From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97845138A1C for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:08:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63390E093E; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B447E08F6 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:08:27 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtIMAGvvdVRLd+UW/2dsb2JhbAA3HYE2oW+BCIF1AQEFOhwzCxgJExIPBSU3iAmiCIwhCQsQCAICAh0Dgz4DJAcFDBaCO2MEjVWHYYVtiECEWA X-IPAS-Result: AtIMAGvvdVRLd+UW/2dsb2JhbAA3HYE2oW+BCIF1AQEFOhwzCxgJExIPBSU3iAmiCIwhCQsQCAICAh0Dgz4DJAcFDBaCO2MEjVWHYYVtiECEWA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,1,1400040000"; d="scan'208";a="115364703" Received: from 75-119-229-22.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([75.119.229.22]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 03 Apr 2015 18:08:26 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:08:24 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:08:24 -0400 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer Message-ID: <20150404020824.GA28261@waltdnes.org> References: <20150403053030.61ad1705@hal9000.localdomain> <2074513.Jq2xfKgqVs@wstn> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2074513.Jq2xfKgqVs@wstn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: b4ee6628-2bd2-4a37-a49b-c28eea9ebb95 X-Archives-Hash: 2e584bc19074aed4960dc149c714acfb 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 I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications