From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 14:45:19 EDT
Glenn gives some very big numbers to support the idea that the Quantum
computer factorizing a 250 digit number in some way "proves" that multiple
universes exist.
Maybe this is just my ignorance, having not studied QM seriously for over 20
years, but according to my understanding, the Quantum computer is just a
quantum interference device, in principle no different than the Young's
slits apparatus.
It is well known that if you do a Young's slits experiment with single
particles (e.g. electrons, though I've seen a website where it has been
done with "Bucky balls"), then if you slow down the rate of firing so that
the next particle is not fired till the previous one has hit the detection
device at the other end, that the characteristic fringe pattern still
emerges after a very long time. The fringe pattern is a measure of the
probability distribution of the final state of the particle when it hits the
detector. Its form indicates that it is the interference of two wavefronts,
one originating at each slit. But in "our universe", there is only one
particle at a time and it must therefore (as a particle) go through one slit
only. So how come the interference pattern? They _must_ (according to the
MWH) come from an immense number of parallel universes where the particle
goes in a distribution of different positions, because there is only _one_
at a time in our unverse. So does not this simple experiment, which has
been known about for donkey's years, "prove" the existence of parallel
universes, just as much as the Shor algorithm will if it's practically
possible? It's not a question that a successful outcome of this experiment
will give us Christians something to think about. I think we already have
something to think about with the Young's slits experiment, which is far
simpler and more elegant.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that maybe I've missed something, but I
really don't see what there is about the Quantum computer that is radically
different from this. But think on this. How come that plenty of physicists
don't accept the MWH view of QM despite the knowledge of the Young's slits
experiment? Do either of them actually "prove" the existence of the
parallel universes? I don't think you could prove their existence any more
than you could prove the existence of God. The Quantum Computer & the
Young's slits experiment only observe the parallel universes indirectly.
It's not like it was a Star Trek plot where the characters cross over and
meet their "other selves".
------------------------------------------------------------------
Iain .G.D. Strachan
There are 10 types of people in the world ...
those who understand binary and those who don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: Predeterminism and parallel universes
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Jim
> >Armstrong
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:03 PM
> >
> >Glenn,
> >
> >I am a bit puzzled.
> >Is MWH really the simplest explanation?
> >Does not "many-worlds" correspond to "plurality"?
> >JimA
>
>
> That wasn't the point of the post. As Don Weinstein pointed out, theoriest
> are good at coming up with alternatives, however so far I have heard no
> rational alternative explanation for the large number calculation. It
might
> be that epistemologically, Deutsches QC program is more firm a test, but
the
> one I understand is good enough for me. because if you have to manipulate
> 10^500 particles in a calculation, say electrons, here is the energy
needed
> to make small moves (very rough and conservative estimate). The mass to be
> manipulated would be
>
> 10^500 * 10^-30 kg = 10^469 kg. That is a huge mass. Today each register
> requires 500 electrons or so.
>
> Assume that it takes 10^-100 joules per particle, then total energy is
> 10^400 joules. The sun only outputs 10-34 joules per year, if I did the
> calculation correctly this early in the morning.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 14:45:28 EDT