if it can represent a 0 and 1 simultaneously, how do you tell what the value you are looking for is???
Posted on 04/08/2012 11:20:22 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Scientists at the University of Southern California have created a computer within a diamond to test quantum computing theories. This research could lead to super computer speeds, but for the present is still in the experimental stage. A gratuitous tip of the hat to The Weazmeister for the linkage.
A qubit can represent a 0 and a 1 at the same time. This is thanks to the quantum property of superposition, and it’s the property that may one day make quantum computers insanely fast.
(Excerpt) Read more at enthusiast.hardocp.com ...
n Page Welcome to the encyclopedia of quantum information
Maybe they can explaine it.
Not sure that the link at post #21 helps.
That is a single atom with a nucleus and an electron could represent the following states ...with the electron as a 0 or a 1 depending on it;s spin and the same with the nucleus....thus the single "Proper Atom" could have four states or pairs....:
0 , 0
0 , 1
1 , 0
1 , 1
No Idea how you make that happen.
The left column would be the electron spin....the right column would be the nucleus spin.
if it can represent a 0 and 1 simultaneously, how do you tell what the value you are looking for is???
Oops! Wrong diamond.
This is one of those fantastic claims that you will just have to take the experts’ word on.
So actually the atom could represent 0, `1, 2, or 3.... but not at the same time.
That statement must be from an illiterate (scientific ) technical journalist,,,,
ee #23 and #27.
It both helps and not-helps until you click on it.
thx...
That’s because of the theory behind quantum weirdness, though. It doesn’t actually have a “state” until it is measured. Until it is measured, it remains in an undefined state. So they say it can represent a 0 or a 1 at the same time.
Personally, though, I don’t elect to suspend disbelief. That is why I say that the scientists say it, but you’ll have to take their word for it. There is no way you can test or even fully understand their theory. Even they don’t understand it. If you question it, they will say that it doesn’t need to make sense, as long as it works experimentally. And you’ll also need to take their word for it when they say it works experimentally.
It's totally groovy!
Smile, Is, my other stud’s a camera!
Interesting
bflr
This research could lead to super computer speeds, but for the present is still in the experimental stage... A qubit can represent a 0 and a 1 at the same time. This is thanks to the quantum property of superposition, and it's the property that may one day make quantum computers insanely fast.Good for nothing, but really fast.
How come measuring something changes it? How does an inanimate object know it’s being observed, to change spin or direction?
Isn’t that like saying a ruler has no length until I look at it, then it suddenly has length, or a rock has no weight until one looks at it...I don’t understand that principle.
Ed
The first one I understand. If you measure something, then you’ve got to touch it to do so, if only with a light beam. When you touch it, it moves (changes). But the idea that when you touch it, it sends an instantaneous message to another “entangled” object on the other side of the universe, and that object also changes, is difficult to accept. Yet, that is the theory. And the theory is generally accepted by most physicists. The “proof” is statistical.
Part of my skepticism is due to the fact that I don’t put much stock in statistics. The conclusions of statistical studies generally assume that you understand the mathematical structure of the phenomena you are studying. You’re just trying to measure the parameters. But in this case, you are actually trying to identify the mathematical structure of the phenomena you are studying.
Thanks, Brilliant.
I see what you mean. I wonder if the quantumness of “measuring things changes those things” would continue if there were a way to measure without ANY effect on the object being measured?
Entanglement seems so weird, two particles millions of parsecs away will each simultaneously move in like fashion when one moves??? Weird!
I wish I could understand how Einstein and others can figure out things from math...like, how did Einstein figure out the speed limit of light from math alone? It seems like me saying “2+2=4, therefore the speed of that pickup truck driving by is 70 mph.”
How can math alone figure out the precise speed of light? Wouldn’t they need some sort of measuring tool or something?
These are prolly the most basic, junior-high school physics facts, but...oh well!
See ya’,
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.