[gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Boricua Siempre]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 356 bytes --]

Hello

I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating systems
are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers can use
particols moving faster than light but on other book particels faster than
light make analog sonar boom that can destroy universe. Is quantum computer
dangerus? Sorry if my english not good, still learning.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 399 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Ivan Viso Altamirano]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 97 bytes --]

Ii think it is about Quantum bonds . In wich 2 particles share the same
State  at any distance .

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 116 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Ivan Viso Altamirano]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 409 bytes --]

Btw . If the universe where that easy yo destroy ,it would already be
destroyed. Is just an estadistic question . Is just very improbable that we
are the most advanced lifeform in it .

All if this written bi phone
El 03/04/2015 01:25, "Ivan Viso Altamirano" <ivanviso123@gmail.com>
escribió:

> Ii think it is about Quantum bonds . In wich 2 particles share the same
> State  at any distance .
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 675 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Friday, April 03, 2015 1:25:59 AM Ivan Viso Altamirano wrote:
> Ii think it is about Quantum bonds . In wich 2 particles share the same
> State  at any distance .

And about PhDs extracting research funds from politicians :)

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Ivan Viso Altamirano]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 189 bytes --]

I forgot again .

As far as i know , there isnt any Quantum os out there . Just qcpus
performing a very simple algorythm. Because the particles still cant hold
their state for long enough.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 223 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 03 April 2015 01:33:45 Ivan Viso Altamirano wrote:

> As far as i know , there isnt any Quantum os out there

Not only no OS, but no hardware either.

I don't see Gentoo having a quantum version any time soon   ;-)

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[wabenbau]

Boricua Siempre <borikua.1978.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello
> 
> I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating
> systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers

I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely 
based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based arithmetic
unit but the other components are certainly conventional. I don't know
what kind of OS is used on such machines. But I wouldn't be surprised 
if it is some kind of BSD or Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-)

> can use particols moving faster than light but on other book
> particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can destroy
> universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my english not good,
> still learning.

I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that a 
quantum computer could be dangerous. :-)

In fact, "a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity 
involved in an interaction" (wikipedia). 

I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can have 
a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell or a DNA 
molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in quantum 
computers. Quantum does there only means that they are using very small
entities which can be described by the theories of quantum mechanic, 
like electron spins or quantum entangled photons.

And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster than
light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK there 
are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You probably
mean "quantum teleportation". But this has nothing to to with the 
movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the quantum
entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the nonlocality
of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum attributes of one of 
these two electrons you instantaneous influence the quantum attributes 
of the other one, regardless of its distance. But if you wanna know the
quantum attributes of the second electron you need the information 
about the measurement of the first one. And because you cannot transmit
this information faster than light you also cannot use "quantum 
teleportation" to really transmit information faster than light.

My English as well as my knowledge about quantum physics is not 
sufficient to explain it better. But you can find many information about
the strange and also fascination aspects of quantum mechanics in the
internet. Just look at wikipedia. 

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[wabenbau]

<wabenbau@gmail.com> wrote:

> with the movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from
> the quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the
> nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum
> attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous influence
> the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of its distance.

Correction: I meant photons and not electrons. Sorry for this.

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:30 PM,  <wabenbau@gmail.com> wrote:
> <wabenbau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> with the movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from
>> the quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the
>> nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum
>> attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous influence
>> the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of its distance.
>
> Correction: I meant photons and not electrons. Sorry for this.
>

Since others have done a decent job explaining some of the basics
here, I'll just point out that quantum affects apply to all matter and
energy, not just photons.  It just doesn't tend to be noticeable for
anything of significant size except in very unusual situations.

Electrons are fundamental particles (as best we know) and are very
much subject to quantum effects.  In particular the wavelike
characteristics of photons are responsible for behavior like the UV
absorbance of your suntan lotion, or the fact that just about anything
that conducts electricity well tends to look metallic/shiny even if it
doesn't contain something you'd consider metal.  I remember the first
time somebody showed me a conductive polymer and marveling that it
looked like a little strip of metal-coated plastic that you might find
connecting two circuit boards (this was back in the 90s - conductive
polyers are a bit more mainstream now).

In truth, the wavelike characteristics of electrons are important for
virtually all aspects of their behavior since they are so small, but
I'm just pointing out some manifestations that are more visible to the
naked eye.

I agree with the earlier comment that I doubt you'd ever try to run a
general-purpose operating system on a quantum computer.  If they ever
became truly mainstream the most likely configuration would be as a
separate module that would be utilized for certain problems, much like
a DSP or a GPU or an FPGA often gets used today.  They are
non-deterministic in nature (or are at least thought to be and might
as well be for practical purposes - I'm not convinced that anybody has
proven that quantum behavior is truly non-deterministic).  Most
quantum algorithms would be paired with conventional computers.  If a
quantum chip tells you that there is a 95% cumulative chance that
somebody's private key is one of these 50 candidates, that is probably
more than adequate since you can brute force 50 keys in a millisecond
and find the right one.  They're going to tend to be used for needle
in a haystack problems where once you get rid of 99.999999999999% of
the haystack the problem is no longer difficult.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote:

> I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly
> non-deterministic

But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the domain 
of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic 
behaviour.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly
>> non-deterministic
>
> But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the domain
> of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic
> behaviour.

/me looks over at his handy Plinko board.

Just because it looks probabilistic, doesn't mean that it is.  Take a
cryptographic PRNG.  If you know the seed, the output is completely
deterministic.  If you don't know the seed, you could describe the
output as probabilistic, and it might look non-deterministic, but it
still is.

The biggest problem I have with quantum mechanics is that there is no
understanding of underlying mechanisms.  We have models that describe
experiments, which is great, but not really a satisfying solution.  I
think a lot of scientists have gone on to argue that it is wrong to
look for underlying mechanisms or argue that they don't exist, but I
think this is just a result of the fact that nobody has found one.  It
seems a bit like intellectual pride: "why, my and my friends have
spent 30 years working hard on this, and none of us have solved it, so
the problem must be unsolvable."  It is possible they are right, but
it is also possible that they are not, and there certainly is no
concrete evidence one way or the other, just a lot of hand-waving.

The beauty of a good explanation of mechanisms is that it takes
behavior that previously relied on complicated models and such, and
suddenly causes it to make sense and look simple.  We just don't have
that for quantum mechanics yet.  Absent such an explanation, I am
skeptical that we really can claim to know what is truly going on.

That doesn't mean the models themselves aren't useful, or that there
aren't MANY practical benefits arising from our current understanding
of quantum mechanics.  I just think that statements like "the universe
is non-deterministic" are reaching a bit further than our current
grasp.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Friday, April 03, 2015 8:03:12 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> 
wrote:
> > On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly
> >> non-deterministic
> >
> > But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how the 
domain
> > of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of deterministic
> > behaviour.
> 
> /me looks over at his handy Plinko board.
> 
> Just because it looks probabilistic, doesn't mean that it is.  Take a
> cryptographic PRNG.  If you know the seed, the output is completely
> deterministic.  If you don't know the seed, you could describe the
> output as probabilistic, and it might look non-deterministic, but it
> still is.

There's an explanation for uncertainty that makes common sense. Let's say I 
throw you a ball, you can catch it because you take many measurements of it's 
location and your brain tries to predict it's path. But this only works 
because the ball is so massive and the photons that we use to see it are 
massless so the effect of them colliding with the ball is neglible. Imagine if 
the only way you could "see" the ball was by throwing another ball at it and 
seeing where it landed, it would then be nearly impossible to predict it's 
path because everytime you measure it you'll get it of course, so the 
principle of uncertainty would hold even though the ball was really on a well 
defined path. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Heisenberg.27s_microscope

Some claims still boggle my mind (superposition in macroscopic objects), like 
the "tunning fork" (probably a quartz crystal) experiment on this page: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition#Experiments_and_applications
But that's just one sentence stating that the tuning fork can be in a 
superposition of the vibrating and non-vibrating state but I'm sure if you find 
more info about the experiment is not as fantastic as it sounds.

If we ever figure this to be wrong it'll probably just obsolete quantum physics 
so instead of deterministic quantum computing we'll have something else.

 
> The biggest problem I have with quantum mechanics is that there is no
> understanding of underlying mechanisms.  We have models that describe
> experiments, which is great, but not really a satisfying solution.  I

That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able 
to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We got really good models for 
it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what 
are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know.  Einstein would say it's 
because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We 
just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than 
anything else we've come up with so far.


-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

[OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:

> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be
> able to answer is "why?".

I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to 
physics. Science does not answer the question "why?". That isn't its job. 
Its job is to explain show "this is how the world works."

> Take gravity as an example. We [have] really good models for it, we can
> predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what are the
> underlying mechanisms? We may never know.  Einstein would say it's because
> matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We just
> take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than
> anything else we've come up with so far.

No, it's stronger than that. Einstein showed us how it works. The 
consequence of having a certain concentration of mass /here/ is to distort 
space-time just /so/ in the region of /here/. No mechanism is required 
because no process is operating.

It seems to me that prodigious amounts of time, energy and money are being 
squandered on trying to find a graviton when no such beast is required to 
exist. Gravity, as Einstein taught us, is an emergent effect of mass in 
space-time. It isn't a force; it's an effect. Yet how many theorists and 
experimenters are thrashing themselves trying to find this imaginary 
particle which is supposed to moderate this imaginary force?

Of course it's natural to wish to fill in the blanks in the standard models, 
but it's too easy to lose sight of what's beyond the end of one's nose. Just 
look at that other profligate waste of resources: string theory. It has 
beauty, but it does not correspond to reality in any practical way. So why 
are whole university faculties around the world staffed with nobody other 
than string theorists?

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday 04 April 2015 00:02:02 Peter Humphrey wrote:

> Its job is to explain show "this is how the world works."

s/show//

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be
>> able to answer is "why?".
>
> I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches to
> physics. Science does not answer the question "why?". That isn't its job.
> Its job is to explain show "this is how the world works."

I think the ultimate goal though is to get down to root cause.

I can have a model that does a great job explaining the behavior of a
magnet without ever mentioning what a photon or electron is.  However,
compared to our current understanding of electromagnetism such a model
is rather poor.

This is how science has worked for hundreds of years.  It has really
only become a fashion in the last few decades to lower the bar and say
"well, we'll probably never understand how this works - that isn't
science's job - my theory predicts the results of most of the
experiments we can do within some realm of precision and that is good
enough."

As I said, I think this is hubris.  We think that the fact that we
haven't figured out the answer means that nobody can figure out the
answer.

> It seems to me that prodigious amounts of time, energy and money are being
> squandered on trying to find a graviton when no such beast is required to
> exist. Gravity, as Einstein taught us, is an emergent effect of mass in
> space-time. It isn't a force; it's an effect. Yet how many theorists and
> experimenters are thrashing themselves trying to find this imaginary
> particle which is supposed to moderate this imaginary force?

It might have something to do with the fact that gravity as described
by relativity doesn't account for the behavior of matter at small
scales and high densities, or for the overall structure of the
universe.  Clearly SOMETHING is missing.  Maybe that something is
something other than gravity, but you can't rule out gravity not
working the way we think it works.  Plus, warping of space is a great
concept, but what is it about massive objects that causes space to
warp?  Is there some underlying mechanism at work?

>  No mechanism is required because no process is operating.

You have no proof of this assertion at all.  Certainly there is no
proof to the contrary either, but we know that our understanding of
gravity is incomplete at best, so it seems a bit odd to stop
investigating on the basis that we have it all figured out already.

-- 
Rich

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[wabenbau]

Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Humphrey
> <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> >> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may
> >> never be able to answer is "why?".
> >
> > I think that's the crux of the problem with some current approaches
> > to physics. Science does not answer the question "why?". That isn't
> > its job. Its job is to explain show "this is how the world works."
> 
> I think the ultimate goal though is to get down to root cause.
> 
> I can have a model that does a great job explaining the behavior of a
> magnet without ever mentioning what a photon or electron is.  However,
> compared to our current understanding of electromagnetism such a model
> is rather poor.
> 
> This is how science has worked for hundreds of years.  It has really
> only become a fashion in the last few decades to lower the bar and say
> "well, we'll probably never understand how this works - that isn't
> science's job - my theory predicts the results of most of the
> experiments we can do within some realm of precision and that is good
> enough."
> 
> As I said, I think this is hubris.  We think that the fact that we
> haven't figured out the answer means that nobody can figure out the
> answer.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm tending to assume that we can't figure out 
what's really behind the scene as a matter of principle. I think that
all we can do is making theories which are able to predict the 
processes that we are detect. 

Mathematics is our basic tool to build these theories. A fundamental 
question is, whether the mathematical axioms are existing "for real" 
and we just discovered them or are they grounded by the functionality
of our mind/brain. In the latter case it would probably be impossible 
for us to find "the answer". (42!;)

Nevertheless we always should try to get a deeper understanding of the 
underlaying mechanisms. But I really have my doubts that we ever will
reaching the "ground", if there is one at all. And even if there is 
something like a "absolute reality" or a "reason for everything", we 
maybe are not able to really understand it. 

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Philip Webb]

150404 wabenbau@gmail.com wrote:
> Mathematics is our basic tool to build these theories.
> A fundamental question is whether the mathematical axioms exist "for real" 
> and we just discovered them or are they grounded by the functionality
> of our mind/brain ?  In the latter case,
> it would probably be impossible for us to find "the answer" (42!;)

Kant tried to investigate this in his Critique of Pure Reason.
Aristotle also had some scattered observations on the subject.

What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users !
-- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users !
> -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists.
>

I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the
physical sciences.

I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10
years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable.  Who
wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when
you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on?  Of
course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool
that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire
department and isn't up to it.

-- 
Rich

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Alan McKinnon]

On 04/04/2015 13:35, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>
>> What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users !
>> -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists.
>>
> 
> I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the
> physical sciences.
> 
> I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10
> years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable.  Who
> wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when
> you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on?  Of
> course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool
> that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire
> department and isn't up to it.


So it's not any different to how enterprise works then? Like the
cobbled-together mush of perl and bash (that does emerge over ssh in a
for loop) becomes the one critical app in all of IT that the ISO-9000
and something cert totally depends on? I've written such perl and bash
myself...

I recently had the pleasure of converting a small version of that to
Ansible. That was fun.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Boricua Siempre]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1772 bytes --]

Thank for de replies
My english so bad because I from the future when english death languaje.

Geentoo power first quantum super computer in 2101 and power all galactic
cofederation computers.
It was first supercomputer to crack secret of time travel in 2307 and
become self conchious in 2402.
I am send back to give Gentoo Linux tecnical advance.
Found you not ready jet. Will revissit in 365  days.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 04/04/2015 13:35, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> What a revelation about at least a minority of Gentoo users !
> >> -- philosophers of science + math, besides well-trained physicists.
> >>
> >
> > I think at least half of us on the Council have degrees in the
> > physical sciences.
> >
> > I work mostly with scientists and I have to say that in the last 10
> > years the embrace of FOSS by scientists has been considerable.  Who
> > wants to beg the boss for money and with IT for support of SAS when
> > you can just download R and install it yourself, and so on?  Of
> > course, it tends to also lead to a bit of a mess when that little tool
> > that was thrown together ends up being depended upon by an entire
> > department and isn't up to it.
>
>
> So it's not any different to how enterprise works then? Like the
> cobbled-together mush of perl and bash (that does emerge over ssh in a
> for loop) becomes the one critical app in all of IT that the ISO-9000
> and something cert totally depends on? I've written such perl and bash
> myself...
>
> I recently had the pleasure of converting a small version of that to
> Ansible. That was fun.
>
> --
> Alan McKinnon
> alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2521 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 459 bytes --]

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 00:52:30 -0400, Boricua Siempre wrote:

> Geentoo power first quantum super computer in 2101 and power all
> galactic cofederation computers.
> It was first supercomputer to crack secret of time travel in 2307 and
> become self conchious in 2402.

Add this to /usr/portage/profile/packahe.mask now!

# Masked due to megalomaniacal bugs
app-misc/skynet


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Favorite Windoze game: Guess what this icon does?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Saturday, April 04, 2015 12:02:02 AM Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday 03 April 2015 17:11:11 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> No, it's stronger than that. Einstein showed us how it works. The 
> consequence of having a certain concentration of mass /here/ is to distort 
> space-time just /so/ in the region of /here/. No mechanism is required 
> because no process is operating.

Einstein probably heard something very similar. No, Newton showed us how it 
works. The idea of matter bending space was considered so ridiculous that it 
made him a laughing stock. Even later when when experimental data showed that 
his equations worked so well the general idea was still not accepted and he 
didn't get a Nobel Prize for it. The math also had to be revised several times 
to succeed where Newton's failed most obviously, to plot the orbit of Mercury 
and it still breaks down at the quantum level and inside black holes as Rich 
mentioned. The point being that science is always a work in progress.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
<frodriguez.developer@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> There's an explanation for uncertainty that makes common sense. Let's say I
> throw you a ball, you can catch it because you take many measurements of it's
> location and your brain tries to predict it's path. But this only works
> because the ball is so massive and the photons that we use to see it are
> massless so the effect of them colliding with the ball is neglible. Imagine if
> the only way you could "see" the ball was by throwing another ball at it and
> seeing where it landed, it would then be nearly impossible to predict it's
> path because everytime you measure it you'll get it of course, so the
> principle of uncertainty would hold even though the ball was really on a well
> defined path.

Well, the quantum mechanic would say that the position of the ball was
indeterminate until it was measured.  The probability of it being in
any particular position is given by some function that agrees with
experiment very well.

The problem is that it is really hard to distinguish that "reality"
from a "reality" where the ball followed a well-defined trajectory the
whole time, and we just don't know what it is until we measure it.

As others have pointed out, the classic quantum mechanics explanation
relies heavily on the concept of an "observer" which is a bit odd.
Should the behavior of a particle depend on whether anybody is
watching it?

>
> If we ever figure this to be wrong it'll probably just obsolete quantum physics
> so instead of deterministic quantum computing we'll have something else.

Absolutely true.  Quantum mechanics could possibly be a theory that
gives the right answer for the wrong reasons.

I'm not knocking it, because it is the best theory we have.  It is
just incredibly unsatisfying as a theory.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Friday, April 03, 2015 7:30:09 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> Well, the quantum mechanic would say that the position of the ball was
> indeterminate until it was measured.  The probability of it being in
> any particular position is given by some function that agrees with
> experiment very well.

And indeed he would be right, in the sense that we cannot determine it. If you 
measure it many times even though each measurement affect the trajectory you'll 
learn that some positions are more likely than others and you may even catch 
it sometimes :)

> The problem is that it is really hard to distinguish that "reality"
> from a "reality" where the ball followed a well-defined trajectory the
> whole time, and we just don't know what it is until we measure it.
> 
> As others have pointed out, the classic quantum mechanics explanation
> relies heavily on the concept of an "observer" which is a bit odd.
> Should the behavior of a particle depend on whether anybody is
> watching it?

I agree. And it is especially hard to tell what they mean by those words (just 
like in technology we use common words with a different meaning) or if they 
even know what they mean themselves :). Sometimes they use misleading terms in 
order to make the theory popular (and get funded).

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Alan McKinnon]

On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able 
> to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We got really good models for 
> it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what 
> are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know.  Einstein would say it's 
> because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We 
> just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than 
> anything else we've come up with so far.


The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the
question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try.

Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic
workable model.

For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to
Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify
that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time understanding
that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real
underlying truth.

This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Saturday, April 04, 2015 1:57:19 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be 
able 
> > to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We got really good models 
for 
> > it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but 
what 
> > are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know.  Einstein would say it's 
> > because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? 
We 
> > just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better 
than 
> > anything else we've come up with so far.
> 
> 
> The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the
> question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try.
> 
> Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic
> workable model.
> 
> For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to
> Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify
> that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time understanding
> that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real
> underlying truth.
> 
> This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Should've read more like "If 
that's a problem with quantum physics then it's a problem with science in 
general..."

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[wabenbau]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may
> > never be able to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We
> > got really good models for it, we can predict how it influences
> > even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying
> > mechanisms? We may never know.  Einstein would say it's because
> > matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that?
> > We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work
> > better than anything else we've come up with so far.
> 
> 
> The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the
> question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try.
> 
> Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic
> workable model.
> 
> For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to
> Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify
> that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time
> understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong
> about the real underlying truth.
> 
> This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design.

That's exactly the point. Theories are not the reality. They are "just"
tools to predict the processes we are detecting (Plato's Cave).

One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be 
described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption,
that there really exists such a "rubber cloth" like space. 
A resonant circuit can be described as a spring-mass like mechanism. But 
nobody would really assume that there exists little springs inside such a
circuit. :-)

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:50:37 AM wabenbau@gmail.com wrote:
> One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be 
> described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption,
> that there really exists such a "rubber cloth" like space. 

I think it's because he did believe that (and he may be right, it is so far 
the best explanation we have despite it shortcommings). The words he uses on 
the book to describe it IIRC is "shape shifting mollusk", which probably 
sounds better in German. Most of the models built on it depend on it being a 
very real thing and it does explain a lot of things: expansion, red/blue 
shift, background radiation, etc. The big bang as we understand it today 
requires no only that space can bend but that it expanded faster than light.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Alan McKinnon]

On 04/04/2015 02:50, wabenbau@gmail.com wrote:
>> The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the
>> > question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try.
>> > 
>> > Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic
>> > workable model.
>> > 
>> > For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to
>> > Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify
>> > that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time
>> > understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong
>> > about the real underlying truth.
>> > 
>> > This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design.
> That's exactly the point. Theories are not the reality. They are "just"
> tools to predict the processes we are detecting (Plato's Cave).
> 
> One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be 
> described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption,
> that there really exists such a "rubber cloth" like space. 
> A resonant circuit can be described as a spring-mass like mechanism. But 
> nobody would really assume that there exists little springs inside such a
> circuit. :-)


I would say there are two related reasons behind that. Evolution has
hard-wired our brains to see, observe and understand the macro world on
the same scale as our bodies, so we can't directly deal with quantum or
relativistic effects. A ball moving through the air we can catch is seen
as a ball, not as an aggregate collection of quantum phenomena that have
been "observed". Nor do we think it terms of basic laws of motion to
catch it - we just put out our hand and catch the ball.

This impedes understanding (which is really just a by-product of
processes in our brains) so we need models. If relativity successfully
describes gravity as a bent space-time model, then we might as well just
assume that is how it really is and work with it as such.

The analogy of a resonant circuit doesn't hold up well. We can easily
understand the concept of resonance as we are familiar with the concept
already in nature (brains are wired to deal with it) so we don't need an
elaborate model. Our brains are not at all built to deal with
relativistic effects in any way, so a model isn't just useful to
understand it, it is vital in dealing with it at all.

My question is, this thread is fascinating and I like the subject, but
what on earth does it have to do with Gentoo? :-)




-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:06:30PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote
> On Friday 03 April 2015 06:58:38 Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> > I'm not convinced that anybody has proven that quantum behavior is truly
> > non-deterministic
> 
> But it must be, surely, since it's probabilistic. I don't see how
> the domain of probabilistic behaviour can overlap the domain of
> deterministic behaviour.

  Example... "Young's double slit experiment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment  The classical wave
explanation gives the characteristic interference fringes as per...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Classical_wave-optics_formulation
Quantum mechanics gives the same output, but uses an extremely ugly
probability equation the get the result.  So what happens when you have
an extremely weak light source such that only one photon is present in
the device at any time?  Surely it won't have anything to interfere with
and cause a diffraction pattern?  Wrong.  The exact same interference
fringe pattern shows up, although it obviously takes longer for the
photographic film to expose.  This effect even works when sending
electrons 1-at-a-time through a double slit filter (Taylor's Experiment)
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/QuantumMechanics.html

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM wabenbau@gmail.com wrote:
> Boricua Siempre <borikua.1978.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello
> > 
> > I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating
> > systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers
> 
> I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely 
> based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based arithmetic
> unit but the other components are certainly conventional. I don't know
> what kind of OS is used on such machines. But I wouldn't be surprised 
> if it is some kind of BSD or Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-)

And there probably never will. An operating system requires deterministic 
behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an expert) quantum computing can 
only deal with probabilities so a quantum OS would probably crash :)

What we do have is the quantum equivalent of the circuits you may do on a high 
school computer club to add a few bits. The most complex ones may run simple 
algorithms but are not much more than that as far as I know.
 
> > can use particols moving faster than light but on other book
> > particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can destroy
> > universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my english not good,
> > still learning.
> 
> I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that a 
> quantum computer could be dangerous. :-)
> 
> In fact, "a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity 
> involved in an interaction" (wikipedia). 
> 
> I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can have 
> a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell or a DNA 
> molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in quantum 
> computers. Quantum does there only means that they are using very small
> entities which can be described by the theories of quantum mechanic, 
> like electron spins or quantum entangled photons.
> 
> And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster than
> light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK there 
> are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You probably

There is a sort of analogue to a sonic boom for light speed. It happens when a 
particle travels faster than light in a medium. No massive particle can travel 
at the speed of light in vacuum but light travels much slower through a medium 
and particles can be accelerated much faster. It happens in nuclear reactors. 
Of course it doesn't destroy the universe, it just emits a blue light known a 
Cherenkov radiation.

> mean "quantum teleportation". But this has nothing to to with the 
> movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the quantum
> entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the nonlocality
> of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum attributes of one of 
> these two electrons you instantaneous influence the quantum attributes 
> of the other one, regardless of its distance. But if you wanna know the
> quantum attributes of the second electron you need the information 
> about the measurement of the first one. And because you cannot transmit
> this information faster than light you also cannot use "quantum 
> teleportation" to really transmit information faster than light.

The best laymen terms explanation I've heard of this is by Murray Gell-Mann in 
The Quark and the Jaguar. The state is really determined when the particles 
are "entangled". The principle of uncertainty holds because we cannot know the 
state until we make the measurement but there's "no spooky action at a 
distance."

> My English as well as my knowledge about quantum physics is not 
> sufficient to explain it better. But you can find many information about
> the strange and also fascination aspects of quantum mechanics in the
> internet. Just look at wikipedia. 
> 
> --
> Regards
> wabe
> 

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[wabenbau]

Fernando Rodriguez <frodriguez.developer@outlook.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM wabenbau@gmail.com wrote:
> > Boricua Siempre <borikua.1978.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello
> > > 
> > > I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating
> > > systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers
> > 
> > I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely 
> > based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based
> > arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly
> > conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such
> > machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or
> > Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-)
> 
> And there probably never will. An operating system requires
> deterministic behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an
> expert) quantum computing can only deal with probabilities so a
> quantum OS would probably crash :)

But isn't the stability of Linux and BSD running on a non deterministic
hardware not proofed some years ago by the Pentium FDIV bug? ;-)

More seriously, I don't think that in the forseeable future computers 
will be based only on quantum components. They probably will only be 
used as an additional arithmetic unit for some specific calculations.
Therefore I don't think that the stability of an OS will be disturbed 
by the fact that these components are based on non deterministic quantum 
physics.

We should not forget that the lasers that can be found in CD drives, 
the magnetic heads in modern hard disks, and also every FET are working
with technology that is based on quantum effects. I never heard that 
any OS has problems with these components. 
Ok, maybe I'm wrong regarding CD players/writers. Their non deterministic
behavior sometimes has driven me crazy. ;-)

> What we do have is the quantum equivalent of the circuits you may do
> on a high school computer club to add a few bits. The most complex
> ones may run simple algorithms but are not much more than that as far
> as I know. 
> > > can use particols moving faster than light but on other book
> > > particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can
> > > destroy universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my
> > > english not good, still learning.
> > 
> > I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that
> > a quantum computer could be dangerous. :-)
> > 
> > In fact, "a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity 
> > involved in an interaction" (wikipedia). 
> > 
> > I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can
> > have a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell
> > or a DNA molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in
> > quantum computers. Quantum does there only means that they are
> > using very small entities which can be described by the theories of
> > quantum mechanic, like electron spins or quantum entangled photons.
> > 
> > And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster
> > than light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK
> > there are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You
> > probably
> 
> There is a sort of analogue to a sonic boom for light speed. It
> happens when a particle travels faster than light in a medium. No
> massive particle can travel at the speed of light in vacuum but light
> travels much slower through a medium and particles can be accelerated
> much faster. It happens in nuclear reactors. Of course it doesn't
> destroy the universe, it just emits a blue light known a Cherenkov
> radiation.

That's right and I'm aware of this phenomenon. But when I spoke about 
light speed, I meant the light speed in vacuum of course.
 
> > mean "quantum teleportation". But this has nothing to to with the 
> > movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the
> > quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the
> > nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum
> > attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous
> > influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of
> > its distance. But if you wanna know the quantum attributes of the
> > second electron you need the information about the measurement of
> > the first one. And because you cannot transmit this information
> > faster than light you also cannot use "quantum teleportation" to
> > really transmit information faster than light.
> 
> The best laymen terms explanation I've heard of this is by Murray
> Gell-Mann in The Quark and the Jaguar. The state is really determined
> when the particles are "entangled". The principle of uncertainty
> holds because we cannot know the state until we make the measurement
> but there's "no spooky action at a distance."

That would maybe be a solution for this problem and Einstein would 
probably be glad to hear about it. :-) But I think that it is very
difficult to proof this theory. 

Damn language barrier. I can't really express what I'm thinking. But I 
will try. :-) 
If our universe is just a part of something "higher dimensional" (like
in string theories) then we will have a fundamental problem to understand
it. What we are see as particles or waves is maybe in fact some completely 
different. We see only the "projection" of the real "things" into our 
"world", not the underlaying "truth". And because our mind is emerging 
from a "low dimensional" brain it is maybe not able to understand the 
whole thing as a matter of principle.

So, enough for today. My head is spinning now. It is a complex topic 
and I don't have a really deep understanding of it. I'm no scientist 
and I'm not be able to understand the complex mathematics that is the 
base of all these theories. All I can do is to philosophize in a foreign
language that I barely can speak on a very low level about facts that I
read in some popular scientific articles.

But nevertheless it's fun to do this. :-)

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[wabenbau]

<wabenbau@gmail.com> wrote:

> We should not forget that the lasers that can be found in CD drives, 
> the magnetic heads in modern hard disks, and also every FET are
> working with technology that is based on quantum effects. I never

Correction: I meant TFET and not FET.

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[wabenbau]

Fernando Rodriguez <frodriguez.developer@outlook.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM wabenbau@gmail.com wrote:
> > Boricua Siempre <borikua.1978.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello
> > > 
> > > I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating
> > > systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers
> > 
> > I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely 
> > based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based
> > arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly
> > conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such
> > machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or
> > Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-)
> 
> And there probably never will. An operating system requires
> deterministic behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an
> expert) quantum computing can only deal with probabilities so a
> quantum OS would probably crash :)

I think that I first misunderstood you. I thought you mean that an OS 
will crash on a computer that is partially based on quantum components. 
But now I realized that you probably mean that there will never be a 
computer that is completely based on quantum technology. 

But if some well known proprietary OS is using quantum technology, it 
would explain its sometimes unpredictable behavior. ;-)

--
Regards
wabe

Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[microcai]

on Thursday 02 April 2015 18:33:06，Boricua Siempre wrote：
> From:	Boricua Siempre <borikua.1978.2@gmail.com>
> To:	gentoo-user <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
> Date:	Yesterday 06:33:06
> Hello
> 
> I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating systems
> are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers can use
> particols moving faster than light but on other book particels faster than
> light make analog sonar boom that can destroy universe. Is quantum computer
> dangerus? Sorry if my english not good, still learning.


particols are not faster than light.

when you mesure quantum A to have state A, then you can assume quantum B is in 
state B. but there is no information transfer, because the one that mesure the 
remote quantum B don't know your mesurement, you have to pass the result by 
ordinary method, which is still slower than light.