| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Traveler" |
| Date: |
12 May 2007 05:41:13 PM |
| Object: |
Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
Paul Feyerabend, the foremost science critic of the last century, once
wrote in his book 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures
and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an
aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give
them a more modest position in society." Feyerabend was speaking of
scientists in general but he may as well have been talking about the
new "science" of quantum computing. Quantum computing is based on the
idea that the states of certain quantum properties, such as the spin
of a particle, are superposed, meaning that a quantum property can
have multiple states simultaneously.
You can read the rest of the article here:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
.
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
12 May 2007 05:44:33 PM |
|
|
In article <gigc431ekc513ou33g6v04ajdmiiusjols@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
Paul Feyerabend, the foremost science critic of the last century, once
wrote in his book 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures
and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an
aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give
them a more modest position in society." Feyerabend was speaking of
scientists in general but he may as well have been talking about the
new "science" of quantum computing. Quantum computing is based on the
idea that the states of certain quantum properties, such as the spin
of a particle, are superposed, meaning that a quantum property can
have multiple states simultaneously.
You can read the rest of the article here:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Still trolling, Hanson? Its the only reason I can see you love to expose your
idiocy in such a manner....
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
12 May 2007 06:52:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:44:33 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <gigc431ekc513ou33g6v04ajdmiiusjols@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
Paul Feyerabend, the foremost science critic of the last century, once
wrote in his book 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures
and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an
aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give
them a more modest position in society." Feyerabend was speaking of
scientists in general but he may as well have been talking about the
new "science" of quantum computing. Quantum computing is based on the
idea that the states of certain quantum properties, such as the spin
of a particle, are superposed, meaning that a quantum property can
have multiple states simultaneously.
You can read the rest of the article here:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Still trolling, Hanson? Its the only reason I can see you love to expose your
idiocy in such a manner....
ahahaha... Hey, Varney. How many blacks and Mexicans did run over in
Denver today? Oh yeah, what does John Baez's ***** smell like today?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
12 May 2007 06:56:03 PM |
|
|
In article <9okc43l4j4lt47fgu1a8mc3jca5bq76ro0@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
ahahaha... Hey, Varney. How many blacks and Mexicans did run over in
Denver today? Oh yeah, what does John Baez's ***** smell like today?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Keep up Hanson. Apparently HJ no longer thinks I'm Varney. But then again, you
never could have an original thought in your head could you.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
12 May 2007 07:16:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:56:03 +0100, ***** kisser Mike Varney Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <9okc43l4j4lt47fgu1a8mc3jca5bq76ro0@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
ahahaha... Hey, Varney. How many blacks and Mexicans did run over in
Denver today? Oh yeah, what does John Baez's ***** smell like today?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Keep up Hanson. Apparently HJ no longer thinks I'm Varney.
Well, since you think I'm Hanson, I'm just returning the favor,
VARNEY. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
12 May 2007 08:16:08 PM |
|
|
---[ Louis 1 : Varney 0 ]---
Louis Savain, "Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in
news:13mc43phj9qm2tth18gfnbvi52g09q7322@4ax.com...
***** kisser Mike Varney Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <9okc43l4j4lt47fgu1a8mc3jca5bq76ro0@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
ahahaha... Hey, Varney. How many blacks and Mexicans did run over in
Denver today? Oh yeah, what does John Baez's ***** smell like today?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
[Varney]
Keep up Hanson. Apparently HJ no longer thinks I'm Varney.
[Louis]
Well, since you think I'm Hanson, I'm just returning the favor,
VARNEY. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Louis Savain
---[ Louis 1 : Varney 0 ]---
AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
12 May 2007 07:36:32 PM |
|
|
In article <13mc43phj9qm2tth18gfnbvi52g09q7322@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
Well, since you think I'm Hanson, I'm just returning the favor,
VARNEY. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Of course.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Yes of course. There there. Take your meds.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vend" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
12 May 2007 08:16:10 PM |
|
|
On 13 Mag, 00:41, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
Paul Feyerabend, the foremost science critic of the last century, once
wrote in his book 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures
and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an
aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give
them a more modest position in society." Feyerabend was speaking of
scientists in general but he may as well have been talking about the
new "science" of quantum computing. Quantum computing is based on the
idea that the states of certain quantum properties, such as the spin
of a particle, are superposed, meaning that a quantum property can
have multiple states simultaneously.
You can read the rest of the article here:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Back to trolling?
Can you tell me how you calculate the diffraction pattern in a
diffraction experiment with single photons or single electrons using
your bible physics (or whatever you like)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
15 May 2007 08:23:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1179018970.685393.148830@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Vend <vend82@virgilio.it> wrote:
On 13 Mag, 00:41, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
Paul Feyerabend, the foremost science critic of the last century, once
wrote in his book 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures
and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an
aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give
them a more modest position in society." Feyerabend was speaking of
scientists in general but he may as well have been talking about the
new "science" of quantum computing. Quantum computing is based on the
idea that the states of certain quantum properties, such as the spin
of a particle, are superposed, meaning that a quantum property can
have multiple states simultaneously.
You can read the rest of the article here:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Back to trolling?
Can you tell me how you calculate the diffraction pattern in a
diffraction experiment with single photons or single electrons using
your bible physics (or whatever you like)?
***{Not to butt in or anything, but you bring up a very interesting
topic. While I realize you haven't cited any specific experiment, and,
thus, this may not directly apply to what you have in mind, my question
is this: how do you conclude that, when a photon detector clicks once,
only one photon is present? By what reasoning do you dismiss the
possibility that multiple photons are present, with some following one
path and some following the other, for every click? --MJ}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
16 May 2007 05:05:35 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Jones wrote:
***{Not to butt in or anything, but you bring up a very interesting
topic. While I realize you haven't cited any specific experiment, and,
thus, this may not directly apply to what you have in mind, my question
is this: how do you conclude that, when a photon detector clicks once,
only one photon is present? By what reasoning do you dismiss the
possibility that multiple photons are present, with some following one
path and some following the other, for every click? --MJ}***
Release one photon at a time.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
16 May 2007 09:03:37 AM |
|
|
In article <5b03beF2qjfpdU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Mitchell Jones wrote:
***{Not to butt in or anything, but you bring up a very interesting
topic. While I realize you haven't cited any specific experiment, and,
thus, this may not directly apply to what you have in mind, my question
is this: how do you conclude that, when a photon detector clicks once,
only one photon is present? By what reasoning do you dismiss the
possibility that multiple photons are present, with some following one
path and some following the other, for every click? --MJ}***
Release one photon at a time.
***{Fine. How do you know you did that, other than by counting the
clicks on the photon detector? Maybe you actually released a million
photons, and only got one click. --MJ}***
Bob Kolker
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
16 May 2007 09:23:28 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Jones wrote:
***{Fine. How do you know you did that, other than by counting the
clicks on the photon detector? Maybe you actually released a million
photons, and only got one click. --MJ}***
Keep the energy low enough and you can control the radiative emission.
See
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113453230/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
and also
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5733/454
Likewise there are devices that emitt single electrons, yet an
interference pattern is built up from a multiple slit passthrough over
time.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
17 May 2007 02:17:33 PM |
|
|
In article <5b0if1F2qk2afU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Mitchell Jones wrote:
***{Fine. How do you know you did that, other than by counting the
clicks on the photon detector? Maybe you actually released a million
photons, and only got one click. --MJ}***
Keep the energy low enough and you can control the radiative emission.
See
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113453230/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=
1&SRETRY=0
***{The above link contained an abstract of an article making claims
about single photon emitting diodes, but no proof. To get to the actual
article, a $25 dollar fee is required, which, of course, I'm not about
to pay. Why not? Because I have asked many people for such references
over the years, and, upon examination, none of their claims held up.
Based on that track record, I could go broke chasing such links at $25 a
pop, before I found what I was looking for.
Of course, maybe I just haven't asked the right person yet. Therefore
here is my suggestion: why not try to become the "right person"
yourself, by actually stating some reasoning in defense of your claim
that there exist methods by which we can be sure exactly how many
photons are being emitted from a device? If a photon detector clicks
once, by what logic does that prove only one photon was emitted? Don't
you have to first verify that your detector clicks in response to every
photon that has been emitted, in order to verify that you do, in fact,
have a single photon source? And how, pray tell, do you verify that your
detector does that, without knowing that your photon source sends out
one and only one photon when you command it to do so?
Indeed, when one contemplates the results of a "single-photon,
double-slit" experiment, why does not the gradual buildup of an
interference pattern constitute proof that the source is emitting more
photons than the experimenters think it is emitting? By what logic is
that interpretation to be discounted, and preference given to the
bizarre notion that single photons are interfering with themselves?
--Mitchell Jones}***
and also
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5733/454
***{The above link leads to another abstract. This one claims that the
authors have created a triggered source of single photons with well
defined polarization that "has many potential applications for quantum
information processing." It does not, however, (a) contain any
supporting evidence, and (b) it does not even hint that such a source
has been used in any "single-photon, double-slit" types of experiments.
Moreover, when I attempted to read the actual article, a message
appeared telling me that I would have to pay a subscription fee to read
it. However, again, I am not about to pay such a fee, given the obvious
fact that if you thought the article contained anything relevant, you
could have simply quoted it in your post or restated the argument in
your own words.
Bottom line: the link as cited does not constitute support for your
claim. If you intend to defend your position, I suggest you post a
specific argument intended to accomplish that, or else cite a reference
to a publicly available source of such reasoning.
--Mitchell Jones}***
Likewise there are devices that emitt single electrons, yet an
interference pattern is built up from a multiple slit passthrough over
time.
***{You say that such devices exist. Fine. Let's hear the reasoning by
which we can be sure there is a one-to-one correspondence between
electrons emitted and electrons detected. How do we know, for example,
that there wasn't a million electrons emitted for every electron
detected? --MJ}***
Bob Kolker
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Feldmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
17 May 2007 02:37:13 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Jones a écrit :
In article <5b0if1F2qk2afU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Mitchell Jones wrote:
***{Fine. How do you know you did that, other than by counting the
clicks on the photon detector? Maybe you actually released a million
photons, and only got one click. --MJ}***
Keep the energy low enough and you can control the radiative emission.
See
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113453230/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=
1&SRETRY=0
***{The above link contained an abstract of an article making claims
about single photon emitting diodes, but no proof. To get to the actual
article, a $25 dollar fee is required, which, of course, I'm not about
to pay. Why not? Because I have asked many people for such references
over the years, and, upon examination, none of their claims held up.
Troll.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vend" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
16 May 2007 01:03:56 PM |
|
|
On 16 Mag, 16:03, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
***{Fine. How do you know you did that, other than by counting the
clicks on the photon detector? Maybe you actually released a million
photons, and only got one click. --MJ}***
It's a well known fact (since Plank and Einstain) that photons have
quantized energy:
The energy of a single photon is equal to: hc/l, where h is the
Plank's constant, c is the speed of light in the vacuum and l is the
wavelength of the radiation.
When you desing a light source you can control the total emitted power
(total energy/time) and the wavelength (the 'color' of the light).
Since the total energy emitted in a given time interval is just the
sum of the energy of all photons emitted in that interval, you can
simply calculate the average number of photons per interval: n = El/
hc, where E is the total energy.
Therefore, by keeping a low total power and/or a low wavelength you
can archive a small number of photons per time interval. In
particular, you can desing the source so that it emits only one photon
in an interval much larger than the time required for the photon to
traverse your experimental setup.
Then you can be sure (with high probability) that there is at most one
photon at time traveling in your experimental system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
17 May 2007 06:38:43 PM |
|
|
In article
<1179338636.841136.32400@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Vend <vend82@virgilio.it> wrote:
On 16 Mag, 16:03, Mitchell Jones <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
***{Fine. How do you know you did that, other than by counting the
clicks on the photon detector? Maybe you actually released a million
photons, and only got one click. --MJ}***
It's a well known fact (since Plank and Einstain) that photons have
quantized energy:
The energy of a single photon is equal to: hc/l, where h is the
Plank's constant, c is the speed of light in the vacuum and l is the
wavelength of the radiation.
When you desing a light source you can control the total emitted power
(total energy/time) and the wavelength (the 'color' of the light).
Since the total energy emitted in a given time interval is just the
sum of the energy of all photons emitted in that interval, you can
simply calculate the average number of photons per interval: n = El/
hc, where E is the total energy.
Therefore, by keeping a low total power and/or a low wavelength you
can archive a small number of photons per time interval. In
particular, you can desing the source so that it emits only one photon
in an interval much larger than the time required for the photon to
traverse your experimental setup.
Then you can be sure (with high probability) that there is at most one
photon at time traveling in your experimental system.
This idea that we can model light as a traveling entity was what
led Albert Einstein to write `On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies'. An electromagnetic wave observed in a reference frame
traveling with it is a configuration that utterly violates the
laws of electricity and magnetism. Nobody has ever observed a
photon.
<URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9711046>
<URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVM
-46SNKDK-T8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F04%2F1993&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=
search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_us
erid=10&md5=e5dc1f3060d8c28abc233d6ffdbd6595>
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
18 May 2007 01:50:28 PM |
|
|
Michael Press wrote:
This idea that we can model light as a traveling entity was what
led Albert Einstein to write `On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies'. An electromagnetic wave observed in a reference frame
traveling with it is a configuration that utterly violates the
laws of electricity and magnetism. Nobody has ever observed a
photon.
Wrong again!
See
http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/grangier.html
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
19 May 2007 01:22:47 PM |
|
|
In article <5b6armF2ro8meU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
This idea that we can model light as a traveling entity was what
led Albert Einstein to write `On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies'. An electromagnetic wave observed in a reference frame
traveling with it is a configuration that utterly violates the
laws of electricity and magnetism. Nobody has ever observed a
photon.
Wrong again!
See
http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/grangier.html
They got a pulse in a photo-multiplier detector. They
did not observe a photon. We infer, but do not observe
a photon. We did not see it leave, we did not see it
moving. The entirety of the evidence is a pulse in a
photo-multiplier detector.
Contrast with
<URL:http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/itamp/anti.html>
reporting long term storage of single subatomic particles.
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
19 May 2007 04:20:16 PM |
|
|
Michael Press wrote:
They got a pulse in a photo-multiplier detector. They
did not observe a photon. We infer, but do not observe
a photon. We did not see it leave, we did not see it
moving. The entirety of the evidence is a pulse in a
photo-multiplier detector.
Caused by a photon, you nitwit.
If you use google you will see several experiments showing that photons
exist. These experiments are at least as conclusive as those showing
electrons exist.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
19 May 2007 04:33:00 PM |
|
|
In article <5b980iF2qkusiU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
They got a pulse in a photo-multiplier detector. They
did not observe a photon. We infer, but do not observe
a photon. We did not see it leave, we did not see it
moving. The entirety of the evidence is a pulse in a
photo-multiplier detector.
Caused by a photon, you nitwit.
So you say.
If you use google you will see several experiments showing that photons
exist. These experiments are at least as conclusive as those showing
electrons exist.
It is blip in a mechanism. You infer the existence of a photon.
Nobody has observed a photon. Ever seen one in flight?
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
19 May 2007 05:00:19 PM |
|
|
Michael Press wrote:
It is blip in a mechanism. You infer the existence of a photon.
Nobody has observed a photon. Ever seen one in flight?
Have you ever seen an atom or an electron?
Have you ever seen a virus or a bacterium? And don't give me any crap
about microscopes either. What the scientists see are blips in the optics.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
19 May 2007 11:41:26 PM |
|
|
In article <5b9abkF2r667qU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
It is blip in a mechanism. You infer the existence of a photon.
Nobody has observed a photon. Ever seen one in flight?
Have you ever seen an atom or an electron?
Have you ever seen a virus or a bacterium? And don't give me any crap
about microscopes either. What the scientists see are blips in the optics.
Nobody has observed a photon. Where is this photon that
is detected in an experiment? Whereas an electron can be
kept in a cold trap and observed for weeks. Photon is
a convenient fiction.
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
20 May 2007 06:04:14 AM |
|
|
Michael Press wrote:>
Nobody has observed a photon. Where is this photon that
is detected in an experiment? Whereas an electron can be
kept in a cold trap and observed for weeks. Photon is
a convenient fiction.
That fiction is what makes electrons flow from the photoelectric effect.
The energy of the electrons is proportional to the -frequency- of the
impinging photons. It ain't waves. With waves the imparted energy is
independent of the frequency and equal to the square of the amplitude.
Photons are as real as electrons, protons, neutrons and nutrinos.
-None- of which have ever been seen by human beings.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
20 May 2007 06:46:04 PM |
|
|
In article <5bao9fF2r1h2rU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Press wrote:>
Nobody has observed a photon. Where is this photon that
is detected in an experiment? Whereas an electron can be
kept in a cold trap and observed for weeks. Photon is
a convenient fiction.
That fiction is what makes electrons flow from the photoelectric effect.
This says nothing. A photon is a theory.
A theory is not the same as action.
The energy of the electrons is proportional to the -frequency- of the
impinging photons. It ain't waves. With waves the imparted energy is
independent of the frequency and equal to the square of the amplitude.
Use the theory if you please. It does not put photons on the same
plane as electrons. An entire theory of light exists independently
of the theory of photons. _The_ pedagogical and reference work on
lasers, _Lasers_ by Anthony E. Siegman, is written without using
photons. We cannot have a complete physical theory without
electrons.
Photons are as real as electrons, protons, neutrons and nutrinos.
-None- of which have ever been seen by human beings.
Not so. electrons, protons, neutrons, and positrons can be held in
a cold trap for weeks. Try that with a photon. A positron can be
exhibited, a photon not so. Photons do not exist.
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
20 May 2007 06:54:19 PM |
|
|
In article <rubrum-02D7B3.16460320052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
Not so. electrons, protons, neutrons, and positrons can be held in
a cold trap for weeks. Try that with a photon. A positron can be
exhibited, a photon not so. Photons do not exist.
Wow. Put down the bong.
So what is exchanged in electromagnetic interactions?
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
20 May 2007 10:25:56 PM |
|
|
In article
<phineaspuddleduck-3BCDBF.00541921052007@snews.octanews.com>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <rubrum-02D7B3.16460320052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
Not so. electrons, protons, neutrons, and positrons can be held in
a cold trap for weeks. Try that with a photon. A positron can be
exhibited, a photon not so. Photons do not exist.
Wow. Put down the bong.
Exactly what do you object to?
So what is exchanged in electromagnetic interactions?
You tell me. Energy? Often corresponding changes in the energy of
two systems indicates to us that an electro-magnetic interaction
has transpired.
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
21 May 2007 05:38:50 AM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Wow. Put down the bong.
So what is exchanged in electromagnetic interactions?
That is hypothetical. But we are happy with the hypothesis because it
predicts so many things so well. Quantum electrodynamics is the best
physics theory ever proposed. David Hume pointed out that all we -do
see- are conjunctions of events, from which we infer cause and effect.
Most of physics is based on inference, not on direct unmediated
observation. If we did not make hypotheses we would have little or no
idea about what is happening in the world.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
21 May 2007 05:32:53 AM |
|
|
Michael Press wrote:
Use the theory if you please. It does not put photons on the same
plane as electrons. An entire theory of light exists independently
Sure it does. No one has ever seen an electron. Thompson's experiments
have established that electrons exist by the establishment is by
inferrence, not by direct perception. Likewise for photons. The
equipment required to show photons exist is just more complicated.
See
http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/Beck_QM_Manual.pdf
The experiments (complete with a description of tht apparatus and the
procedures) are as conclusive (nay, even more conclusive) than
J.J.Thompson ever did.
The conclusion that photons exist is established at least as
conclusively as the conclusion that electrons exist.
We are not talking mere theory and speculation. We are speaking of hard
laborator experimentation and fact. Facts Rule, Theories Serve.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
21 May 2007 06:17:36 PM |
|
|
In article <5bdaqpF2s19l9U1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Use the theory if you please. It does not put photons on the same
plane as electrons. An entire theory of light exists independently
Sure it does. No one has ever seen an electron. Thompson's experiments
have established that electrons exist by the establishment is by
inferrence, not by direct perception. Likewise for photons. The
equipment required to show photons exist is just more complicated.
A single electron or a single positron can be kept in a cold trap
and observed for weeks. Try that with a photon. An electron really
exists. A photon does not. Electrons are observed. Photons are
inferred.
See
http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/Beck_QM_Manual.pdf
The experiments (complete with a description of tht apparatus and the
procedures) are as conclusive (nay, even more conclusive) than
J.J.Thompson ever did.
The conclusion that photons exist is established at least as
conclusively as the conclusion that electrons exist.
We are not talking mere theory and speculation. We are speaking of hard
laborator experimentation and fact. Facts Rule, Theories Serve.
Then show me a photon.
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
21 May 2007 06:57:38 PM |
|
|
Michael Press wrote:
Then show me a photon.
Show me an electron.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Press" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Quantum Computing Is Bunk |
22 May 2007 12:24:57 AM |
|
|
In article <5bepvkF2reserU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Then show me a photon.
Show me an electron.
These guys can.
<URL:http://www.triumf.ca/tsi-old/2005/>
Electrons abide. Photons do not.
Electro-magnetic theory can be done without
the idea of photons. Physics cannot be done without
acknowledging electrons.
--
Michael Press
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
