Great video! @2:48 "So why would so many smart people believe in something that seems so silly..." It's easy: 1. They're not smart 2. They use terminology that they think makes sense according to what they observe 3. They teach their ideas in a way that makes it possible for them to communicate the theory with others Modern foundations of mathematics are based on the nonsense of set theory and 9 beliefs (ZFC axioms). Mainstream calculus is flawed and has never been rigorous.
Thank you for this video. I share your view on quantum computing, and on quantum mechanics. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness! And how it led to so much quantum woo, and ridiculous quantum consciousness quackery. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. They just couldn't figure it out, so they had to resort to magic. All they had to do was to question the original assumption made by Young... Well, some of us actually did... Better late than never, I guess... The wave dogma was initiated by people like Huygens and Young. The single-slit experiment, when done in a water tank, produces only one set of waves, with no wave interference. Oddly, the same experiment done with light produces a fringe pattern. The wave concept should've been destroyed right there! To save the wave dogma, Huygens had to invent his famous Huygens Principle as an ad hoc mathematlgical solution, forcing wave interference where it does not exist. Young's double-slit experiment has very easily been debunked by myself, and my collegues. The fringe pattern is not a wave interference pattern, but a simple reflection pattern from rays coming off a curved surface (a perfectly sharp 90° corner does not exist). That is why the main light beam is fanning out into multiple independent rays never interfering with each other. Block a few rays, and the adjacent rays will not be affected the slightest, nor will the overall pseudo-inteference pattern on screen, as opposed to what should happen with waves. I have used a cloud chamber, and a smoke machine, to verify the exact path light takes after going through the slits. For the Arago Spot, supposed to be more confirmation for the wave dogma, it's the exact same principle. REFLECTION. A perfectly collimated light beam does not exist. Light will always diverge, depending on the intensity and the type of light. For the experiment, we are even making it diverge intentionally using a lense. Once it has hit the sphere, the law of reflection causes the incident ray to diverge (convex surface). At the edge of the sphere, where light appears to be "bending" toward the central spot, the reflected rays which now have a "new source of emission", the edge, will start diverging immediately, just like in the double-slit experiment, where the reflected rays diverge significantly, compared to the initial well collimated laser beam. Given that the sphere has a curved surface, the light will reflect off the very beginning of the converging side of the sphere. The reflected rays coming from the entire circumference of the sphere will converge toward the center of the shadow on screen. I have experiments done through different media that clearly show multiple rays intersecting in the center, producing the "spot". No wave interference is needed. There is no diffraction, because light waves do not exist. Furthermore, any "wave" interferences supposedly observed in the double-slit experiment, or the Arago Spot experiment, could never be observed with the naked eye to begin with. It is absurd and irrational. We are talking about nanometer size waves, with frequencies in the THz, moving at 300,000 km/s. It's nonsensical. I sure would like to have their eyes! 😂 Light is not a wave, and I don't believe it's made of particles either. What was interpreted as particles, might actually be individual 'reflected light rays' hitting the detectors, hence the HUGE confusion... There was never any "collapsing waves" to begin with. There is no wave-function. That's only a mathemagical abstraction. Naturally, every time I say this, the replies I receive are directly copied from ChatGPT: _While it's true that quantum physics can seem counterintuitive, it's important to remember that it's a well-established field with countless experiments supporting its principles. The double-slit experiment, while mind-bending, has been replicated numerous times with consistent results._ _Quantum physics may challenge our everyday intuitions, but it has proven to be an incredibly successful theory in explaining the universe at the smallest scales. It's also led to groundbreaking technologies like lasers and transistors._ It's hopeless to even try. 🙄😔
We can make it even simpler than that. The idea of "waves" comes from an assumption, the assumption that light "travels" as a wave, which was misinterpreted as such in the overrated double-slit experiment. The pseudo-interference pattern does NOT come from wave interferences, but from individual strands of light. I have the experiment to prove it, inside a freaking cloud chamber, which has never been done or even thought of in 200 years, ffs! Light does NOT behave as a wave. Light shows no intrinsic structure through that experiment. And of course, photons do not exist either, because electron "particles" do not exist, so Einstein's childish interpretation of the photoelectric effect for a 5 year-old is complete bs. Of course, quantum superposition is complete bunk! It's illogical and irrational. Quantum Mechanics is nothing but a clever probabilistic mathematical framework with absolutely no bearing on reality. Just like fusion, particle accelerators and gravy wave detectors, quantum computing is bullshit conceived to cheat governments and investors into pouring billions into their fool's errands and insure job security for decades to come.
@@destroya3303 not saying fusion doesn't exist. Simply that it's highly overhyped to a fraudulent level. Even if it one day were to work, we would never have the raw material to sustain fusion. It's a fool's errand, a gigantic money pit.
Excellent as usual. I just want to make a point, not just for you, but for anyone that watches this video. It is my opinion that the concept of "electrons jumping up a level" is better thought of as a PHASE TRANSITION. Absorption and emission events in the atom are phase transitions. In chaos theory, phase transitions happen suddenly, and without warning. We can see this both in the math, AND in nature. We are closer to the truth if we define electron transitions as phase transitions. Fluid dynamics is the key to understanding BOTH wave phenomenon AND phase transitions. IMHO
Thanks! At this point, the only thing that I would personally claim about "The Electron" is that...I would bet against it being like a billiard ball! :)
@@FractalWoman ...but all Aether theory is made of billiard balls, even his graphic used in this video is using balls. It seems we are learning/presenting nothing.
@@neonnoodle How else would you prefer to depict it? A depiction is just a "picture". We depict Aether as "billiard balls" out of convenience...as a picture on a 2D piece of paper or video screen. In terms of modelling, I can model Aether as billiard balls if I want to. I can make calculations and predictions and I can get the right answer. Long story short... I don't have a problem with depicting Aether as billiard balls.
@@neonnoodle The main difference between "Particle Physics" and "Æther" is not the "balls" idea, but rather the idea that there are separate "particles" for every measurable thing: "Particle Physics" says there is a unique "particle" for positive charge, a "particle" for negative charge, a "particle" for neutral charge, a "particle" for mass, a "particle" for gravity, etc. The Æther may indeed be made from "little balls", but it is the type of motion of those "balls" that gives it the behavior.
Following Born's interpretation still gives the problem of two electrons occupying the same space-time location. The superimposed probability distribution is giving this result. But two electrons cannot occupy the same space-time location since that would require the massive Coulomb repulsion to be absent. The search for fusion power is all about overcoming Coulomb repulsion so it can't be fobbed off as irrelevant. The wave solutions of the Schrodinger equation cannot be interpreted as particle probabilities without removing superposition. An attempt to claim that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle rescues Born's interpretation does not fly since it still allows two electrons to be sufficiently proximal for massive electrostatic repulsion. More hand waving about short time duration does not fly either since at no point are electrical interactions turned off.
Schrodinger's cat experiment has always seems absolutely irrational and mental to me. It is a conclusion someone can one reach if they have Schizophenia. The big problem with his logic is once you open the box and if the cat is alive, this immideatly indicates that the cat has always been alive. It couldn't have been dead and then come to life. So it never existed in both states dead and alive state. Thats preposterous. I recall getting into a heated debate with my professor at college cause he kept pushing the accepted narrative not willing to admitt that once the cat is found alive, this means it existed in that live state the entire time. Us not knowing about its condition doesn't change the fact that the cat was never dead. Cause if it was it couldn't be alive once the box is opened. So things existing in both states is almost the same as saying something can exist and not exist at the same time. This is not rational critical thinking.
** This is the definition of Quantum State Superposition and the "Cat" analogy shows that it is just that -- ridiculous! QM is ridiculous. ** Correct. That is Quantum Mechanics and the world of Modern Pseudo-Science. Many millions of people are brainwashed.
The mental experiment is now meant to get you into the mind frame of a theoretical system that has no concept of cause and effect. So any attempt to interpret it with logic is simply not valid, your professor is right. Physics uses lots of simplified theoretical systems. The real problem is that quantum physics is not physics.
@@itsbs omg thank you! You are the only other person that I have found so far that thinks this way about superposition. I have never been able to accept the concept of superposition. It has always felt off to me whenever I hear it being discussed.
That's the thing. Schrodinger was MAKING FUN OF QUANTUM THEORY. That was a joke, not an example. He was telling everyone how ridiculous quantum theory actually is. Everyone else took it and ran with it because they don't actually understand it or they do and just accept something so illogical as fact because someone in a white lab coat says it's strue.
Fantastic statement of reality... and right over the heads of the blind thinking that the proper thought process... is to pretend hard enough... to pretend the cats status was moot... before you opened the box... due to your ignorance of reality... until it was observed by you... as if the universe itself cared if you knew what it was doing while you werent looking
** Haha... well, the sales pitch is the "code breaker" theme of breaking encryption. That is a weapon of war, and if you don't get ahead of this (fear of missing out), then you'll be sorry! And, nevermind what a "Quantum State" in "superposition" really means...
@@itsbs It means you can divide by zero and get the man in the moon made of blue cheese on a coin-operated conveyor belt made of automatic whoopee cushions.
I'm far to be an expert in the domain but your explanations are way more logical than the official theories... who are you lol, how did you found out all this ?
*>* I am just a basic idiot. But finding this stuff out took work, but it is easy to do. I show you what I did, i.e. linked the original documents in all of my videos. It starts with thinking logically and checking out that logic, i.e. "OK, show me." After that, you dig in...read, search, watch videos, read some more. Then, the hard part is reformulating what you know into something that people can learn from, and then start talking into the stupid microphone.
@@itsbs Yes I realise it's a lot of work, great job. What you do, shining light on those obscure accepted nonsense is very important. Keep up the good work.
Quantum gates are not like digital logic (AND, OR, XOR) gates. They work on the superposition states and compute. The output comes from "measurement". Please read about Pauli X/Y gates, Z gates and Hadamard gates, etc. these are quantum gates.
Even before I was taught quantum mechanics at college I started to think about computers with analog-state memories, let's say "qubits", and what applications would such a machine have (conveniently ignoring all of the state-superposition BS). I imagined an electromagnetic device that could store an infinite resolution number (such as "e" or "pi" with no "error" or "residue") or just 1 point of the whole output of an analog process such as the voltage or current reading from an ECG machine, this would be the "qubit" as I early thought. Now imagine you want, for example, to multiply two of these infinite-resolution quantities to get a third infinite-resolution number as the result (I mean why in the world would you want to do such thing, but bear with me), that "analog computing" operation would take 3 qubits to be done, let's say you want to multiply "e" by "pi" and store the exact result to be used in a subsecuent operation. This thought experiment lead me to the idea that the ECG machine with a papel roll output is not only comparable to a qubit but to an infinite amount of qubits, because in some way it stores a continuous line of analog reads of electrical states wrote on the paper roll, and if you wanted for example to take the integral of the whole output you could make it into discrete numbers through optical scanning and image sampling and measurement, and finally compute it with a normal binary computer, obviously with some error. In order to do the same but "without error" you would need a fully analog computer with bidimensional qubits (electromagnetic devices that could store an infinite resolution, continuous set of infinite resolution numbers), this is to me the real kind of "quantum computers" that would be appliable to real world problems. But again, why the hell would you want to do that in the first place? Binary number storage and numeric methods are so advanced nowadays that the errors are negligible in most cases, even after running thousands of computing operations. I mean, is there a good-enough reason to justify the investment of big $$$ and time and other resources on making a machine that could do this? Is the whole field of "quantum cryptography" even a real deal? (I mean, "could you hack into any organizacion and mine all the remaining crypto currencies just by owning a Sycamore processor of your own?" I know this sounds stupid but that's ad-hoc, giving how twisted this whole field is nowadays.) Also, is there such thing as infinite resolution? The fact that numbers like pi exist doesn't mean that there's a physical way of storing that number as an infinite-digits decimal quantity (in fact, the "exact" physical way of storing pi is by making a perfectly round wheel with a radius equal to some unit of distance measurement). If you think about it, if the 3-dimensional matter we see is not infinitely-divisible (this is, there's a "zoom stop" at some point of subatomic particles) then that would mean the universe itself is discrete, and how you operate with computers (analog or binary) in such as scheme of things should be the real "raison d'etre" of quantum computing (on the pi example, this means that your "perfectly round wheel" could be in fact described as a finite array containing the positions of the superficial atoms that make up the wheel's boundary, and thus the number "pi" could become finite at certain practical scale, let's say for a 1 meter radius wheel there should be a corresponding, finite and univocal number "pi"). These are the only relevant cases and applications I could think about when discussing QC, and interestingly enough it's not related AT ALL to the whole BS we see today in the field. The same happens to me with most "emerging subjects" like AI, they are totally disconnected from the fundamental ideas that should propel real research and progress.
It's funny, 2 years after your video and one of our resident youtube physicists Sabine Hossenfelder's video titled 'The Quantum Hype Bubble Is About To Burst' pops up as a suggested video! Looks like she posted it 4 months ago (Nov. - Dec. 22). Instead of just Wall Street speculators, now we got physics ones too!
Thanks ! Great video ! Still sorting through these double slit experiments, but am hugely skeptical of superposition/entanglement hypothesis. Would be nice to see more tearing apart of the so-called proofs offered for quantum mechanics.
(He's responding to all comments so lemme give a try!) The way you present how Quantum Computers break open a box is not how they operate! True, about Quantum Computing there is much false hype. Like being in all states at the same time therefore insert four keys at the same time to get the answer in one shot instead of four. That is not what we're claiming. What we're saying is you put the particle in a state (decide how you want to call it), when interacts with the box, gives a *facet* of the answer that classically would require four shots to achieve. Quantum does not achieve the answer Classical would achieve in four steps. It only achieves a half-baked answer that for some purposes are not perfect, but good enough to work with. It's an alternative to computing that does not surpass Classical in all respects, just works so differently that if Classical works in a perfect way but takes time to complete, Quantum works in an imperfect and incomplete way that achieves partial information in less time, but is good enough and the best solution for our purposes. I'm talking about the Deutch-Jozsa Algorithm to determine the answer in the least amount of shots. There is a pdf by John Preskill page 17. Whether the Copenhagen interpretation is true or even scientific is irrelevant to whether Quantum can be useful or not!
** Then you are building a classic, analog computer... which is fine. Quantum States IN A SUPERPOSITION is a result of the Max Born rule... that's it. It is pure pseudoscience. Quantum States IN A SUPERPOSITION cannot be tested by definition of Quantum Mechanics itself, since the "wavefunction collapse." You must BELIEVE! ** Then what exactly IS QUANTUM about a QUANTUM COMPUTER? What claim do you make that this computer does to make it "QUANTUM"?
@@itsbs Quantum differentiates itself by putting its Qubits in a 'special state'. You don't believe in Superposition? Fine. Great scientists do not. Don't call it Superposition. Call it something else. Superposition is an idea. Which is false if you want it to be. But it simply is an attempt to describe why experiments give what they give! Even if Superposition is false, we can bring about a state that is demonstrably different from |1⟩ or |0⟩, since |1⟩ or |0⟩ when repeatedly measured always gives what it was. But not when the particle is in |+⟩. Measure it when in |+⟩, bring it back again to |+⟩, re-measure it, re-bring it back and you get different things when measured. You might disagree on what the particle *is* when it is in |+⟩, but that doesn't matter, as long as we follow experimental rules when we use Quantum Computers. For the lightbulb problem, you need to try four shots to get which answer lights it up. With Quantum Computers you can try with a single shot, with two particles prepared in state |++⟩. You will not get the answer as to which is the correct combination to light it up. But you will know if the answer to light it up, are both digits the SAME or DIFFERENT. Think about it! With a Classical Computer to know _this_ answer you would inevitably need to try all four, get the answer and deduce similarity or difference from this answer. Now imagine a problem that does not require finding the answer but only if the digits are same or different. Is it not better to use Quantum Computers for such purposes? If you get back |++⟩ after you test the lightbulb, it means the digits have to be different. If I get |--⟩ however, it means the digits have to be the same. But how do I know if the Qubits are in |++⟩ or |--⟩ without measuring them? Simple. Don't measure them. But _compare them_ with other known states for a difference to those states. As you see, there is a lot of bold claims about Quantum which is totally false. Mostly by journalists who hear what they want to hear from scientists, as "the particle is in two states at the same time!" Yet another one from another algorithm this time, the Super Search Algorithm (Grover's Search) that can search at lightfast speeds, so-called. But this also is a claim blown out of proportion since yes the search is faster, but to achieve such speeds of searching you must first encode all the answers first into a Quantum state. To search a Number Book backwards you must first encode all the numbers manually in a Quantum Computer, which makes it ridiculous to search people from their numbers that way since you're way better off searching for the person classically instead of quantum.
@@oosmanbeekawoo ** No. Classically, you could try any random order of those four choices and sometimes get the right answer faster than other times. That is all the "quantum computer" is doing. ** IF this is true, then there would be useful QC's after 10+ years of research. But where are they? What algorithm can you run? Realize that you can make an analog computer solve a specific type of probably better than a classical, generalized computer. DWAVE would be an example of an analog computer doing something like this, but how much better? How much cost savings...etc? Again, what makes a Quantum computer "quantum"? If it is the initial particle "superposition state", then they are completely fake, since there is no such thing as an "electron spin up/down" or something like that... *
@@itsbs You meantion you don't believe in electron spin, but isn't that what NMR and MRI are based on? There is some interaction with the magnetic field and people decided to call it "spin".
If I understand you correctly, you're not saying that quantum computers aren't real; you're saying they don't work the way we think they do. I guess they use wave mechanics?
** Yes, this would be a decent summary. BUT, most people do NOT understand the difference between Quantum Mechanics and Wave Mechanics. So, you can watch another video that I try to give you a bit better insight on that... Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computer Pseudoscience: ruclips.net/video/i8yVJDO9HJ8/видео.html You can also read a small article I wrote on Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/qp21g8/quantum_computers_are_fake_they_will_not_break/ You can also read a bit more on this small post in my community site: ruclips.net/user/postUgkxeBmJ3jo-SKNco_s2sjlB2eTxxhCCqgJJ
This cannot be understood properly without using the Bloch sphere as a model of a single trapped electron. Trapped electrons can be spun in any direction while staying in the same place. We can place a virtual stylus on the surface of the electron and draw functions on the surface like an analogue graphing machine. By parallelising this process (in a unique way) we get a theoretical exponential speedup.
** Bloch sphere is very analog. What is the definition of this "single electron" you are talking about. Does it have a radius or density? ** Sounds neat, but again, it sounds very classically analog. Where is the fabled "Quantum States in a Superposition? ** This doesn't sound like "Quantum States in a Superposition."
@@itsbs Quantum computers can be considered analogous to analog systems since continuous graphing can be seen as an analog process. By arranging numerous tiny 3D spinning dipole magnets in an array, scientists aim to achieve tasks that would otherwise be impractical to scale. The magnetism of trapped ions allows for the rapid influence of adjacent ions, a feature very different from traditional digital computers. The radius or type of particle is irrelevant as long as it functions as a dipole magnet. A dipole inherently implies a separation of charges, giving it physical extension. Despite the obfuscating jargon in quantum computing discussions, we do have a theoretical path to exponential speedup for certain algorithms. Semantic arguments do not impress; the potential for speedup is what matters.
@@inflivia ** That is the problem. Quantum Mechanics requires the point particle in order to create the Quantum Particle State Superposition of the Max Born rule. Analog, continuous system have classical "wave superposition" built right in. A Quantum Mechanical Computer and a classical analog computer cannot be the same... they are basically opposites. So, one of the two is the correct, natural science and not pseudoscience. ** Sure, but still based on classical, electromagnetic, analog physics and not Quantum Mechanics Born Rule. ** Is relevant if you are calling it a "single electron", because that is a pseudoscience term, if you can't define it scientifically. ** A capacitor dielectric is a dipole. A ferrous metal is a magnetic dipole. This is just basic, classical EM physics and nothing to do with the Born Rule. ** It is more than just jargon. It is a FAILED ENGINEERING SPEC! Quantum Particle State Superposition does not exit. How can the ill-defined "single particle" have a magnetic moment that points North and South at the same time. That's absolutely illogical and flawed to the max. ** Sure, classical analog computing versus classical binary computing. I think it is great, and will only get better when science removes head from ass and recognized that Quantum Mechanics Born Rule and it's inbred cousin called Entanglement are pseudoscience.
@@inflivia ** Mostly specialized, non-digital, devices that use classical physics... anything from a mechanical clock computing the time of day, to DWAVE adiabatic computation for optimization modeling. A GENERAL PURPOSE analog computer that outperformed BINARY DIGTAL computing in multiple tasks would be massive.... or combing analog and digital logic simultaneously!
The closest to actual explanation using quantum states was describing how sometimes electrons go through a barrier in a transistor. But thats just not understanding atoms arent solid and things go between them depending on pressure(or frequency but light and electricity have both, light is repeating pressure wave)
I try to stick to my self-imposed 20 minute limit video, otherwise I would have talked about how Quantum Tunneling is basic, classical, analog behavior and SQUIDs are classical, inductor/capacitor circuits in a super-conducting/super-obstructing environment. Maybe in a future video...
@@itsbs more importantly, do you know about the Structured Atom Model(SAM)? It explains all the major gaps in previous models, based on shape of the nucleus. its a lot better than the vague bohr model or the quantum math mumbo jumbo, go see the videos on electric universe UK channel.
You already do have access to "Quantum Computers" via the cloud, but just realize what they are really doing. The are "analog-like computers" that use the Hadamard gate to help generate random numbers.
Maybe the quantum stuff is just slightly misunderstood. The superposition could look like this |=on state, -= off state, /= superposition instead how it is currently interpreted with |-= superposition. The thing is these computers do work and they solved some problems, so I highly doubt they are fake.
** A Quantum State in a Superposition is a single particle in a STATE ON and STATE OFF at the same time. Or STATE SPIN UP (Magnetic NORTH UP) or STATE SPIN DOWN (Magnetic SOUTH UP) at the same time. Do you really believe that, a single particle with magnetic NORTH UP and SOUTH UP at the same time? And if a Qubit is just NOT 0 or 1, then that's an analog dial (like .5). That's not Quantum Mechanics, but just basic, classical physics. If Quantum Computers were real, then wouldn't you think they could factorize some decent size number yet? Wouldn't they be able to calculate SOMETHING, rather than just sample random numbers? Look at what they are producing for humanity after a decade, multi-national effort, and billions of dollars. It's just Fear Of Missing Out propaganda and a bunch of promises for specialized calculations.
@@itsbs But the superposition may in fact be the particle spinning west/east instead of usual north/south. I will demonstrate it on a lightswitch- if you hold it at certain precise position the light will be blinking. (Be on and off at the same time) That would explain why quantum computers work without the contradiction of particle being in two states. Such understanding would also possibly allow for more superpositions to exist, where the particle spins tilted on its axis. I had a paper on this called abstract mathematical system- never published it because without me having PhD in the field someone would certainly steal it and claim it as their own.
@@jackwilson5542 ** There is no such thing as actual "SPIN." The SPIN is just a term used for the idea of angular momentum to try to explain the magnetic moment. It doesn't matter which way you think the "SPIN" is occurring, if it is spinning opposites at the same time, then you have MAGNETIC NORTH/SOUTH pointing in the same direction at the same time. It is ridiculous... Quantum State Superposition is a joke when applied to nature and it can never be proven by experiment because of the "wave function collapse." There is absolutely NO application of the scientific method here... it is just more fantasy physics and the Quantum Mechanical computer experiment keeps failing. Gee, I wonder why?
@@jackwilson5542 ** Blinking is not ON and OFF at the same time. That is impossible... Blinking is ON and OFF at different times, but maybe you need a high speed camera to see the flicker, because our eyes are very slow detectors.
** Also, what do you think the Quantum Computers have solved? If you are talking D-Wave's computer, that isn't a Quantum Mechanical Computer, but a classical, analog device using heat distribution to build their calculations. Really neat idea, but not Quantum Mechanical, i.e. using Quantum State Superposition and Quantum Entanglement.
TY I have tried to understand Quantum Computing for about a decade and it always seemed like a lie. This reminds me of the alchemy stone. IF quantum computers do anything useful it must be communicating with the super natural or something even less believable.
** Yes, the Quantum Computer people will need to recognize that they are just using analog waveforms and the mysterious, Quantum State Superposition is just a man-made idea. Analog computers can be useful, but usually they solve just a very specific problem...like the D-Wave analog computer system.
I found your superposition video, thanks! I think that Born's idea was near to have physical meaning taking the mathematical complex number oscillation to something real; since it was not a Schrodingers electromagnetic diffusion, the probability distribution of existence had better meaning. BUT, superposition is astray physics. Superposition is just the combination of many possible solutions "at the same instance" and THIS "same instance" is not physically understandable-possible. Never have been seen a superposition value from one system - one event, the expected value is just the addition of many events or many equal systems that "average the different possible solutions." In math language the eigenfunctions are orthogonal (dot product = 0), i.e., only one solution at a time; so, this is completely opposite to the superposition of solutions that linear math concludes (addition of valid solution is also a solution). A better way of understanding is to "vibrate" or "oscillates" between all possible solutions, this has more physical meaning! and this is why all measurements observed are only eigenvalues; never a mixing situation. Superposition vs collapse is just a mistake of Copenhagen's interpretation; collapse is a reality and superposition is misleading. Now the oscillation is given at a rate of its total energetic content, like 10^20 times per second (total energy = mass energy plus kinetic energy plus gravitational potential energy plus electromagnetic potential energy,..) High vibration can give an ultra-fast situation on qubits that are entangled (entangled meaning that they oscillate at a coherent frequency; needing to get rid of thermal vibration). Hope this will open new ideas for your challenged and correct comments. Regards
** This is not the definition of entanglement as described by the EPR paper. If something is oscillating at a coherent frequency, then you are describing resonance, not entanglement. I have another video on the ERP paper and Quantum Entanglement if you want to see what it really means.
@@itsbs > Unless the oscillation is an existence one, a fluctuation between two situations, the 3D visible space and a zone where the essence of physical values are preserved (Born probability of existence or... being at that place at that moment). I recognize at first sight seems completely out of mind, BUT is more reasonable than multiverses or just actual weird quantum. This concept has some physical meaning, like the one we accept of the big bang but, in this case, quantum bangs... it needs to think at least twice.... hope you do it, Best regards and thanks again for answering my questions.
@@itsbs Excuse, in my opinion, the superposition is MADE UP from linear math, collapse is a reality and is seen all the time. The issue I think is when a "bullet type" particle is assumed; that is wrong, a thought of a compact place where physical values are is more appropriate. This gives a place for to the quantum field, quantum strings and quantum gravity (quantum space)... hope you would see the particle in a more general way or baptized with a new name avoiding confusion with classical "compact bullets", regards and thanks again
just fishing for followers! get informed man and leave your narrow world of thinking. are you honestly thinking all the thousands of thousands of scientists working on it haven't proved their results?
** Oh yeah, that's the motivation for sure! Are you really gullible enough that something can be ON and OFF at the same time? Or a particle can take every possible path and then just settle on just one of those paths? *
Dude you attacked the OP and not the idea... signs of being triggered. Thousands and thousands were against the very great scientists you follow now. How about focusing on the data not follow the herd rationalization.
@dusfor63 ** Did you ever figure out ON/OFF at the same time? Or Magnetic North and South UP at the same time? You know how nature will just calculate everything in parallel for you, right? ...Or maybe, what is the largest number that can be factored using Shor's algorithm with a QC? They are "supreme" computers, right? How far have they gotten into the code breaking they are supposed to be good at?
** Quantum Mechanics is a false pseudoscience based on Max Born's rule. This is the engineering spec they using to build Quantum Mechanical Computer, as per Richard Feynman. This engineering spec is 100% false, and when they talk about Quantum Mechanical Computers "working", that is a lie and FAKE! 100% fake!!
@@codetech5598 ** Haha, terrible analogy for justifying your point... If Feynman had to design and build static, magnetized alloys based on the wavefunction collapse of electron superposition of spin states, we would NEVER have anything but loadstone, natural magnets. A Quantum Mechanical computer's engineering spec is based on the idea of Quantum State Superposition of quantum particle states, which is an entire crock of shit, terribly defined, and doesn't exist in nature. Now, for someone that can code or debug, if a functional spec gets handed to you that requires you to provide functionality that digital computers cannot do with programming languages, well.. what is the outcome of that functional spec if you move forward with implementation? Vaporware was a term used back in the day... QC's are vaporware that is impossible to ever manifest using the current engineer spec. If your hangup is the word "fake", then just change it to something that makes more sense to you. At this point, QC's sample random pieces of waveforms, which are very classically analog.
@@itsbs Let me reword this: According to people like Feynman, the only reason we have transistor radios, lasers, or cell phones is because of QM, and the very existence of such things proves QM is correct. And, according to them, the existence of GPS validates both QM and GR.
@@codetech5598 ** Yes. They are liars. These are good examples of how they steal other people's wins to prop up their own pseudoscience theories. They are propogandists, driven by ego and other negative forces. But, Feynman was kind of funny and decent teacher.
I think I’ve seen all of your videos on modern physics. I’m also well versed on undergraduate physics. I want to ask you, what do you propose the actions that someone ought take in order to uncover the physics that is actually taking place in the fast and large, and the small and slow?
** Electrical science - you'll have to do your own study of Maxwell-Heaviside. This extends into Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics (partial differential math). The engineering math is versor algebra. You must bring back the EM medium that is waving. Instead of "particles" like electron, you should think "charge mediums" (permittivities & permeabilities, resistance, dielectric conductance, and inductance energy/capacitance energy). It was JJ Thomson's Faraday lines of force medium or Faraday Tubes of force medium (1903) prior to Einstein's fantasy physics of empty space. In the end, the LARGE and the SMALL in electrical science work on the same principle: waves in an EM medium. Matter-kinematics is really the exception, but to us, it seems the like the reality. Remember, basic relativity math is just the Doppler Effect. Also, Minkowski Spacetime is really described by Poincare in his gravitation hypothesis section: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3APoincareDynamiqueJuillet.djvu/41 "Consider then X, Y, Z, T{sqrt {-1} as the coordinates of a fourth point" ...but this really isn't gravity, but just a rotation of the time coordinate (as a new space coordinate of (ct)), like in the complex plane. Space and Time should not be combined, i.e. time should not be another space coordinate, even though 4D space coordinates is probably the right direction.
at 4:50, you state that E=hf is a “one second wave energy equation”. Why? the units come out in Joules - proper for energy, because the time unit (seconds) cancels out as a product of Planck’s constant and the time (reciprocal seconds) in the frequency term… thus, the Energy obtained is for a particular event…
** Yes, good catch! There is a playlist on my site called Einstein's One Second Photon that can go into much more detail. When you study Planck's 1901 paper, you see that e=hf is originated there and based on an experiment that used data based on 1 second of blackbody radiation, or Power. When Planck derived the "h" number, you can see the error of an extra "second" unit. This then gets carried onto Einstein's 1905 Photon. So what is the fix? It is a proposal called MUA, or Modified Unit Analysis, that brings the idea of an "electromagnetic cycle" as a fundamental unit. This also effects the unitless radians and has been discussed/proposed for a while... "The Quantum Flaw" video on my site will walk you through this whole process.
Hi. How about. Electronique microscope my freind ..Are the electron microscope images of atoms a lie? Are the images of particle deflection actually fake too? And thank you
** For the electron microscope, you can think of it as filling vacuum chamber with electric charge medium, like water (or an "electron cloud"). The "backscatter detectors" act more like wave transducers, as we use in sonar. The focused electron beam creates a higher density and intensity for these waves to reflect onto the detector. The only fake-ness about the electron microscope would be to think of it as little billiard balls bouncing off the specimen and onto an electron ball particle detector. Again, we keep applying the particle physics idea to wave medium behavior, when the experimental results are wave interference patterns. The "single electron" shooter/detector has the same ill-defined "single particle" idea, just like the photon.
@@LarcGin ** We have no real definition of matter or where it comes from, i.e. is the "molecule" matter, is the di-atom the start of matter, or the "crust" of a single atom? Does matter manifest from the electromagnetic medium, i.e. 1904 JJ Thomson, prior to 1905 Einstein's "empty space."? The idea of ball particle electron and its spin was falsified by Schrodinger in 1926 and the electron-wave experiments of that timeframe. So, would the nucleus of the atom also be a charge medium, but of opposite polarity? Should the period table and/or isotope table should probably be defined as frequency or wave pattern, versus a "weight"? These are all the types of things that need to re-thought, after the mind-virus of Einstein and Copenhagen subsides.
** Hah, just because something has the name "Quantum" in there, then it must be a Quantum Computer? What about when they used SQUIDs for "classical, digital logic superconducting computers"? Good try... Remember, that this device has been around since the mid-1960's, so then everything using a SQUID is a quantum computing device? The only reason the word QUANTUM is in that acronym is because of the misunderstood use of Schrodinger's Equation and applying the idea of an "electron particle" to it. A Josephson Junction is just a really cold and small Inductor/Capacitor... an aluminum coil loop and an aluminum oxide "insulator" gap.
It's not that they are not smart because obviously it takes intelligence to see an issue and propose another idea even if it is ridiculous. In other words they are just trying to be the ONE with the idea so they can be worshipped and funded. There still has been a lot of good science that has gone into tryign to prove and disprove this perhaps it's all a waste of time.
The quantum superposition arises from spin measurement. Do you by any chance know Bell's Inequality, Electron Interference, and Wave-Particle Duality? If so then, you should not think superposition is not real. Because after all, they are put forward based on observation. The whole idea of quantum mechanics is full of non-intuitive-ness, but deviations from normal day-to-day life do not mean it is wrong. For example, the Relativity discovered by Einstein is a huge deviation from the classical description, and yet it is been accepted because it works. To be honest, I do not totally buy Max Born's interpretation, as many physicists do not either. But how you interpret should not and have not affected the observation. Again, the phenomenon called quantum entanglement and quantum superposition have been confirmed million times since their discovery, and none of the confirmation turned out to be null. And to your dissatisfaction, quantum computing is working using the idea of quantum mechanics, as Google, IBM, and many other labs across the world are now doing. I think one good reference to whoever see this video and are confused is the MIT OpenCourseWare on quantum mechanics. They are available on youtube.
Other institution offers wholesome introductory quantum mechanics course also, but you have to be comfortable with the partial differential equation in the first place.
Also, Schrodinger's equation is *not* classical wave mechanics, and the particle nature of all elementary constituents is what drives Born and other Copenhagen followers to put forward the probabilistic interpretation because classical mechanics do not work in the quantum world in the first place.
One last comment, the problem quantum computing is facing now is the lack of condensation. That is, we can easily have millions of circuits built into our laptops. But quantum ciucuit is limited to around 100 right now. And assembling more is extremely difficult. To my opinion, the situations of quantum computing is similar to controllable fusion. Fivety years ago, small controllable fusion reactors were built and tested. And the basic idea turned out to be working. However, when we need to make it available to the public, industrialize it, we met troubles. The large fusion reactors are not effective, for one. The energy you have to put into the reactor to maintain the fusion is higher than the fusion could output. But to many technology zealots, this does not seem to be a fundamental flaw. So there are people saying the fusion is within our touch, fifty years would be enough. But fifty years past, and today, we still do not harness fusion power, and people tend to say, there will be another 50 years. After all, the problem goes into condensation, i.e. putting a large amount of units into one system, and still maintains the original purpose.
** Hah. Einstein DISCOVERED relativity? I just did a video on that myth: ruclips.net/video/cA57NiG5RnM/видео.html This should help you shorten your learning curve.
Look, you seem to be confused about what superposition is. "Both on and off at the same time" is the best way actual scientists explain superposition, but it really is just an interpretation of reality. The wave function and it's quantization are reality. Quantum computers are in no way the first attempts to experiment with quantum mechanics. We have technology that works thanks to quantum mechanics and we have for more than 40 years. Atomic force microscopy, x-ray scattering and magnetic resonance imaging are just a few examples. Other experiments would include the double slit experiment and Stern-Gerlach devices. Are you able to explain these experiments and their results? You're whole "debunk" falls apart when you open your eyes and look around you, instead of being so focused on the things that confirm your world view. I'd say you should stop making misinformation, but the people that believe you are so brainwashed by conspiracy theories that one less RUclips channel is completely irrelevant.
*>* Don't you realize that I think the same thing about you? ...and I explain exactly why... and provide the links to the material! You need to stop spreading the pseudoscience, Rodrigo!
If you all don't mind, a non-mathematical thought here: Pro-superposition people claim that quantum computers can reveal a password in a few seconds that would take a super-computer thousands of years to do. Isn't this is a pretty definitive claim? Therefore show us that the king really is wearing clothes: prove it. Surely it shouldn't be hard to (honestly) do? (Some sarcasrm) Perhaps it'll take the computer that interprets the quantum computer results thousands of years to do so . . .
Even Albert Einstein had a problem with understanding superposition... this was discovered in 1920's, yet it was not until the 1990's that it was proven that how superposition actually works, it is not a simple thing. A Einstein call these "spooky action at a distance". I see why you have problem understanding it. Good Luck.
** I think you have some wires crossed. "Spooky action at a distance" is from Quantum Entanglement, which requires Quantum State Superposition. I have a video on "Spooky Action at a distance" (EPR Paradox), if you would like to learn more. Quantum State Superposition -- you must believe that nature evolves as a probability wave. There is no way to confirm this, so you must believe. We don't have "probability wave" detectors. If you find one, link it to me. If you believe in the "probability wave", then you can also believe in Quantum State Superposition, because it cannot be verified either! If you try to experimentally verify the Quantum State Superposition, then you "collapse" the "probability wave." Now, you have 2 things to believe in! Wow... I am pretty sure (using the scientific method) this would be defined as PSEUDOSCIENCE, if you accept a theory that has no experimental proof. Good luck!
@@itsbs watch experiment done to prove it. I worked in semiconductor industry. It is a completely different technology and understanding of physics. It was the advent of light bulb that started the entire Quantum talk. This whole RUclips was done to discredit the technology. Why would Honeywell, Google, IBM spend so much money in research and development? Those CEO must be really crook pots!
@@jd5514 ** All they are creating are analog, random noise samplers that can create random numbers. Why don't ANY of these machines run an algorithm, like Shor's or Grovers? In terms of CEOs, it's just simple "fake it, until you make it" corporate mentality.
@@itsbs The crickets after your question have turned into background noise that I can both hear and not hear at the same time. His non answer might just prove his theory, genius when you don't think about it!
No numbers are truly real. Mathematics is not empirical, but rather a priori, and all numbers including 'imaginary numbers' have important roles in reality.
** At least you believe QM has been used in technology like lasers. Last I checked, a laser was a wave resonating chamber...not a light particle superposition device. If I asked you to describe how these technologies use Quantum Mechanics, I'm pretty sure you would not be able to properly describe the QM story, but if you want to believe them, go ahead.
@@itsbsI can't, but my friend Wikipedia can: "When an electron is excited from one state to that at a higher energy level with energy difference ΔE, it will not stay that way forever. Eventually, a photon will be spontaneously created from the vacuum having energy ΔE . Conserving energy, the electron transitions to a lower energy level which is not occupied, with transitions to different levels having different time constants. This process is called "spontaneous emission". Spontaneous emission is a quantum-mechanical effect and a direct physical manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. " If you can tell me how a photon can be spontaneously created without QM then you might have something.
@@davidrave563 ** Simple...it's called Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics. Keep learning, but just realize that academics picked Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, and Einstein as their heroes. They are the ones with the greatest pseudo-science around and you can learn about some of that here, and I point you to the original sources so you can think on your own.
@@itsbs if you read my post it says it is a manifestation of Heisenburgs uncertainty principle. keep learning, you might get more than 500 followers if you stop acting like a clown.
@David Rave *>* Oh yeah Dave...I'm THE clown and I want more followers! Did you not view my video on Quantum Entanglement and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? At this point, you just believe that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is something special...but give that video a view and maybe start by reading his paper, like I have, before assuming it is some kind of universal truth (like you have probably been preached to by mainstream professors and popular teachers).
_'Also you don't know what your talking about.'_ Easy to make an assertion and not prove it ;) He is definitely giving some arguments for his stance. What's your argument for 'you don't know what you're talking about'?
@@itsbs your video is trash. Superposition exists. You’re obviously not a genius, moron. You’re either trolling or it’s the good old dunning Kruger effect.
@@jd-yo2is ** Who cares what I am? You believe in "Quantum State" Superposition, which means you believe in ON/OFF at the same time? Really? That would take a genius I guess... Magnetic NORTH and SOUTH being UP at the same time for an electron particle? Really? This is how you have put your logical mind to use? Now, what experiment can EVER show you that, since by definition "Quantum State" superposition will collapse when you observe it? You must be a BELIEVER by definition... that seems like a cult belief, right?
@@jd-yo2is ** The double slit experiment is "wave superposition" not "Quantum State" superposition. Of course wave superposition exists! If you think that the double slit experiment shows you Quantum State Superposition of a particle, then how can you sit there and observe it without it collapsing? I do the double slit experiment in this video: ruclips.net/video/Zm9tUVI6Ehk/видео.html
** I'm not asking you to believe anything. I provide the sources and links for my videos. All I am asking is if you are interested in the topics, then do your own thinking. I'm providing some of the important points to think about. A scientific paper doesn't prove anything. Neils Bohr and Max Born wrote many papers, but their stuff is just wrong and illogical... electrons that instantly jump through time and space, perpetually orbiting electrons, and nature is a probability wave? A particle can be in two opposite states at the same time? That stuff is pseudo-science...
*>* Also, there are already scientific papers written on the subjects I am talking about (even by famous physicists like Erwin Schrodinger), but people just ignore what he (and others) have to say. Writing papers just is not the answer...people must think for themselves and stop following mainstream, popular, garbage propaganda science.
@@itsbs You are not doing enough homework. Quantum computers are working and use qbits in superposition states. Google Quantum computers and try something else, you are deceiving people that are more ignorant than you because of your lack of investigation.
@@ClaudioSoprano ** Just realize that all of your slams and degrading comments are exactly what I could say about you. ** This is something you BELIEVE but have NO IDEA if it is true or not. You are just following what other people say. I'm just mentioning this to be real about it. I know you have some understanding about computers from your channel, so let me ask you this simple question: The "killer app" for Quantum Computers is Shor's Algorithm and it's ability to assist in factoring prime numbers that can break our encryption. Quantum Computers have been worked on for over 10 years and now have billions of dollars of research in order to create that "killer app." *What is the largest number factored by a Quantum Computer using Shor's Algorithm to date?*
** Is it because I don't believe that something can be ON and OFF at the same time? Do you? If someone can convince you that something can be in two opposites states at the same time, are you gullible?
@Kev Conn ** Ok, give me a clue on what is clueless. Do you really believe that something can be ON/OFF at the same time? Magnetic NORTH/SOUTH both UP at the same time?
Neil degrasse, Joe rogan, Michio kaku, Brian greene, Quantum Super PC, Black Holes = The New Opium for masses
Quantum physics is fun with probabilities, dressed up as spooky acience for the masses.
Great video!
@2:48 "So why would so many smart people believe in something that seems so silly..."
It's easy:
1. They're not smart
2. They use terminology that they think makes sense according to what they observe
3. They teach their ideas in a way that makes it possible for them to communicate the theory with others
Modern foundations of mathematics are based on the nonsense of set theory and 9 beliefs (ZFC axioms).
Mainstream calculus is flawed and has never been rigorous.
Hey, I'm the owner of a small scale investing startup. I want to learn about mathematics and new types of theories about it, can we talk?
Thank you for this video. I share your view on quantum computing, and on quantum mechanics. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness! And how it led to so much quantum woo, and ridiculous quantum consciousness quackery. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. They just couldn't figure it out, so they had to resort to magic. All they had to do was to question the original assumption made by Young... Well, some of us actually did... Better late than never, I guess...
The wave dogma was initiated by people like Huygens and Young. The single-slit experiment, when done in a water tank, produces only one set of waves, with no wave interference. Oddly, the same experiment done with light produces a fringe pattern. The wave concept should've been destroyed right there! To save the wave dogma, Huygens had to invent his famous Huygens Principle as an ad hoc mathematlgical solution, forcing wave interference where it does not exist.
Young's double-slit experiment has very easily been debunked by myself, and my collegues. The fringe pattern is not a wave interference pattern, but a simple reflection pattern from rays coming off a curved surface (a perfectly sharp 90° corner does not exist). That is why the main light beam is fanning out into multiple independent rays never interfering with each other. Block a few rays, and the adjacent rays will not be affected the slightest, nor will the overall pseudo-inteference pattern on screen, as opposed to what should happen with waves. I have used a cloud chamber, and a smoke machine, to verify the exact path light takes after going through the slits.
For the Arago Spot, supposed to be more confirmation for the wave dogma, it's the exact same principle. REFLECTION. A perfectly collimated light beam does not exist. Light will always diverge, depending on the intensity and the type of light. For the experiment, we are even making it diverge intentionally using a lense. Once it has hit the sphere, the law of reflection causes the incident ray to diverge (convex surface). At the edge of the sphere, where light appears to be "bending" toward the central spot, the reflected rays which now have a "new source of emission", the edge, will start diverging immediately, just like in the double-slit experiment, where the reflected rays diverge significantly, compared to the initial well collimated laser beam. Given that the sphere has a curved surface, the light will reflect off the very beginning of the converging side of the sphere. The reflected rays coming from the entire circumference of the sphere will converge toward the center of the shadow on screen. I have experiments done through different media that clearly show multiple rays intersecting in the center, producing the "spot". No wave interference is needed. There is no diffraction, because light waves do not exist. Furthermore, any "wave" interferences supposedly observed in the double-slit experiment, or the Arago Spot experiment, could never be observed with the naked eye to begin with. It is absurd and irrational. We are talking about nanometer size waves, with frequencies in the THz, moving at 300,000 km/s. It's nonsensical. I sure would like to have their eyes! 😂
Light is not a wave, and I don't believe it's made of particles either. What was interpreted as particles, might actually be individual 'reflected light rays' hitting the detectors, hence the HUGE confusion... There was never any "collapsing waves" to begin with. There is no wave-function. That's only a mathemagical abstraction.
Naturally, every time I say this, the replies I receive are directly copied from ChatGPT:
_While it's true that quantum physics can seem counterintuitive, it's important to remember that it's a well-established field with countless experiments supporting its principles. The double-slit experiment, while mind-bending, has been replicated numerous times with consistent results._
_Quantum physics may challenge our everyday intuitions, but it has proven to be an incredibly successful theory in explaining the universe at the smallest scales. It's also led to groundbreaking technologies like lasers and transistors._
It's hopeless to even try. 🙄😔
We can make it even simpler than that. The idea of "waves" comes from an assumption, the assumption that light "travels" as a wave, which was misinterpreted as such in the overrated double-slit experiment. The pseudo-interference pattern does NOT come from wave interferences, but from individual strands of light. I have the experiment to prove it, inside a freaking cloud chamber, which has never been done or even thought of in 200 years, ffs! Light does NOT behave as a wave. Light shows no intrinsic structure through that experiment. And of course, photons do not exist either, because electron "particles" do not exist, so Einstein's childish interpretation of the photoelectric effect for a 5 year-old is complete bs. Of course, quantum superposition is complete bunk! It's illogical and irrational. Quantum Mechanics is nothing but a clever probabilistic mathematical framework with absolutely no bearing on reality. Just like fusion, particle accelerators and gravy wave detectors, quantum computing is bullshit conceived to cheat governments and investors into pouring billions into their fool's errands and insure job security for decades to come.
Fusion doesn't exist? How would you explain transmutation of elements and measurements of radiation from fusion experiments?
@@destroya3303 not saying fusion doesn't exist. Simply that it's highly overhyped to a fraudulent level. Even if it one day were to work, we would never have the raw material to sustain fusion. It's a fool's errand, a gigantic money pit.
Difficult to keep faith in physics/Science🧐
@@SciD1We need to talk. I want to fund your research, do you hav a telegram where we can call?
Beautiful. Still give me hope in science with ppl like you.
Excellent as usual. I just want to make a point, not just for you, but for anyone that watches this video. It is my opinion that the concept of "electrons jumping up a level" is better thought of as a PHASE TRANSITION. Absorption and emission events in the atom are phase transitions. In chaos theory, phase transitions happen suddenly, and without warning. We can see this both in the math, AND in nature. We are closer to the truth if we define electron transitions as phase transitions. Fluid dynamics is the key to understanding BOTH wave phenomenon AND phase transitions. IMHO
Thanks! At this point, the only thing that I would personally claim about "The Electron" is that...I would bet against it being like a billiard ball! :)
@@itsbs For sure. Definitely not a billiard ball.
@@FractalWoman ...but all Aether theory is made of billiard balls, even his graphic used in this video is using balls. It seems we are learning/presenting nothing.
@@neonnoodle How else would you prefer to depict it? A depiction is just a "picture". We depict Aether as "billiard balls" out of convenience...as a picture on a 2D piece of paper or video screen. In terms of modelling, I can model Aether as billiard balls if I want to. I can make calculations and predictions and I can get the right answer. Long story short... I don't have a problem with depicting Aether as billiard balls.
@@neonnoodle The main difference between "Particle Physics" and "Æther" is not the "balls" idea, but rather the idea that there are separate "particles" for every measurable thing: "Particle Physics" says there is a unique "particle" for positive charge, a "particle" for negative charge, a "particle" for neutral charge, a "particle" for mass, a "particle" for gravity, etc.
The Æther may indeed be made from "little balls", but it is the type of motion of those "balls" that gives it the behavior.
Following Born's interpretation still gives the problem of two electrons occupying the same space-time location. The superimposed probability distribution is giving this result. But two electrons cannot occupy the same space-time location since that would require the massive Coulomb repulsion to be absent. The search for fusion power is all about overcoming Coulomb repulsion so it can't be fobbed off as irrelevant. The wave solutions of the Schrodinger equation cannot be interpreted as particle probabilities without removing superposition. An attempt to claim that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle rescues Born's interpretation does not fly since it still allows two electrons to be sufficiently proximal for massive electrostatic repulsion. More hand waving about short time duration does not fly either since at no point are electrical interactions turned off.
Oliver Heavyside and Tesla were right even Newton, bring back the aether!
Schrodinger's cat experiment has always seems absolutely irrational and mental to me. It is a conclusion someone can one reach if they have Schizophenia. The big problem with his logic is once you open the box and if the cat is alive, this immideatly indicates that the cat has always been alive. It couldn't have been dead and then come to life. So it never existed in both states dead and alive state. Thats preposterous. I recall getting into a heated debate with my professor at college cause he kept pushing the accepted narrative not willing to admitt that once the cat is found alive, this means it existed in that live state the entire time. Us not knowing about its condition doesn't change the fact that the cat was never dead. Cause if it was it couldn't be alive once the box is opened. So things existing in both states is almost the same as saying something can exist and not exist at the same time. This is not rational critical thinking.
**
This is the definition of Quantum State Superposition and the "Cat" analogy shows that it is just that -- ridiculous! QM is ridiculous.
**
Correct. That is Quantum Mechanics and the world of Modern Pseudo-Science. Many millions of people are brainwashed.
The mental experiment is now meant to get you into the mind frame of a theoretical system that has no concept of cause and effect. So any attempt to interpret it with logic is simply not valid, your professor is right. Physics uses lots of simplified theoretical systems.
The real problem is that quantum physics is not physics.
@@itsbs omg thank you! You are the only other person that I have found so far that thinks this way about superposition. I have never been able to accept the concept of superposition. It has always felt off to me whenever I hear it being discussed.
That's the thing.
Schrodinger was MAKING FUN OF QUANTUM THEORY. That was a joke, not an example.
He was telling everyone how ridiculous quantum theory actually is.
Everyone else took it and ran with it because they don't actually understand it or they do and just accept something so illogical as fact because someone in a white lab coat says it's strue.
Fantastic statement of reality... and right over the heads of the blind thinking that the proper thought process... is to pretend hard enough... to pretend the cats status was moot... before you opened the box... due to your ignorance of reality... until it was observed by you... as if the universe itself cared if you knew what it was doing while you werent looking
quantum computers are so powerful they would change the world, thats how you can tell noones got one.
**
Haha... well, the sales pitch is the "code breaker" theme of breaking encryption. That is a weapon of war, and if you don't get ahead of this (fear of missing out), then you'll be sorry! And, nevermind what a "Quantum State" in "superposition" really means...
I don't have any idea what it is, but the ether doesn't exist!
@@itsbs It means you can divide by zero and get the man in the moon made of blue cheese on a coin-operated conveyor belt made of automatic whoopee cushions.
Couldn't resist having to look up Max Born's early life...
Every time
Any details?
What about his early life?
@@bobribble8492 Care to elaborate?
That's pretty common among scientists. They are 40% of nobel prize winners.
Exactly what I needed. Thank you, sir.
I'm far to be an expert in the domain but your explanations are way more logical than the official theories... who are you lol, how did you found out all this ?
*>*
I am just a basic idiot. But finding this stuff out took work, but it is easy to do. I show you what I did, i.e. linked the original documents in all of my videos. It starts with thinking logically and checking out that logic, i.e. "OK, show me." After that, you dig in...read, search, watch videos, read some more. Then, the hard part is reformulating what you know into something that people can learn from, and then start talking into the stupid microphone.
@@itsbs Yes I realise it's a lot of work, great job. What you do, shining light on those obscure accepted nonsense is very important. Keep up the good work.
Quantum gates are not like digital logic (AND, OR, XOR) gates. They work on the superposition states and compute. The output comes from "measurement". Please read about Pauli X/Y gates, Z gates and Hadamard gates, etc. these are quantum gates.
**
Yeah right! Superposition OF WHAT? What is being superposed in these Quantum gates?
shroedinger cat experiment was written as mockery to show how ridiculous quantum superposition is
Even before I was taught quantum mechanics at college I started to think about computers with analog-state memories, let's say "qubits", and what applications would such a machine have (conveniently ignoring all of the state-superposition BS). I imagined an electromagnetic device that could store an infinite resolution number (such as "e" or "pi" with no "error" or "residue") or just 1 point of the whole output of an analog process such as the voltage or current reading from an ECG machine, this would be the "qubit" as I early thought.
Now imagine you want, for example, to multiply two of these infinite-resolution quantities to get a third infinite-resolution number as the result (I mean why in the world would you want to do such thing, but bear with me), that "analog computing" operation would take 3 qubits to be done, let's say you want to multiply "e" by "pi" and store the exact result to be used in a subsecuent operation.
This thought experiment lead me to the idea that the ECG machine with a papel roll output is not only comparable to a qubit but to an infinite amount of qubits, because in some way it stores a continuous line of analog reads of electrical states wrote on the paper roll, and if you wanted for example to take the integral of the whole output you could make it into discrete numbers through optical scanning and image sampling and measurement, and finally compute it with a normal binary computer, obviously with some error.
In order to do the same but "without error" you would need a fully analog computer with bidimensional qubits (electromagnetic devices that could store an infinite resolution, continuous set of infinite resolution numbers), this is to me the real kind of "quantum computers" that would be appliable to real world problems.
But again, why the hell would you want to do that in the first place? Binary number storage and numeric methods are so advanced nowadays that the errors are negligible in most cases, even after running thousands of computing operations. I mean, is there a good-enough reason to justify the investment of big $$$ and time and other resources on making a machine that could do this? Is the whole field of "quantum cryptography" even a real deal? (I mean, "could you hack into any organizacion and mine all the remaining crypto currencies just by owning a Sycamore processor of your own?" I know this sounds stupid but that's ad-hoc, giving how twisted this whole field is nowadays.)
Also, is there such thing as infinite resolution? The fact that numbers like pi exist doesn't mean that there's a physical way of storing that number as an infinite-digits decimal quantity (in fact, the "exact" physical way of storing pi is by making a perfectly round wheel with a radius equal to some unit of distance measurement).
If you think about it, if the 3-dimensional matter we see is not infinitely-divisible (this is, there's a "zoom stop" at some point of subatomic particles) then that would mean the universe itself is discrete, and how you operate with computers (analog or binary) in such as scheme of things should be the real "raison d'etre" of quantum computing (on the pi example, this means that your "perfectly round wheel" could be in fact described as a finite array containing the positions of the superficial atoms that make up the wheel's boundary, and thus the number "pi" could become finite at certain practical scale, let's say for a 1 meter radius wheel there should be a corresponding, finite and univocal number "pi").
These are the only relevant cases and applications I could think about when discussing QC, and interestingly enough it's not related AT ALL to the whole BS we see today in the field. The same happens to me with most "emerging subjects" like AI, they are totally disconnected from the fundamental ideas that should propel real research and progress.
It's funny, 2 years after your video and one of our resident youtube physicists Sabine Hossenfelder's video titled 'The Quantum Hype Bubble Is About To Burst' pops up as a suggested video! Looks like she posted it 4 months ago (Nov. - Dec. 22). Instead of just Wall Street speculators, now we got physics ones too!
Thanks man, Now I really understand why this happened and how it works this makes it very easy to explain.
Thanks ! Great video ! Still sorting through these double slit experiments, but am hugely skeptical of superposition/entanglement hypothesis. Would be nice to see more tearing apart of the so-called proofs offered for quantum mechanics.
**
There is a playlist on Quantum: ruclips.net/p/PLkdAkAC4ItcHNLDIK9ORydQl_Ik6GJ0bD
(He's responding to all comments so lemme give a try!)
The way you present how Quantum Computers break open a box is not how they operate!
True, about Quantum Computing there is much false hype.
Like being in all states at the same time therefore insert four keys at the same time to get the answer in one shot instead of four.
That is not what we're claiming.
What we're saying is you put the particle in a state (decide how you want to call it), when interacts with the box, gives a *facet* of the answer that classically would require four shots to achieve.
Quantum does not achieve the answer Classical would achieve in four steps. It only achieves a half-baked answer that for some purposes are not perfect, but good enough to work with.
It's an alternative to computing that does not surpass Classical in all respects, just works so differently that if Classical works in a perfect way but takes time to complete, Quantum works in an imperfect and incomplete way that achieves partial information in less time, but is good enough and the best solution for our purposes.
I'm talking about the Deutch-Jozsa Algorithm to determine the answer in the least amount of shots. There is a pdf by John Preskill page 17.
Whether the Copenhagen interpretation is true or even scientific is irrelevant to whether Quantum can be useful or not!
**
Then you are building a classic, analog computer... which is fine.
Quantum States IN A SUPERPOSITION is a result of the Max Born rule... that's it. It is pure pseudoscience. Quantum States IN A SUPERPOSITION cannot be tested by definition of Quantum Mechanics itself, since the "wavefunction collapse." You must BELIEVE!
**
Then what exactly IS QUANTUM about a QUANTUM COMPUTER? What claim do you make that this computer does to make it "QUANTUM"?
@@itsbs Quantum differentiates itself by putting its Qubits in a 'special state'.
You don't believe in Superposition? Fine. Great scientists do not. Don't call it Superposition. Call it something else. Superposition is an idea. Which is false if you want it to be. But it simply is an attempt to describe why experiments give what they give!
Even if Superposition is false, we can bring about a state that is demonstrably different from |1⟩ or |0⟩, since |1⟩ or |0⟩ when repeatedly measured always gives what it was. But not when the particle is in |+⟩. Measure it when in |+⟩, bring it back again to |+⟩, re-measure it, re-bring it back and you get different things when measured.
You might disagree on what the particle *is* when it is in |+⟩, but that doesn't matter, as long as we follow experimental rules when we use Quantum Computers.
For the lightbulb problem, you need to try four shots to get which answer lights it up. With Quantum Computers you can try with a single shot, with two particles prepared in state |++⟩. You will not get the answer as to which is the correct combination to light it up.
But you will know if the answer to light it up, are both digits the SAME or DIFFERENT. Think about it! With a Classical Computer to know _this_ answer you would inevitably need to try all four, get the answer and deduce similarity or difference from this answer. Now imagine a problem that does not require finding the answer but only if the digits are same or different. Is it not better to use Quantum Computers for such purposes?
If you get back |++⟩ after you test the lightbulb, it means the digits have to be different. If I get |--⟩ however, it means the digits have to be the same.
But how do I know if the Qubits are in |++⟩ or |--⟩ without measuring them?
Simple. Don't measure them. But _compare them_ with other known states for a difference to those states.
As you see, there is a lot of bold claims about Quantum which is totally false. Mostly by journalists who hear what they want to hear from scientists, as "the particle is in two states at the same time!"
Yet another one from another algorithm this time, the Super Search Algorithm (Grover's Search) that can search at lightfast speeds, so-called. But this also is a claim blown out of proportion since yes the search is faster, but to achieve such speeds of searching you must first encode all the answers first into a Quantum state.
To search a Number Book backwards you must first encode all the numbers manually in a Quantum Computer, which makes it ridiculous to search people from their numbers that way since you're way better off searching for the person classically instead of quantum.
@@oosmanbeekawoo **
What is this "special state"?
*
@@oosmanbeekawoo **
No. Classically, you could try any random order of those four choices and sometimes get the right answer faster than other times. That is all the "quantum computer" is doing.
**
IF this is true, then there would be useful QC's after 10+ years of research. But where are they? What algorithm can you run?
Realize that you can make an analog computer solve a specific type of probably better than a classical, generalized computer. DWAVE would be an example of an analog computer doing something like this, but how much better? How much cost savings...etc?
Again, what makes a Quantum computer "quantum"? If it is the initial particle "superposition state", then they are completely fake, since there is no such thing as an "electron spin up/down" or something like that...
*
@@itsbs You meantion you don't believe in electron spin, but isn't that what NMR and MRI are based on? There is some interaction with the magnetic field and people decided to call it "spin".
If I understand you correctly, you're not saying that quantum computers aren't real; you're saying they don't work the way we think they do. I guess they use wave mechanics?
**
Yes, this would be a decent summary. BUT, most people do NOT understand the difference between Quantum Mechanics and Wave Mechanics. So, you can watch another video that I try to give you a bit better insight on that...
Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computer Pseudoscience:
ruclips.net/video/i8yVJDO9HJ8/видео.html
You can also read a small article I wrote on Reddit:
www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/qp21g8/quantum_computers_are_fake_they_will_not_break/
You can also read a bit more on this small post in my community site:
ruclips.net/user/postUgkxeBmJ3jo-SKNco_s2sjlB2eTxxhCCqgJJ
Many thanks
This cannot be understood properly without using the Bloch sphere as a model of a single trapped electron. Trapped electrons can be spun in any direction while staying in the same place. We can place a virtual stylus on the surface of the electron and draw functions on the surface like an analogue graphing machine. By parallelising this process (in a unique way) we get a theoretical exponential speedup.
**
Bloch sphere is very analog.
What is the definition of this "single electron" you are talking about. Does it have a radius or density?
**
Sounds neat, but again, it sounds very classically analog. Where is the fabled "Quantum States in a Superposition?
**
This doesn't sound like "Quantum States in a Superposition."
@@itsbs Quantum computers can be considered analogous to analog systems since continuous graphing can be seen as an analog process. By arranging numerous tiny 3D spinning dipole magnets in an array, scientists aim to achieve tasks that would otherwise be impractical to scale. The magnetism of trapped ions allows for the rapid influence of adjacent ions, a feature very different from traditional digital computers.
The radius or type of particle is irrelevant as long as it functions as a dipole magnet. A dipole inherently implies a separation of charges, giving it physical extension.
Despite the obfuscating jargon in quantum computing discussions, we do have a theoretical path to exponential speedup for certain algorithms. Semantic arguments do not impress; the potential for speedup is what matters.
@@inflivia **
That is the problem. Quantum Mechanics requires the point particle in order to create the Quantum Particle State Superposition of the Max Born rule. Analog, continuous system have classical "wave superposition" built right in.
A Quantum Mechanical Computer and a classical analog computer cannot be the same... they are basically opposites. So, one of the two is the correct, natural science and not pseudoscience.
**
Sure, but still based on classical, electromagnetic, analog physics and not Quantum Mechanics Born Rule.
**
Is relevant if you are calling it a "single electron", because that is a pseudoscience term, if you can't define it scientifically.
**
A capacitor dielectric is a dipole. A ferrous metal is a magnetic dipole. This is just basic, classical EM physics and nothing to do with the Born Rule.
**
It is more than just jargon. It is a FAILED ENGINEERING SPEC! Quantum Particle State Superposition does not exit. How can the ill-defined "single particle" have a magnetic moment that points North and South at the same time. That's absolutely illogical and flawed to the max.
**
Sure, classical analog computing versus classical binary computing. I think it is great, and will only get better when science removes head from ass and recognized that Quantum Mechanics Born Rule and it's inbred cousin called Entanglement are pseudoscience.
@@itsbs what is a classical analog computer?
@@inflivia **
Mostly specialized, non-digital, devices that use classical physics... anything from a mechanical clock computing the time of day, to DWAVE adiabatic computation for optimization modeling.
A GENERAL PURPOSE analog computer that outperformed BINARY DIGTAL computing in multiple tasks would be massive.... or combing analog and digital logic simultaneously!
Sounds like it should be called quantum state stupid position. Good refutation. The quantum king is naked.
Literally, smoke and mirrors. Baffle them with BS, and you'll get your grant renewed...
The closest to actual explanation using quantum states was describing how sometimes electrons go through a barrier in a transistor. But thats just not understanding atoms arent solid and things go between them depending on pressure(or frequency but light and electricity have both, light is repeating pressure wave)
I try to stick to my self-imposed 20 minute limit video, otherwise I would have talked about how Quantum Tunneling is basic, classical, analog behavior and SQUIDs are classical, inductor/capacitor circuits in a super-conducting/super-obstructing environment. Maybe in a future video...
@@itsbs more importantly, do you know about the Structured Atom Model(SAM)? It explains all the major gaps in previous models, based on shape of the nucleus. its a lot better than the vague bohr model or the quantum math mumbo jumbo, go see the videos on electric universe UK channel.
@@635574 No, I don't. I will take a look at it. Thanks.
See you when we will all have access to quantum computers via the cloud, I guess
You already do have access to "Quantum Computers" via the cloud, but just realize what they are really doing. The are "analog-like computers" that use the Hadamard gate to help generate random numbers.
@@itsbs Quantum supremacy has been announced and revoked how many times now?
Lets derive Logic from "real" random. Righto
So the cat cannot measure her own state lol
Maybe the quantum stuff is just slightly misunderstood. The superposition could look like this |=on state, -= off state, /= superposition instead how it is currently interpreted with |-= superposition. The thing is these computers do work and they solved some problems, so I highly doubt they are fake.
**
A Quantum State in a Superposition is a single particle in a STATE ON and STATE OFF at the same time. Or STATE SPIN UP (Magnetic NORTH UP) or STATE SPIN DOWN (Magnetic SOUTH UP) at the same time. Do you really believe that, a single particle with magnetic NORTH UP and SOUTH UP at the same time? And if a Qubit is just NOT 0 or 1, then that's an analog dial (like .5). That's not Quantum Mechanics, but just basic, classical physics. If Quantum Computers were real, then wouldn't you think they could factorize some decent size number yet? Wouldn't they be able to calculate SOMETHING, rather than just sample random numbers? Look at what they are producing for humanity after a decade, multi-national effort, and billions of dollars. It's just Fear Of Missing Out propaganda and a bunch of promises for specialized calculations.
@@itsbs But the superposition may in fact be the particle spinning west/east instead of usual north/south. I will demonstrate it on a lightswitch- if you hold it at certain precise position the light will be blinking. (Be on and off at the same time) That would explain why quantum computers work without the contradiction of particle being in two states. Such understanding would also possibly allow for more superpositions to exist, where the particle spins tilted on its axis. I had a paper on this called abstract mathematical system- never published it because without me having PhD in the field someone would certainly steal it and claim it as their own.
@@jackwilson5542 **
There is no such thing as actual "SPIN." The SPIN is just a term used for the idea of angular momentum to try to explain the magnetic moment. It doesn't matter which way you think the "SPIN" is occurring, if it is spinning opposites at the same time, then you have MAGNETIC NORTH/SOUTH pointing in the same direction at the same time. It is ridiculous... Quantum State Superposition is a joke when applied to nature and it can never be proven by experiment because of the "wave function collapse." There is absolutely NO application of the scientific method here... it is just more fantasy physics and the Quantum Mechanical computer experiment keeps failing. Gee, I wonder why?
@@jackwilson5542 **
Blinking is not ON and OFF at the same time. That is impossible... Blinking is ON and OFF at different times, but maybe you need a high speed camera to see the flicker, because our eyes are very slow detectors.
**
Also, what do you think the Quantum Computers have solved? If you are talking D-Wave's computer, that isn't a Quantum Mechanical Computer, but a classical, analog device using heat distribution to build their calculations. Really neat idea, but not Quantum Mechanical, i.e. using Quantum State Superposition and Quantum Entanglement.
As Eric Dollard would say, "quantum mysticism"!
Eric Dullard.
TY I have tried to understand Quantum Computing for about a decade and it always seemed like a lie. This reminds me of the alchemy stone. IF quantum computers do anything useful it must be communicating with the super natural or something even less believable.
**
Yes, the Quantum Computer people will need to recognize that they are just using analog waveforms and the mysterious, Quantum State Superposition is just a man-made idea. Analog computers can be useful, but usually they solve just a very specific problem...like the D-Wave analog computer system.
I found your superposition video, thanks! I think that Born's idea was near to have physical meaning taking the mathematical complex number oscillation to something real; since it was not a Schrodingers electromagnetic diffusion, the probability distribution of existence had better meaning. BUT, superposition is astray physics. Superposition is just the combination of many possible solutions "at the same instance" and THIS "same instance" is not physically understandable-possible. Never have been seen a superposition value from one system - one event, the expected value is just the addition of many events or many equal systems that "average the different possible solutions." In math language the eigenfunctions are orthogonal (dot product = 0), i.e., only one solution at a time; so, this is completely opposite to the superposition of solutions that linear math concludes (addition of valid solution is also a solution). A better way of understanding is to "vibrate" or "oscillates" between all possible solutions, this has more physical meaning! and this is why all measurements observed are only eigenvalues; never a mixing situation. Superposition vs collapse is just a mistake of Copenhagen's interpretation; collapse is a reality and superposition is misleading. Now the oscillation is given at a rate of its total energetic content, like 10^20 times per second (total energy = mass energy plus kinetic energy plus gravitational potential energy plus electromagnetic potential energy,..) High vibration can give an ultra-fast situation on qubits that are entangled (entangled meaning that they oscillate at a coherent frequency; needing to get rid of thermal vibration). Hope this will open new ideas for your challenged and correct comments. Regards
*
**
This is not the definition of entanglement as described by the EPR paper. If something is oscillating at a coherent frequency, then you are describing resonance, not entanglement.
I have another video on the ERP paper and Quantum Entanglement if you want to see what it really means.
*
@@itsbs > Unless the oscillation is an existence one, a fluctuation between two situations, the 3D visible space and a zone where the essence of physical values are preserved (Born probability of existence or... being at that place at that moment). I recognize at first sight seems completely out of mind, BUT is more reasonable than multiverses or just actual weird quantum. This concept has some physical meaning, like the one we accept of the big bang but, in this case, quantum bangs... it needs to think at least twice.... hope you do it, Best regards and thanks again for answering my questions.
@@itsbs Excuse, in my opinion, the superposition is MADE UP from linear math, collapse is a reality and is seen all the time. The issue I think is when a "bullet type" particle is assumed; that is wrong, a thought of a compact place where physical values are is more appropriate. This gives a place for to the quantum field, quantum strings and quantum gravity (quantum space)... hope you would see the particle in a more general way or baptized with a new name avoiding confusion with classical "compact bullets", regards and thanks again
just fishing for followers! get informed man and leave your narrow world of thinking. are you honestly thinking all the thousands of thousands of scientists working on it haven't proved their results?
**
Oh yeah, that's the motivation for sure! Are you really gullible enough that something can be ON and OFF at the same time? Or a particle can take every possible path and then just settle on just one of those paths?
*
Dude you attacked the OP and not the idea... signs of being triggered. Thousands and thousands were against the very great scientists you follow now. How about focusing on the data not follow the herd rationalization.
@@ams6478 What are you stepping in here? Move on, take your friends and prove the flat earth.
@dusfor63 **
Did you ever figure out ON/OFF at the same time? Or Magnetic North and South UP at the same time? You know how nature will just calculate everything in parallel for you, right? ...Or maybe, what is the largest number that can be factored using Shor's algorithm with a QC? They are "supreme" computers, right? How far have they gotten into the code breaking they are supposed to be good at?
Just because the quantum explanation is bogus does not mean the phenomenon is fake.
**
Quantum Mechanics is a false pseudoscience based on Max Born's rule. This is the engineering spec they using to build Quantum Mechanical Computer, as per Richard Feynman. This engineering spec is 100% false, and when they talk about Quantum Mechanical Computers "working", that is a lie and FAKE! 100% fake!!
@@itsbsQM is the answer to everything according to people like Feynman.
Just because Feynman can't explain magnetism doesn't mean magnets are fake.
@@codetech5598 **
Haha, terrible analogy for justifying your point...
If Feynman had to design and build static, magnetized alloys based on the wavefunction collapse of electron superposition of spin states, we would NEVER have anything but loadstone, natural magnets.
A Quantum Mechanical computer's engineering spec is based on the idea of Quantum State Superposition of quantum particle states, which is an entire crock of shit, terribly defined, and doesn't exist in nature.
Now, for someone that can code or debug, if a functional spec gets handed to you that requires you to provide functionality that digital computers cannot do with programming languages, well.. what is the outcome of that functional spec if you move forward with implementation? Vaporware was a term used back in the day... QC's are vaporware that is impossible to ever manifest using the current engineer spec.
If your hangup is the word "fake", then just change it to something that makes more sense to you.
At this point, QC's sample random pieces of waveforms, which are very classically analog.
@@itsbs Let me reword this:
According to people like Feynman, the only reason we have transistor radios, lasers, or cell phones is because of QM, and the very existence of such things proves QM is correct.
And, according to them, the existence of GPS validates both QM and GR.
@@codetech5598 **
Yes. They are liars. These are good examples of how they steal other people's wins to prop up their own pseudoscience theories. They are propogandists, driven by ego and other negative forces.
But, Feynman was kind of funny and decent teacher.
I think I’ve seen all of your videos on modern physics. I’m also well versed on undergraduate physics. I want to ask you, what do you propose the actions that someone ought take in order to uncover the physics that is actually taking place in the fast and large, and the small and slow?
**
Electrical science - you'll have to do your own study of Maxwell-Heaviside. This extends into Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics (partial differential math). The engineering math is versor algebra. You must bring back the EM medium that is waving. Instead of "particles" like electron, you should think "charge mediums" (permittivities & permeabilities, resistance, dielectric conductance, and inductance energy/capacitance energy). It was JJ Thomson's Faraday lines of force medium or Faraday Tubes of force medium (1903) prior to Einstein's fantasy physics of empty space. In the end, the LARGE and the SMALL in electrical science work on the same principle: waves in an EM medium. Matter-kinematics is really the exception, but to us, it seems the like the reality.
Remember, basic relativity math is just the Doppler Effect. Also, Minkowski Spacetime is really described by Poincare in his gravitation hypothesis section:
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3APoincareDynamiqueJuillet.djvu/41
"Consider then X, Y, Z, T{sqrt {-1} as the coordinates of a fourth point"
...but this really isn't gravity, but just a rotation of the time coordinate (as a new space coordinate of (ct)), like in the complex plane. Space and Time should not be combined, i.e. time should not be another space coordinate, even though 4D space coordinates is probably the right direction.
at 4:50, you state that E=hf is a “one second wave energy equation”. Why?
the units come out in Joules - proper for energy, because the time unit (seconds) cancels out as a product of Planck’s constant and the time (reciprocal seconds) in the frequency term… thus, the Energy obtained is for a particular event…
**
Yes, good catch! There is a playlist on my site called Einstein's One Second Photon that can go into much more detail. When you study Planck's 1901 paper, you see that e=hf is originated there and based on an experiment that used data based on 1 second of blackbody radiation, or Power. When Planck derived the "h" number, you can see the error of an extra "second" unit. This then gets carried onto Einstein's 1905 Photon. So what is the fix? It is a proposal called MUA, or Modified Unit Analysis, that brings the idea of an "electromagnetic cycle" as a fundamental unit. This also effects the unitless radians and has been discussed/proposed for a while... "The Quantum Flaw" video on my site will walk you through this whole process.
All this stuff always looked weird to me. "It's not even wrong"
Thx.
Hi. How about. Electronique microscope my freind ..Are the electron microscope images of atoms a lie? Are the images of particle deflection actually fake too? And thank you
**
For the electron microscope, you can think of it as filling vacuum chamber with electric charge medium, like water (or an "electron cloud"). The "backscatter detectors" act more like wave transducers, as we use in sonar. The focused electron beam creates a higher density and intensity for these waves to reflect onto the detector.
The only fake-ness about the electron microscope would be to think of it as little billiard balls bouncing off the specimen and onto an electron ball particle detector. Again, we keep applying the particle physics idea to wave medium behavior, when the experimental results are wave interference patterns. The "single electron" shooter/detector has the same ill-defined "single particle" idea, just like the photon.
@@itsbs is this means that. The current atomic model is a big lie
@@LarcGin **
We have no real definition of matter or where it comes from, i.e. is the "molecule" matter, is the di-atom the start of matter, or the "crust" of a single atom? Does matter manifest from the electromagnetic medium, i.e. 1904 JJ Thomson, prior to 1905 Einstein's "empty space."?
The idea of ball particle electron and its spin was falsified by Schrodinger in 1926 and the electron-wave experiments of that timeframe. So, would the nucleus of the atom also be a charge medium, but of opposite polarity?
Should the period table and/or isotope table should probably be defined as frequency or wave pattern, versus a "weight"?
These are all the types of things that need to re-thought, after the mind-virus of Einstein and Copenhagen subsides.
@@itsbs thank u so much
Just one last question: Are images of atoms taken with an electron microscope a fake ?
Wrong again. Its called a SQUID.
**
Hah, just because something has the name "Quantum" in there, then it must be a Quantum Computer? What about when they used SQUIDs for "classical, digital logic superconducting computers"? Good try...
Remember, that this device has been around since the mid-1960's, so then everything using a SQUID is a quantum computing device? The only reason the word QUANTUM is in that acronym is because of the misunderstood use of Schrodinger's Equation and applying the idea of an "electron particle" to it. A Josephson Junction is just a really cold and small Inductor/Capacitor... an aluminum coil loop and an aluminum oxide "insulator" gap.
Colliders rolling - money flowing
👏👏👏
02:48 - why would smart people ... i know the answer ! it is very simple - they are not smart. lol, thx for sharing, have fun, godspeed
It's not that they are not smart because obviously it takes intelligence to see an issue and propose another idea even if it is ridiculous. In other words they are just trying to be the ONE with the idea so they can be worshipped and funded. There still has been a lot of good science that has gone into tryign to prove and disprove this perhaps it's all a waste of time.
The quantum superposition arises from spin measurement. Do you by any chance know Bell's Inequality, Electron Interference, and Wave-Particle Duality? If so then, you should not think superposition is not real. Because after all, they are put forward based on observation.
The whole idea of quantum mechanics is full of non-intuitive-ness, but deviations from normal day-to-day life do not mean it is wrong. For example, the Relativity discovered by Einstein is a huge deviation from the classical description, and yet it is been accepted because it works. To be honest, I do not totally buy Max Born's interpretation, as many physicists do not either. But how you interpret should not and have not affected the observation.
Again, the phenomenon called quantum entanglement and quantum superposition have been confirmed million times since their discovery, and none of the confirmation turned out to be null. And to your dissatisfaction, quantum computing is working using the idea of quantum mechanics, as Google, IBM, and many other labs across the world are now doing.
I think one good reference to whoever see this video and are confused is the MIT OpenCourseWare on quantum mechanics. They are available on youtube.
Other institution offers wholesome introductory quantum mechanics course also, but you have to be comfortable with the partial differential equation in the first place.
Also, Schrodinger's equation is *not* classical wave mechanics, and the particle nature of all elementary constituents is what drives Born and other Copenhagen followers to put forward the probabilistic interpretation because classical mechanics do not work in the quantum world in the first place.
One last comment, the problem quantum computing is facing now is the lack of condensation. That is, we can easily have millions of circuits built into our laptops. But quantum ciucuit is limited to around 100 right now. And assembling more is extremely difficult. To my opinion, the situations of quantum computing is similar to controllable fusion. Fivety years ago, small controllable fusion reactors were built and tested. And the basic idea turned out to be working. However, when we need to make it available to the public, industrialize it, we met troubles. The large fusion reactors are not effective, for one. The energy you have to put into the reactor to maintain the fusion is higher than the fusion could output. But to many technology zealots, this does not seem to be a fundamental flaw. So there are people saying the fusion is within our touch, fifty years would be enough. But fifty years past, and today, we still do not harness fusion power, and people tend to say, there will be another 50 years. After all, the problem goes into condensation, i.e. putting a large amount of units into one system, and still maintains the original purpose.
*
**
Hah. Einstein DISCOVERED relativity? I just did a video on that myth: ruclips.net/video/cA57NiG5RnM/видео.html
This should help you shorten your learning curve.
Look, you seem to be confused about what superposition is. "Both on and off at the same time" is the best way actual scientists explain superposition, but it really is just an interpretation of reality.
The wave function and it's quantization are reality. Quantum computers are in no way the first attempts to experiment with quantum mechanics. We have technology that works thanks to quantum mechanics and we have for more than 40 years. Atomic force microscopy, x-ray scattering and magnetic resonance imaging are just a few examples. Other experiments would include the double slit experiment and Stern-Gerlach devices.
Are you able to explain these experiments and their results?
You're whole "debunk" falls apart when you open your eyes and look around you, instead of being so focused on the things that confirm your world view. I'd say you should stop making misinformation, but the people that believe you are so brainwashed by conspiracy theories that one less RUclips channel is completely irrelevant.
*>*
Don't you realize that I think the same thing about you? ...and I explain exactly why... and provide the links to the material! You need to stop spreading the pseudoscience, Rodrigo!
You are a gold fish that doesn't believe they are in a bowl and is asking for proof of water because you can't see any...
And Max Born is of course Jewish. Every single time.
Association fallacy. Not a good move man.
@@allaamrauf8214 Well that was easy deboonk huh?
A large number of nobel prize winners are ethnically Jewish.
If you all don't mind, a non-mathematical thought here: Pro-superposition people claim that quantum computers can reveal a password in a few seconds that would take a super-computer thousands of years to do. Isn't this is a pretty definitive claim? Therefore show us that the king really is wearing clothes: prove it. Surely it shouldn't be hard to (honestly) do?
(Some sarcasrm) Perhaps it'll take the computer that interprets the quantum computer results thousands of years to do so . . .
*
Even Albert Einstein had a problem with understanding superposition... this was discovered in 1920's, yet it was not until the 1990's that it was proven that how superposition actually works, it is not a simple thing. A Einstein call these "spooky action at a distance". I see why you have problem understanding it. Good Luck.
**
I think you have some wires crossed. "Spooky action at a distance" is from Quantum Entanglement, which requires Quantum State Superposition. I have a video on "Spooky Action at a distance" (EPR Paradox), if you would like to learn more.
Quantum State Superposition -- you must believe that nature evolves as a probability wave. There is no way to confirm this, so you must believe. We don't have "probability wave" detectors. If you find one, link it to me.
If you believe in the "probability wave", then you can also believe in Quantum State Superposition, because it cannot be verified either! If you try to experimentally verify the Quantum State Superposition, then you "collapse" the "probability wave." Now, you have 2 things to believe in!
Wow... I am pretty sure (using the scientific method) this would be defined as PSEUDOSCIENCE, if you accept a theory that has no experimental proof. Good luck!
@@itsbs watch experiment done to prove it. I worked in semiconductor industry. It is a completely different technology and understanding of physics. It was the advent of light bulb that started the entire Quantum talk. This whole RUclips was done to discredit the technology. Why would Honeywell, Google, IBM spend so much money in research and development? Those CEO must be really crook pots!
@@jd5514 **
All they are creating are analog, random noise samplers that can create random numbers. Why don't ANY of these machines run an algorithm, like Shor's or Grovers? In terms of CEOs, it's just simple "fake it, until you make it" corporate mentality.
@@jd5514 **
Also, what experiment did you observe that "proves it"?
@@itsbs The crickets after your question have turned into background noise that I can both hear and not hear at the same time. His non answer might just prove his theory, genius when you don't think about it!
and imaginary numbers aren't real, right?
*
No numbers are truly real. Mathematics is not empirical, but rather a priori, and all numbers including 'imaginary numbers' have important roles in reality.
19:07 i describe as a 2. 0 -> low 1 -> high 2 -> SUPER
Except they are real so yeah...
**
So is a simulator of incorrect, man-made ideas "real"? I agree that they are real, analog random number generators.
@@itsbs ok dude idk what the hell your talking about but it seems your denying reality so good luck with that good bye.
@@weelchairmen4517 **
Or maybe you are just believing in what you see in videos, without putting your own thought into it... maybe?
@@itsbs thats absurd bye
@@weelchairmen4517 **
Farewell... good luck with life!
BS
**
You mean Quantum Computer are BS or my video is BS?
I'm pretty sure you're wrong, qm has already been used in technologies like lasers and PET scans
**
At least you believe QM has been used in technology like lasers. Last I checked, a laser was a wave resonating chamber...not a light particle superposition device. If I asked you to describe how these technologies use Quantum Mechanics, I'm pretty sure you would not be able to properly describe the QM story, but if you want to believe them, go ahead.
@@itsbsI can't, but my friend Wikipedia can: "When an electron is excited from one state to that at a higher energy level with energy difference ΔE, it will not stay that way forever. Eventually, a photon will be spontaneously created from the vacuum having energy ΔE . Conserving energy, the electron transitions to a lower energy level which is not occupied, with transitions to different levels having different time constants. This process is called "spontaneous emission". Spontaneous emission is a quantum-mechanical effect and a direct physical manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. " If you can tell me how a photon can be spontaneously created without QM then you might have something.
@@davidrave563 **
Simple...it's called Schrodinger's Wave Mechanics. Keep learning, but just realize that academics picked Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, and Einstein as their heroes. They are the ones with the greatest pseudo-science around and you can learn about some of that here, and I point you to the original sources so you can think on your own.
@@itsbs if you read my post it says it is a manifestation of Heisenburgs uncertainty principle. keep learning, you might get more than 500 followers if you stop acting like a clown.
@David Rave *>*
Oh yeah Dave...I'm THE clown and I want more followers! Did you not view my video on Quantum Entanglement and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? At this point, you just believe that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is something special...but give that video a view and maybe start by reading his paper, like I have, before assuming it is some kind of universal truth (like you have probably been preached to by mainstream professors and popular teachers).
If they were fake then why are they making them? Also you don't know what your talking about.
*
_'Also you don't know what your talking about.'_
Easy to make an assertion and not prove it ;)
He is definitely giving some arguments for his stance. What's your argument for 'you don't know what you're talking about'?
lmao dude why don't you actually study physics if you're interested in it? Math too hard?
**
What did you find wrong in the video?
@@itsbs your video is trash. Superposition exists. You’re obviously not a genius, moron. You’re either trolling or it’s the good old dunning Kruger effect.
@@itsbs you can do the double slit experiment at your house lol
@@jd-yo2is **
Who cares what I am? You believe in "Quantum State" Superposition, which means you believe in ON/OFF at the same time? Really? That would take a genius I guess... Magnetic NORTH and SOUTH being UP at the same time for an electron particle? Really? This is how you have put your logical mind to use? Now, what experiment can EVER show you that, since by definition "Quantum State" superposition will collapse when you observe it? You must be a BELIEVER by definition... that seems like a cult belief, right?
@@jd-yo2is **
The double slit experiment is "wave superposition" not "Quantum State" superposition. Of course wave superposition exists! If you think that the double slit experiment shows you Quantum State Superposition of a particle, then how can you sit there and observe it without it collapsing?
I do the double slit experiment in this video: ruclips.net/video/Zm9tUVI6Ehk/видео.html
Why should I believe this crap? Prove it. Write a scientific paper.
**
I'm not asking you to believe anything. I provide the sources and links for my videos. All I am asking is if you are interested in the topics, then do your own thinking. I'm providing some of the important points to think about. A scientific paper doesn't prove anything. Neils Bohr and Max Born wrote many papers, but their stuff is just wrong and illogical... electrons that instantly jump through time and space, perpetually orbiting electrons, and nature is a probability wave? A particle can be in two opposite states at the same time? That stuff is pseudo-science...
*>*
Also, there are already scientific papers written on the subjects I am talking about (even by famous physicists like Erwin Schrodinger), but people just ignore what he (and others) have to say. Writing papers just is not the answer...people must think for themselves and stop following mainstream, popular, garbage propaganda science.
Claudio... where did you go?
@@itsbs You are not doing enough homework. Quantum computers are working and use qbits in superposition states. Google Quantum computers and try something else, you are deceiving people that are more ignorant than you because of your lack of investigation.
@@ClaudioSoprano **
Just realize that all of your slams and degrading comments are exactly what I could say about you.
**
This is something you BELIEVE but have NO IDEA if it is true or not. You are just following what other people say. I'm just mentioning this to be real about it. I know you have some understanding about computers from your channel, so let me ask you this simple question: The "killer app" for Quantum Computers is Shor's Algorithm and it's ability to assist in factoring prime numbers that can break our encryption. Quantum Computers have been worked on for over 10 years and now have billions of dollars of research in order to create that "killer app." *What is the largest number factored by a Quantum Computer using Shor's Algorithm to date?*
Are you in some sort of institution?
**
Why would you say that?
**
Is it because I don't believe that something can be ON and OFF at the same time? Do you? If someone can convince you that something can be in two opposites states at the same time, are you gullible?
Clueless.
**
You mean me or the Quantum Computerists?
you.
@Kev Conn **
Ok, give me a clue on what is clueless. Do you really believe that something can be ON/OFF at the same time? Magnetic NORTH/SOUTH both UP at the same time?