Counterfactual computation

Sounds reasonable. A tunnel diode is basically a less-than-zero-voltage zener.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin
Loading thread data ...

====snip====

Professor Jim Al-Khalili is convinced that our sense of smell relies heavily on it, as does the European Robin for its sense of the Earth's magnetic field and the frog for its ability to have metamorphosed from the tadpole stage into its adult form as he explained in the second of a two episode TV documentary entitled "The Secrets of Quantum Physics" sub- titled, "Let There Be Life".

--
Johnny B Good
Reply to
Johnny B Good

On a sunny day (Fri, 24 May 2019 13:10:52 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

No See

formatting link

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

Read the Technical Comparisons section. About what I said.

But you think QM is a hoax, so tunnel diodes don't exist.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 07:26:29 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

Like I said, it is easy to make a mechanical device that only lets balls falling from a specific height go through. You can make that with a simple spring and 3 holes. That will give you the 'negative resistance' effect for balls. In a crystal lattice and the electric field as spring and electrons as balls it is all normal no magic. No QM needed.

I have worked with tunnel diodes, these exist. I have not worked with cats that were both alive and dead. If you do not - cannot think of such a mechanical device I will draw one on paper with green pen on white for you. You should really read up on physics and what happend in that Copenhagen event and the alternatives that were presented to QM.

In this world mathemagicians like to take credit for everything, including but not limited to string theory and multi-verses and what not. I am more an experimentalist. Neural nets like me (probably you too) have a different sort of math. That is why the ball player can catch a ball without the barriers the mathemagician puts up who needs a lot of equations, wind speed - and direction sensor, 3D vision system, air pressure, weight of ball, gravitational constant, what not and especially on top of all: TIME.

Time is an interesting thing, the granularity of time is an other interesting thing, you who works with pick-a-second pulses. You were in that oval office, you should have stayed there, and prevented so many wars perhaps. Now there is an idiot there who is into triggering a world war and does not even know he is played by a bunch of religious fanatic idiots the republicans.

OK, my view.

:-)

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

OK, now make a ball disappear from one side of a brick wall and appear instantly on the other side.

I believe that consciousness and creativity are precisely QM effects. But that's just me.

--
John Larkin   Highland Technology, Inc   trk 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Show us where it says so and we'll try to shoot it down. These faster-than-light tunnel stories are just dumbed-down nonsense.

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

Who also believes what he reads on climate change denial web-sites and in creationist (intelligent design) propaganda.

Merely gullible John Larkin, rather than just John Larkin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 12:21:59 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

That is not what is happening AFAIK in a tunnel diode, 'instantly' would violate a lot of physical laws, for example it would be FTL, Einstein would roll over.

You may well be right, I do believe everything is connected, every electron is affected by every other electron in the known universe, we do know that. There goes free will, we are all part of the same cosmic process, whatever that is.

My opinion on photon is that it is just a mathematical model.

In an ocean with waves I look at the electron orbiting in an atom as a pole with a ball (the electron) on a wire. Only when the wave pattern is just right will the ball be swept lose from the pole. An electron escapes in the PMT, is then accelerated and multiplied, and the physicist then cries: 'PHOTON detected'. As if that wave pattern was not there.

Mathematically wave patterns can lead to freak waves, huge waves, superposition of waves can lead to incredible huge waves that can do unexpected things. And everything in this universe (ocean) creates waves, What the ocean is made of? fishysicks talk often about virtual particles popping in and out of existence these days, De Broglie pilot wave theory, if particles are wave patterns than the freak waves can turn into / are particles.. I am to some large extent with De Broglie. His theory was one of those proposed in that Copenhagen event, the dead and alive cat theory won the lottery. .......

There but for fortune...

Wonder a thousand years from now, earth wind and fire was the basic elements long ago, and it was dare not argue with that!

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

s falling from a specific height go through.

balls it is all normal no magic.

FTL,

Of course you would focus on that rather than the point he is trying to mak e that the electron will tunnel through the barrier it should not be able t o cross. While the electron can and will do this, the ball will not, makin g your claim invalid.

e on paper with green pen on white for you.

n event and the alternatives that were presented to QM.

ing but not limited to string theory and multi-verses

r that is.

"Being connected" and being connected in some meaningful way are two differ ent things.

No one knows what consciousness is and free will is part of that. So it is pointless to discuss free will until we understand what consciousness is.

Of what exactly? All science is just mathematical models. It's not like n ature has any appreciation of our limited ability to understand.

the pole.

"Just right". Sounds vague enough to be something JL says.

So please explain the nature of the "just right" wave pattern that fits the facts.

sition

popping in and out of existence these days,

ak waves can turn into / are particles..

nd alive cat theory won the lottery.

So in your mind particles are waves, but waves can't be particles???

nts long ago,

Don't forget water!

The big difference was a thousand years ago they didn't believe scientists, aka gentlemen, should experiment. Science is something obvious they shoul d be able to figure out by simply thinking about it. Once we started actua lly doing experiments to answer questions, science took off and has been ac celerating ever since. Forget how things will be different in a thousand y ears. Expect things to be dramatically different in 100 years... other tha n politics.

--
  Rick C. 

  + Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

I don't think the mysticism is entirely unjustified. It is decidedly hard to interpret how Bell's inequality holds without some difficulty. I would find it unacceptable to have non-local variables with FTL communication as a get out of jail free card for "explaining" QM.

formatting link
's_inequality

When we have a more complete theory it may be obvious how entanglement actually works in detail, but at the moment it looks a bit worryingly like Newton's classical gravity acting at a distance with infinte speed.

In a handwaving sort of way you can visualise it as the particle exploring all possible paths available to it. This happens to result in the path of shortest time being the central white light fringe and path differences of a few wavelengths having peaks of probability too.

The problem is that you cannot know which slot your photon went through if you want to see the interference pattern.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 May 2019 23:14:29 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C wrote in :

He was not making any point but threw up some wrong dogmatic statement. That 'barrier' only exists in the QM interpretation of things,

You miss the point. What you call meaningful is part of the self centered subnet needed for the subsystem called humming bean, also sometimes referred to as human being, to maintain itself. If it even can be viewed that way, it is just a knot in the wave pattern.

consciousness is simple. If you drop the mystification and 'I think so I am' crap (Descartes), then look at a a light shade with a photocell system. It (that system) is conscious of light, Period. It is not conscious of itself, but we can easily fix that by adding a micro and speech synthesizer that says: "Hi I can see clearly now now" (if light), and "Cannot see a d*mned thing" if dark.

As simple as that.

formatting link

Resonances, try looking at water and objects and wave patterns in it, everything that moves in that water causes a ripple (look at surface for simplicity) The ripples add, superposition. NOT a specific frequency but the SUM of all that exists (is) at any given point is what affects the electron at that point (point if you look at electron as a point charge). The frequency of the wave at that point and its amplitude and direction is set by the rest of the universe (what happened in that pond of water). If that wave at that point has the right properties then and only then the electron is knocked loose in that PMT and 'photon' is cried.

This is very important to see.

Read again, I just stated that the 'popping in an out of existence' virtual particles are like (and are) freak waves.

Indeed.

I don't know, Archimedes was such an experimenter, but religions, sun orbiting the earth, earth at center of universe, inquisitions, witch burning, etc was not helping.

In history there seem to be sort of ripples too, from nothing to iron age, then thousands of years same, then few hundred years ago 'trickety, steam engine, radio, and likely total destruction and religion again in the next (global war) then archaeologists will dig up stuff thousands of years later WoW! those guys made micro-circuits, how did that do that with the simple tools of those days, like we now wonder about the pyramids.

Or we just go extinct and the mosquitos win. Those will live from smaller animals. Or a totally new advanced species will rule... Us being able to make tools is not so different from crows (those do that too). The best equipped species for the environment will live,. If humming beans do not make it to other solar systems we will go extinct anyways when the sun engulfs the planets in it final burning stage.

So... again, we are all just a subsection of nature.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

But there is no classical equivalent for this or for Josephson junctions or SQUIDs. I was always impressed by the staircase current vs voltage waveform of a JJ in a magnetic field as the flux linked was increased.

Inverse square laws never go quite to zero but they do get very small.

The influence of gravity reaches a lot further than electrostatic charge because it is always attractive. Charge separation is uncommon in nature

- most things are electrically neutral.

All of physics is a mathematical model. And QM works to predict diffraction patterns for photons and for silver ions or buckeyballs. The problem for heavier objects is getting the momentum right to have a long enough wavelength to diffract off physical structures.

A photon is in a very real sense a pattern of electromagnetic waves with a long enough temporal extent to have a defined frequency and error. It is a tenet of time vs frequency that something compact in one domain is broad in the other. A photons properties must be a compromise.

Gaussian distributions give you reasonably nice properties in both domains. But there are other shapes that are possibilities.

Virtual particle effects have been measured in the lab - see Casimir effect.

formatting link

Any new theory has to include what we know now and explain all of the experimental observations to date. If there is a more complete theory then it will reduce to present day physics like QM, QCD and GR in the weak field limiting case. It may also be rather unweidly for normal use.

Nobody bothers to do GR corrections for car braking systems today.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Entanglement means that some aggregate property of an EM signal is conserved across conversions. The LO and IF in a super-heterodyne receiver are entangled, because you can reconstruct the original RF by mixing them together again. This is precisely what Zeilinger did with light in his article "Imaging with undetected photons".

Particles don't follow multiple paths at once. Waves do. Photons aren't particles, they are quantized interactions between matter and EM waves. There is no such thing as a discrete photon in transit. There will never be a pea-shooter for single photons at determined instants.

That's not a problem. Interference is a fundamental property of waves.

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

Hi Jeroen, My comments on quantum ideas in this thread:

1 There are several ways to describe each phenomenon.

2 Quantum mechanics uses partial truths and wrong ideas.

3 A quantum computer made of an element computes self-serving results, not general answers about cryptography, as an example.

4 Electrons use 2 space dimensions and one time like dimension to be owned by one proton. That is a bond.

5 Electrons exclude other 2 dimensional bonds to foreign protons.

6 The flat bonds stack with no thickness for superconductivity. Ohm = cycles of unpairing and pairing PER SECOND. Ohm = per second. Mobility is seconds per cycle of unpairing and pairing. Mobility = second = 1/R. Superconductors have no unpairings of an electron and a proton as the current goes in circles of the circuit. The bond is not broken. One electron stays paired with the same proton, even for a meter long circuit.

7 Quantum theory is now being replaced. A deterministic theory of which electron is paired with which proton will be seen.

8 Entanglement of 2 photons is due to the molecular bonds near each other that emit the photons.

9 Molecular bonds have units of measure: velocity. So the index of refraction is explained.

10 BBO Barium Boron Oxygen light frequency conversion can be emulated by a non-linear circuit element, like a diode. Input a 1MHz voltage signal to a diode to forward bias it. The harmonics in the output current will not be only 1 MHz. A set of filters and rectifiers will deliver a low frequency that can be used in more stages to tailor the spectrum output.

Reply to
omnilobe

IMHO (albeit I agree with You) You made a classical assumption, quantum computer must be quantistically evaluated.

delo

Reply to
delo

Yes there is. And it has been done many times. With a suitably dense filter and a monochromatic source you can do Young's slit experiment so that there is never more than one photon in the apparatus at a time. It became a lot easier to demonstrate once Boksenberg's Image Photon Counting System became available which does what it says on the tin. It has even been done in real time at one of the RI Christmas Lectures.

The problem with that is that electrons and neutrons *are* usually thought of as particles and they show wave diffraction effects too. So do silver ions and buckeyballs when their momentum is just right to have a wavelength suitable for being diffracted. The wave-particle duality is just that - the quantum mechanical wave model provides the mathematics for figuring out where you might detect a photon (or other particle).

eg

formatting link

It is the fundamental problem. Particles can behave like waves too!

There are a couple of interesting quirks for the wavefunction though. The probability envelope for a photon (or particle) in transit must be exactly zero for all regions ahead of its starting point+ct which means that a symmetric Gaussian distribution just will not do.

Various authors have tried to find a bridge between the quantum world and field theory by extending the mathematics to include photon propagation. I am inclined to think this one is barking up approximately the right tree:

formatting link

I will freely admit that I find it hard to imagine what a single photon for a longwave transmission at 200kHz must look like. We generally make rather a lot of them in coherent radio transmissions. Each individual one carries very little energy on its own.

To have a frequency defined to 6 sig fig its linear extent must be of the order of a million wavelengths. Likewise for the neutral hydrogen line at 1420MHz except that frequency is accurate to about 13 decimal digits (and even then perhaps limited by our experimental technique).

21cm x 10^13 = 2 x 10^9 km.
--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Meh. I think they are the reason why none of my Tek 475s will trigger properly any more, so I'm not so fond of them.

Reply to
Chris Jones

This is completely beside the point. Of course you can attenuate a light source so that the time between detections exceeds the light-speed delay of the apparatus. Detection events will still be random with a Poisson distribution. This behaviour can be perfectly explained by a semi-classical model, where the probability of detection depends on the power density of the incident wave. No particle-like photons needed.

The impossible photon pea-shooter I was referring to was to fire photons at a *regular* predictable rate. *That* is never going to happen.

[...]

Particles interact with fields and fields can sustain waves. There is nothing truly mysterious about that. Have you ever seen plastic beads levitating in a field of ultrasonic sound waves, or sand particles on a vibrating membrane? Arguably, they form interference patterns, but it's not the particles causing that, it's the waves that do. The particles merely collect in the nodes.

That is causality. An effect cannot occur where the wave that carries it hasn't reached yet.

Mmmh.

Quite a stretch, indeed.

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

Interestingly that isn't quite true. I recall from my long-ago relativistic quantum class that solutions to the Dirac equation don't go identically to zero outside the light cone, but do decay exponentially there.

Otherwise you can't satisfy the patching condition at the light cone boundary.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Reply to
pcdhobbs

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.