists in nature, therefore tables harness the natural tableness of nature". How many times must I point this out to you?

A qubit occurs because of entanglement and superposition. These things occur in nature. A quantum computer will just harness the computing power that occurs on a quantum mechanical level. A quantum computer doesn't create entanglement or superposition no more than a radio creates radio waves or a microwave oven creates microwaves. Again, if you don't understand superposition and entanglement and how quantum computers work, then do some reading about it. It's really not that hard. Who created superposition if it's a human construct? Who created entanglement if it's a human construct? Who created qubits if it's a human construct?

Quantum computers don't even exist yet! And before you get your knickers in a twist, the DWave machine and it's workings has not actually been demonstrated to the scientific community and as such their claims are met with scepticism.

Anyway, let's have a look at the design of a quantum computer:

In the race to build quantum computers, researchers are taking a number of approaches to creating qubits. Regardless of the approach, a common problem is making certain that information encoded into qubits isn't lost over time due to quantum fluctuations. This is known as "fault tolerance."

source

You see? Let's take that bold bit and repeat it again in the desperate hope that it might sink into your head: researchers are taking a number of approaches to creating qubits.

Shall we repeat it again? Sure!
researchers are taking a number of approaches to creating qubits

One last time for luck? Oh, go on then!
researchers are taking a number of approaches to creating qubits

Is it starting to sink in now? Or shall I repeat one last time? This will be the last time, I promise!

researchers are taking a number of approaches to creating qubits

Are you starting to see the significance of this excerpt? They are creating qbits, not harvesting them from the wild. Creating them. Man made.

A computer works based on electrical signals. A high voltage signal is a 1 and a low voltage signal is an 0. We can store data like the color blue or the alphabet on these bits. The same thing occurs in nature unless you think electrical impulses don't happen in nature and electricity is a human construct.

You are again confusing the physical construction of something with it's conceptual usage. The flow (or lack of) of electrons is just that, nothing more. We (as human beings) give meaning to that flow of electrons by using them to denote numbers in the base 2 number system. That doesn't mean that "the universe is naturally counting in base 2 and humans are tapping into that natural computational process". Is it starting to sound ridiculous yet? Because it sure should do.

PART 2

Nature stores data on things like atoms and molecules.

Another vague statement. State exactly what you mean when you say "nature stores data on things like atoms and molecules".

It stores data like how a star goes supernova or how a comet forms or DNA.

Sorry... what? State exactly what you mean and back it up with science.

This is why everything in the universe is information

State exactly the definition of the word "information" you are using (yawn) and how it is pertinent to your argument, along with the science to back it up.

and can be broken down to 1's and 0's.

Eh? Humans can model real world phenomenom and encode that data into whatever number base they please. Anyway, you are completely misunderstanding the significance of binary. Binary is only used over other number bases because a) it makes the circuitry a damn sight easier to build and b) it is more reliable to diffrentiate between simple on/off states over a noisy line. That is it. So again, how is any of this relevent?

They can even store bits on quantum space around a single electron with things like quantum holography.

Who is "they" and how is any of this relevent to anything you've said?

I'm shocked in this day and age that you don't know this. This is just basic knowledge of the universe.

WARNING! IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!

If you cannot be bothered to educate yourself before bringing your opinions to the table, don't bother posting. My dog would have an easier time grasping the concepts you are failing so hard to get, but the difference is she doesn't feel the need to regurtiate her uninformed nonsense over the internet.

Originally posted by FonsoHarman
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

i find it funny that i am replying to this as i showed my girlfriend the matrix trilogy a couple weeks ago and since then shes been wrestling with her own mortality.

How has the matrix trilogy left her wrestling with her mortality?

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by FonsoHarman
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

i find it funny that i am replying to this as i showed my girlfriend the matrix trilogy a couple weeks ago and since then shes been wrestling with her own mortality.

How has the matrix trilogy left her wrestling with her mortality?

Maybe she was so disappointed with the later films in the series she wanted to jump off a cliff?

reply to post by john_bmth


You said:

How are you struggling with this very basic concept? Seriously, even a child would have grasped it by now. X-rays exist in nature, correct. Have you ever seen a microwave oven, complete with rotating platter and digital timing interface roaming around in the wild? Of course not! You seem completely unable to grasp the difference between the physical construction of something and it's conceptual usage, as defined by man. Your line of thinking is as absurd as this: "Tables are made from wood, wood exists in nature, therefore tables harness the natural tableness of nature". How many times must I point this out to you?

You don't understand information. Nobody ever said nature can produce a microwave. I said humans can build a technology that gives us a microwave oven. We can take Data or information in a high state of entropy and arrange that data into a low state of entropy to convey a message. So both the microwaves and the microwave oven are constructs of information.

It takes energy to turn information in a high state of entropy into information in a low state of entropy. This is why information and entropy are linked.

Again, bits and qubits are not human constructs. Who invented the qubit? Who invented superposition? Who invented entanglement?

You claimed that the qubit was a human construct. Back up your claim. Who invented the qubit?

You said:

Quantum computers don't even exist yet! And before you get your knickers in a twist, the DWave machine and it's workings has not actually been demonstrated to the scientific community and as such their claims are met with scepticism.

Wrong again.

In 2009, researchers at Yale University created the first rudimentary solid-state quantum processor. The two-qubit superconducting chip was able to run elementary algorithms. Each of the two artificial atoms (or qubits) were made up of a billion aluminum atoms but they acted like a single one that could occupy two different energy states.[35][36]

Another team, working at the University of Bristol, also created a silicon-based quantum computing chip, based on quantum optics. The team was able to run Shor's algorithm on the chip.[37] Further developments were made in 2010.[38] Springer publishes a journal ("Quantum Information Processing") devoted to the subject.[39]

A team of scientists from Australia and Japan have finally made a breakthrough in quantum teleportation. They have successfully transferred a complex set of quantum data with full transmission integrity achieved. Also the qubits being destroyed in one place but instantaneously resurrected in another, without affecting their superpositions.[40]

en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum computers just have to be scaled up and when you try to scale them up decoherence kicks in. So yes Quantum Computers exist they are just not faster than classical computers because of decoherence. Here's more from the IQC Institute.

So when will there be a real quantum computer?
It depends on your definition. There are quantum computers already, but not of sufficient power to replace classical computers. A team of researchers from IQC and MIT hold the current world record for the most number of qubits used in an experiment (12). While practical quantum technologies are already emerging — including highly effective sensors, actuators and other devices — a true quantum computer that outperforms a classical computer is still years away. Theorists are continually figuring out better ways to overcome decoherence, while experimentalists are gaining more and more control over the quantum world through various technologies and instruments. The pioneering work being done today is paving the way for the coming quantum era.

So quantum technology is still years away?
No, quantum technologies are already in use! Quantum Key Distribution is already commercially available, and will greatly benefit from new research (scientists at IQC are currently pursuing quantum encryption through free space via satellite). Although a fully functioning quantum computer is a longer-term goal, many fundamental and practical discoveries have been made in the name of quantum computing. Quantum sensors and actuators will allow scientists to navigate the nano-scale world with remarkable precision and sensitivity. Such tools will be invaluable to the development of true quantum information processors. The quantum revolution is already under way, and the possibilities that lie ahead are limitless.

iqc.uwaterloo.ca...

Here M.I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd who does work at IQC where there's quantum computers.



Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Who invented entanglement? Who invented a qubit? Who invented superposition? You must know.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

who cares, the world does feel real and that is all that matters, hologram or no hologram.

why would you not care. Answering such questions gives us a better understanding of the mystery of life.. To not wonder about such things in my humble opinion is to be half dead..

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

who cares, the world does feel real and that is all that matters, hologram or no hologram.

why would you not care. Answering such questions gives us a better understanding of the mystery of life.. To not wonder about such things in my humble opinion is to be half dead..

Good points. It's like Plato and the Allegory of the Cave if people want to talk Philosophy. People in the cave are comfortable in not knowing the true nature of reality. They're okay with the illusion. It's like the scene in the Matrix where Cypher says Ignorance is Bliss. Some people think that way.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by john_bmth

 

You said:

...

You don't understand information.

State the specific definition of information you are trying to use.

Nobody ever said nature can produce a microwave. I said humans can build a technology that gives us a microwave oven. We can take Data or information in a high state of entropy and arrange that data into a low state of entropy to convey a message.So both the microwaves and the microwave oven are constructs of information.

State the specific definition of information you are trying to use.

It takes energy to turn information in a high state of entropy into information in a low state of entropy. This is why information and entropy are linked.

State the specific definition of information you are trying to use. There are very different definitions that you are getting confused with.

Again, bits and qubits are not human constructs. Who invented the qubit? Who invented superposition? Who invented entanglement?

Did you even read my response? They clearly are human constructs, as I have demonstrated (and you have ignored). They word "qbit" means quantum bit. That is a portmanteau of the words "quantum" and "bit".

You claimed that the qubit was a human construct. Back up your claim. Who invented the qubit?

Stephen Wiesner:

The concept of the qubit was unknowingly introduced by Stephen Wiesner in 1983, in his proposal for unforgeable quantum money, which he had tried to publish for over a decade.

You said:

Quantum computers don't even exist yet! And before you get your knickers in a twist, the DWave machine and it's workings has not actually been demonstrated to the scientific community and as such their claims are met with scepticism.

Wrong again.

...

Big deal! That doesn't in anyway invalidate what i said. I noticed you skipped the point I hammered home so I'll have to repeat it again in the vain hope you might grasp it: researchers are taking a number of approaches to creating qubits.

Creating qbits.

One more time:

Creating qbits.

Why would you need to create something that exists naturally? Let's really hammer that home with another source:

Recently, diamond-based qubits created a flurry of interest because their "decoherence" time (the time that they can retain their logic state) is much longer than the time it takes to perform a logical operation – even at room temperature. What is more, they can be read-out using light, which means that they could potentially be integrated into photonic quantum-information-processing systems. However, making these qubits remains a challenge – both in terms of cost and scaling-up the technology to make multi-qubit integrated circuits.

source

MAKING qbits. Are you getting the picture now? Also, from the very page you linked:

A quantum computer, on the other hand, uses quantum bits, or qubits. What's the difference? Well a qubit is a quantum system that encodes the zero and the one into two distinguishable quantum states.

See? Qubits are a human construct used to encode Boolean states (another human construct).

More off-topic rambling

So yet again you completely fail to address any of the blatant falsehoods I have highlighted from your posts. Yet again you stick your fingers in your ears and cry "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when somebody highlights the glaring gaps and misconceptions in your understanding. You have displayed an embarrassingly poor grasp of the very topics you accuse others of being ignorant of. Not only that, but you've been stamping your feet like a child accusing others of "not getting it" yet completely ignore my rebuttals when I very clearly and succinctly demonstrate that what you say is completely wrong. So, are you going to actually bother to address the criticisms I have levelled at you or are you going to continue ignoring them?

reply to post by john_bmth


Checkmate.

You again don't have a clue as to what you're saying. You said:

Big deal! That doesn't in anyway invalidate what i said. I noticed you skipped the point I hammered home so I'll have to repeat it again in the vain hope you might grasp it: researchers are taking a number of approaches to creating qubits.

LOL, yeah it's a big deal because quantum computers exist. You said:

Quantum computers don't even exist yet!

You were so sure of this you put an exclamation mark behind it.

WRONG!!! There's 3 exclamation marks for you. Quantum Computers do exist there just not any more powerful than a 20 GB computer so there's no practical use for them. This is a matter of scaling and decoherence.

Qubits are not a human construct. When you build a microwave oven you don't have to create microwaves. When researchers say they're creating qubits, they're putting electrons or photons in a state of superposition which already occurs in nature.

They're not making qubits anymore than a person who makes a radio makes radio waves. You can create qubits if you put an electron in a state of superposition. Nobody is creating superposition or entanglement. Nobody invented or created a qubit. It exist because of superposition.

The qubit is described by a quantum state in a two-state quantum-mechanical system, which is formally equivalent to a two-dimensional vector space over the complex numbers. One example of a two-state quantum system is the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarization and horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.

en.wikipedia.org...

Superposition produces the Qubit not the people in the lab. It would be like saying if the people at the LHC find the Higgs Boson they would have created the Higgs Boson. They just built a machine that can recreate conditions that occur in nature.

Just like a quantum computer will create conditions that already occur in nature which is superposition. When an electron is in superposition it's already in a binary state. Instead of being a 1 or an 0 like a classical bit it's a 1 and 0 at the same time because of superposition. So we just have to create a machine(quantum computer) that will allow superposition to stay in place as we scale up instead of becoming entangled because of decoherence.

When a particle is in superposition it's a qubit. It's the probability amplitude of the superposition that creates qubits.

You said:

See? Qubits are a human construct used to encode Boolean states (another human construct).

Nope, qubits are a construct of superposition.

Do you know anything about superposition and probability amplitudes? It's just like a high voltage 1 or a low voltage 0 in a classical computer, except in a quantum computer the high voltage 1 or low voltage 0 is replaced by superposition and probability amplitudes. For instance horizontal polarization could be a 1 and vertical polarization can be an 0. If you can build a machine that holds this superposition then you can have a powerful, scaled up quantum computer. We're just translating what already occurs on a quantum level to a classic level.

Name me one human concept that's not based on information. Humans just take information in a high entropy state and arrange it in a low entropy state to convey a message.

If the universe is not a construct of information name me one concept that isn't based on information? I'm waiting for you to tell me who invented superposition and who invented the qubit.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


depends on your definition of existance.

PART 1
This is the last time I'm going to bother replying to you because you're clearly not interested in addressing any rebuttals I make.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Checkmate. You again don't have a clue as to what you're saying. You said:

…
LOL, yeah it's a big deal because quantum computers exist. You said:

Quantum computers don't even exist yet!

You were so sure of this you put an exclamation mark behind it.

WRONG!!! There's 3 exclamation marks for you.

One last time: how does that in any way invalidate my rebuttal that clearly demonstrates your assertion that qbits are not man-made is patently false? I've exposed you for telling outright falsehoods and you are jumping up and down with excitement over some trivial detail that has no bearing on my argument. Are you even going to bother addressing the fact that i have clearly pointed out that qbits are man made and that your assertions of them being naturally occurring are clearly incorrect? This is precisely why I am not going to bother with you any more, you are clearly a very juvenile person who is not interested in meaningful debate.

Qubits are not a human construct. When you build a microwave oven you don't have to create microwaves. When researchers say they're creating qubits, they're putting electrons or photons in a state of superposition which already occurs in nature.

They're not making qubits anymore than a person who makes a radio makes radio waves. You can create qubits if you put an electron in a state of superposition. Nobody is creating superposition or entanglement. Nobody invented or created a qubit. It exist because of superposition.

I have clearly demonstrated this is not the case. I have given you two independent sources that state explicitly that qbits are created by man. I have gone into detail as to how they are a man made construct used to represent man made concepts. The fact you are ignoring this only shows your own ignorance and childishness as you persist with some petty (and ultimately doomed) point scoring game.

The qubit is described by a quantum state in a two-state quantum-mechanical system, which is formally equivalent to a two-dimensional vector space over the complex numbers. One example of a two-state quantum system is the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarization and horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.

en.wikipedia.org...

Superposition produces the Qubit not the people in the lab. It would be like saying if the people at the LHC find the Higgs Boson they would have created the Higgs Boson. They just built a machine that can recreate conditions that occur in nature.

Just like a quantum computer will create conditions that already occur in nature which is superposition. When an electron is in superposition it's already in a binary state. Instead of being a 1 or an 0 like a classical bit it's a 1 and 0 at the same time because of superposition. So we just have to create a machine(quantum computer) that will allow superposition to stay in place as we scale up instead of becoming entangled because of decoherence.

When a particle is in superposition it's a qubit. It's the probability amplitude of the superposition that creates qubits.

You clearly do not understand the source material you are posting. One last time: a qbit means quantum bit. A bit is a man made concept used in representing another man made concept, the binary number system. The fact you cannot grasp this only serves to highlight your ignorance.

You said:

See? Qubits are a human construct used to encode Boolean states (another human construct).

Nope, qubits are a construct of superposition.
Do you know anything about superposition and probability amplitudes? It's just like a high voltage 1 or a low voltage 0 in a classical computer, except in a quantum computer the high voltage 1 or low voltage 0 is replaced by superposition and probability amplitudes. For instance horizontal polarization could be a 1 and vertical polarization can be an 0. If you can build a machine that holds this superposition then you can have a powerful, scaled up quantum computer. We're just translating what already occurs on a quantum level to a classic level.

Again, I have explained this many times already yet you cannot grasp the concept of separating the physical properties from the man made conceptual function. Even a child can grasp this concept, why are you struggling so hard?

PART 2

Name me one human concept that's not based on information. Humans just take information in a high entropy state and arrange it in a low entropy state to convey a message.

Are you even reading my responses? State exactly what definition of the word "information" you are trying to use to make your point along with the science to back it up.

If the universe is not a construct of information name me one concept that isn't based on information?

See above

I'm waiting for you to tell me who invented superposition and who invented the qubit.

Yet again, your own ignorance is shining through as you are confusing physical phenomenom with man made constructs. Superposition is a physical phenomenom whilst a qbit is a man made construct. I even answered who "invented" the qbit in my previous post!

Quite frankly, I am tired of "debating" with you. You act in a childish and ignorant manner and don't even have the courtesy to answer the very specific rebuttals to your claims. People like you who are truely ignorant are too darn ignorant to actually see that it is them who is acting the fool. For all your mockery, it is quite clear to the informed reader (i.e. those above the age of 12) that you are woefully ignorant of the concepts you accuse others of not understanding. These aren't even difficult concepts yet time and time again you're too darn ignorant to realise how utterly wrong you are. Even when presented with evidence, you continue to completely side step the issue, most likely because you clearly didn't understand the source material presented to demonstrate that what you are saying is false. Instead you regurgitate completely off-topic information you've read somewhere, because if you truly understood the things you copy and paste and you truly understood the rebuttals made against you, you would either challenge them or change your stance. As I said, an intelligent debate requires both parties to be informed, thus I see no reason to go round in circles attempting to challenge your ignorance. Every falsehood you keep reiterating I have refuted at least once, if you can't grasp the thrust of the rebuttal the first or second time, you're clearly never going to grasp it.

reply to post by john_bmth


You haven't presented evidence of anything. You're not making any sense whatsoever. Qubits aren't man made objects. Show me one scientific study on quantum computing that will say this.

These papers will talk about things like superposition, entanglement and decoherence. Nobody thinks qubits are man made except you. They're a result of superposition and probability amplitudes. A quantum computer is a machine that allows us to bring what already happens on a quantum level to a classical level. It's just like a radio is just technology that allows us to use radio waves which already occur in nature.

Qubits are a construct of superposition. It's no different than saying quarks are man made because we built a machine that discovered them.

You said:

You clearly do not understand the source material you are posting. One last time: a qbit means quantum bit. A bit is a man made concept used in representing another man made concept, the binary number system.

Question:

Where are qubits located?

Answer:

Qubits are found when a subatomic particle is in superposition. There's no qubit or quantum computer without superposition.

Question?

Aren't Qubits a man made concept?

Answer:

Are you crazy?

Question:

They have to be a man made concept right?

Answer:

No, that makes no sense. Human concepts are always based on pre-existing information. Can you think of one concept that doesn't involve information? A subatomic particle can be in a state of superposition. The probability amplitudes are qubits. A quantum computer is designed to avoid entanglement. When we scale up quantum computers which means when we can hold more qubits in a state of superposition then we will have a very powerful quantum computer.

While physicists struggle to make the first practical quantum computer, nature is full of them. According to theoretical chemist Graham Fleming of the University of California at Berkeley and colleagues, photosynthesis achieves its formidable efficiency by conducting a quantum-computing search algorithm. This process finds the best route for shifting energy from light-absorbing molecules to the photosynthetic reaction centre, where it is used to drive chemical reactions.

Previously, scientists assumed that the light energy - in the form of excited molecular electronic states called excitons - finds its way to the reaction centre via random hops between chromophores with successively lower energy levels, like a stream of water meandering downhill. But Fleming and colleagues now say that a broader view informs this path: the energy is smeared out over many electronic states in a quantum superposition, in effect being in many different states at once. In this way it 'samples' the routes available to it, and finds the path of least resistance. That may account for why this part of the photosynthetic process, in which light energy is converted into chemical energy, is so efficient: typically 95 percent or more of the absorbed energy is funnelled to the reaction centre.

www.rsc.org...

This is how quantum computers work. They calculate the answers horizontally or parallel instead of vertically like a classical computer. This is because of superposition something that already occurs in nature.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Yes the FACTS to change.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you meant "Do" instead of "To"

There's a huge difference between the universe being a material objective reality or a construct of information.

No, there is not.

Explain how the universe is made of information, and then explain how that makes physical objects somehow no longer physical.

The reason we have all of these paradoxes in science and there's a gulf between quantum mechanics and classical physics is because some scientist treat the universe as an objective material reality.

Yeah, it really is a shame that Science can only deal with this little thing called "Evidence" right?

It's a darned shame we can't just call it all rainbows and unicorn farts, eh?

Many of these paradoxes and problems go away when you look at the universe as a construct of information.

Explain what you mean by "A construct of information"

Again, you're making a philosophical argument and this is a debate about science.

Incorrect, I am making a simple scientific observation about the Reality of Reality, to contrast your presupposition that Real things are not Real.

Of course it makes no difference in the context of philosophy.

Then why even bring it up?

If you think and experience it as real then it's reality to you.

Is there another form of reality that you are not telling us about?

Because I was under the impression (the correct impression) that reality is what we are observing, and comprised of.

In the context of science there's a huge difference if the universe is an objective material reality or a construct of information.

Explain your position.

Try not to use the words:

"Crystal Energy"
"Quantum entanglement"
"Quantum Mechanics"
"Relativity"
"Informational Construct"

or other such terms that do not apply to the discussion.

Unless, of course, you are going to explain what you mean by "Information construct", that is...

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Can physical mass exceed c? There, you have the quick answer.

reply to post by masterp

There are no truly simultaneous events. Relativity is valid in all levels.

Events occurring in the same inertial frame of reference are simultaneous according to relativity.

The machine is physical.

Then a physical world exists. Since we are not in a position to distinguish it from the ‘simulation’ you claim we live in, the simulation may as well be real, too. Therefore, the physical world exists.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

who cares, the world does feel real and that is all that matters, hologram or no hologram.

why would you not care. Answering such questions gives us a better understanding of the mystery of life.. To not wonder about such things in my humble opinion is to be half dead..

The reason I said so was cos, I believe that I've beaten Fermilab in creating the holometer.
I dont know if they have succeeded as yet or not.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


well that rsc link info you quoted sure sounds like a qubit to me. point is awarded to you.

also, in your response to Mr friendly (john-bmth) you did not use ugly and condescending language such as "clearly" "juvenile" "clearly" and "clearly" and "child can understand" and...

...did I say "clearly"? oh, yes, and "clearly".

so that's two points for you. I still hate your argument, but you are doing better than this clown.


and lets see here, john... you have submitted (as far as I have read) an effing WIKI link.

NO POINTS for wiki links. clearly.

We are now synergetically forced to conclude that all phenomena are metaphysical; wherefore, as many have long suspected — like it or not — "life is but a dream."
Richard Buckminster Fuller

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You are still failing to grasp the difference between physical property and conceptual function. Let's have a look at how qbits are made:

Basic steps towards the creation of a quantum computer have been taken, with the demonstrations of elementary data storage and manipulation using photons and atoms or trapped ions as the quantum bits, or "qubits". Recently, it has been shown that it is possible to build solid-state qubits made from tiny samples of superconducting material. Figure 01 shows some of the subjects, which are currently being investigated in the field of quantum computing.

Designing a qubit is especially difficult. If they are made from single rubidium atoms, for example, they are less susceptible to the influence of stray magnetic fields that can ruin their ability to be in the “on and off” state.

In their innovation, the NIST team created a qubit made of two atoms, in which one was the “memory” and the other the instrument for “processing.”

Photons are good candidates for qubits because they can easily be prepared in a superposition of two (polarization) states, but how might a memory device for such qubits be made without effectively making a measurement on them and destroying the quantum information?

The main characteristics of good qubits are long coherence times in combination with fast operating times. It is well known that carbon-based materials could increase the coherence times of spin qubits, which are among the most developed solid-state qubits. Here, we propose how to form spin qubits in graphene quantum dots.

The most remarkable new feature of the proposed spin qubits is that, in an array of many qubits, it is possible to couple any two of them via Heisenberg exchange with the others being decoupled by detuning.

“There are several ways to make qubits with light,” Pfister explains. “One is to use a resonant mode of a cavity. A single laser cavity has millions of harmonic modes, and if you can design it, your scalability problem is solved.”

“There are a lot of tools available right now to make qubits, and this is one of them,” Pfister continues. “Our experiment shows a great potential for scaling up the number of entangled qubits that can be used in quantum processing. We are another step closer.”

“The color centers in diamond are very interesting as qubits for quantum information processing, where they can be used as memory to store information,” says Lončar. “More importantly, they can be interrogated—they can be written into and read out—with light.”

But no existing quantum computing architecture—that is, how we make quantum bits (qubits) and perform operations on them—is really all that satisfying. If you don't even know which materials are best for building a quantum computer, it makes progress awfully slow.

As a result, a lot of researchers have moved away from constructing proof-of-principle demonstrations of quantum computing, and are now trying to create clever ways to make qubits better behaved. A pair of papers look into the prospects for using impure diamonds as an architecture for quantum computing

How do you make a qubit from impure diamond? The electrons in carbon are arranged so that four of its electrons wish they had the company of four other electrons—hence, in diamond, each carbon atom has four carbon atom friends. If we add a nitrogen atom into the mix—making the diamond yellow in color—then there is a problem.

• how to make qubits from superconducting circuits
• realizations of superconducting qubits
• controlling qubits
• coherence/decoherence
• qubit readouts and measurements
• coupled qubits
• conclusion

Just like a normal computer bit, a qubit can adopt the states ‘0’ and ‘1’. One way to make a qubit is to trap a single electron in semiconductor material. It’s state can be set by using the spin of an electron, which is generated by spinning the electron on its axis. As it can spin in two directions, one direction represents the ‘0’ state, while the opposite direction represents the ‘1’ state.

See? Lots of different approaches to making qbits. All use different materials which exploit different physical properties to perform the same conceptual function. But of course you'll just continue with your fingers in your ears as you're too darn ignorant to see the error of your ways, even when it's waved in your face.