Re: Parallel universes proven by Quantum Computers

Lusion <sendspamto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<IHKfc.10527$zj3.1240@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> marsrules wrote:
> 
> > It does appear that for a quantum computer to work then the
> > computations take place within counterparts in parallel universes. The
> > computations do not happen in this universe which has been
> > successfully proven. For these computations to occur within a similar
> > quantum computer in a very similar but different universe.
> 
> DISCLAIMER:  I'm nowhere near a physicist.  Since I'm not a physicist
(and
> have NEVER taken a course in QM--all of my QM knowledge, if you can call
it
> that, comes from pop sci), keep in mind that everything I say could be
> wrong.
> 
> According to Feynman, all of these complicated things about QM can
basically
> be understood in terms of the simple two-slit experiment.  If you
recall,
> it goes something like this (using a light source and photons):
> 
>   TEST A: Light source behind barrier with two slits.
>   RESULT A: Interference pattern observed.
> 
>   TEST B: Light source behind barrier with two slits; photomultiplier
>   carefully positioned on an apparent trough.
>   RESULT B: Photomultiplier detects no photons.
> 
>   TEST C: Same as B, but cover up slit.
>   RESULT C: Photomultiplier suddenly detects photons.
> 
>   TEST D: Same as C, but covering up the other slit.
>   RESULT D: Photomultiplier still detects photons.
> 
>   TEST E: Same as C, but light source is dimmed a lot.
>   RESULT E: Individual packets of light can be observed to hit the
>   photomultiplier, strongly suggesting particle nature of light.
> 
>   PROBLEM: Test E suggests that light travels in particles, but then if
that
>   is the case, and we assume locality, then light travelling through one
>   slit should not know about whether the other slit is open or not,
meaning
>   it would be impossible for the probability of hitting the
photomultiplier
>   in test A not to simply be the sum of the probability in test B and
test
>   C.  But since the probability is fairly large in test B and C, and
near
>   zero in test A, this doesn't compute.  A possible explanation for this
is
>   interference caused by photons bumping into each other, leading to:
> 
>   TEST F: Same as B, but with light dimmed as with test E.
>   RESULT F: Photomultiplier still detects no photons.
> 
>   PROBLEM: That rules out our conclusion, and means something really
strange
>   is afoot.  But perhaps we could get some insight into our problem if
we
>   knew exactly where all of these photons are in test E (which, keep in
>   mind, are going through ONE AT A TIME).
> 
>   TEST G: Same as F, but detector mechanism is set up on one of the
slots
>   (say, the left slot).
>   RESULT G: Suddenly, photomultiplier detects photons.  Equally strange,
>   it detects photons for both cases where our detector mechanism
discovered
>   it passed through the left slot, and where it discovered that it
didn't.
> 
> (end of experiments--the principles should all be there, but "position"
in
> these tests can be substituted with any of a number of properties, and
> "photons/photomultipliers" can be substituted with any type of particle)
> 
> In QM, this is resolved by treating unobserved particles differently
than
> observed ones.  Unobserved particles get to be in multiple states at
once,
> in a _fundamental_ sense.  It must be a fundamental sense, as opposed to
> just unknown. If God knew where the particle was, then the particle has
to
> be somewhere, meaning it must be going through EITHER the slot on the
left,
> the slot on the right, or neither slot.  This along with test C and D,
> implies that particles should be detected in test B, which they just
> aren't.
> 

THe slit experiment is a hard thing to grasp but you do a good job of
explaining it.  I have tried to explain the slit experiment to Nasa
engineers and they just can't get it. Some people's minds are so hard
wired that things outside of normal everyday macro reactions is beyond
their grasp.



> In QM, particles are given things called "amplitudes", which are complex
> numbers that correspond somewhat to probability (a probability can be
> derived from an amplitude).  There is a rule for particles that are
> observed, and there are rules for particles that are not observed.
> 
> You might imagine that the particles wander off into another universe
for a
> while.  That's fine to imagine, but it's not necessary--i.e., it doesn't
> describe in itself the particular thing that has to happen.  What has to
> happen is that in OUR universe, they must actually NOT have a particular
> state or the other, but instead their states are superpositioned.

The only way to observe other universes and do quantum calculations is
by entanglement. In our universe we see one particle become two
distinct particles, this is classically impossible but you tend to
want to make this sound like normal everyday reality which it is not.


> 
> Suppose that for test F, in Universe X, the particle travels through the
> slit on the left, and in Universe Y it travels through the slit on the
> right.  We are in our own universe, which we'll call Universe Z, with
the
> photomultiplier.  Is Universe Z the same as Universe X, or Universe Y? 
It
> can't be entirely Universe X or Universe Y (same reasoning as above). 
> Instead, it should be some sort of superposition of Universe X and
Universe
> Y.  Furthermore, to fit QM theory, Universe Z's member****p should be
> described not just probabilistically (probabilities are _reduced_
> amplitudes), but in terms of amplitudes themselves.  Furthermore, these
> amplitudes would have to have special taylor-made properties belonging
to
> how photons happen to appear in similar situations.
> 
> So with a "parallel universe" theory, you'll have to have some really
weird
> rules for just how "parallel" versus "converging" versus "actually is
our
> universe" these universes are, and furthermore, these rules would have
to
> be tailor made to match the precise dual nature properties that are
> typically assigned to the particles themselves.  So not only does QM not
> prove parallel universes, but they actually complicate the situation. 
But
> that's not the end of it yet...
> 

We are learning how complex actual reality is. It would be nice if it
were all so simple we could easily understand it, the complexity is
boggling. OK, so you say there is only one universe. If the force of
gravity were a little greater or a little smaller then nothing would
exist. If you look at the peculiar numbers for the weak atomic force,
etc. what you notice is that our universe seems to be one of a set and
not unique.  This would be hard to explain this easily. However if
there was only one universe then the numbers of forces would be quite
specific simple and not as odd as they really are. I can't get into
trying to explain this here.  The solution to the complexity of this
universe is that there are many universes. At the big bang all
possibilities were created so in other words life could not fail
because in at least one universe the numbers come out right for life
to exist.


> It's even worse than this.  Let's move out of Universe Z and imagine
> ourselves in Universe X.  In Universe X, you have an experimenter, and a
> light source, and test F going on.  That's going to produce an
interference
> pattern.  The photomultiplier, being in a trough, isn't going to detect
the
> photon.  But if the photon was going through the slit on the left in
> universe X (recall that this is what we consired to define "universe X"
in
> the first place), then it would have a chance to occur.  This is a
> contradiction, so this can't happen.  This means you don't even get to
use
> the universes to say "the particle goes through the slit on the left in
> Universe X"!
> 
> Nevertheless, your parallel universes aren't ruled out... it could be
that
> they aren't really quite parallel (in fact, it'd have to be like this
> anyway), and that particles from Universe X collide with our Universe Z
all
> the time.  In that case, if a photon is going through the slit on the
right
> in our universe Z, there must necessarily be a universe that has one not
> only going through the slit on the left, but interacting with our
universe
> to exactly cancel out our photon (or at least change its momentum so it
> doesn't hit our photomultiplier).  Furthermore, that universe's photon
must
> necessarily be affected somehow so as to not hit its photomultiplier
(this
> affect could possibly be the same interaction with our universe... it's
> just something else to note).
> 
> So, there are a lot of very special conditions that the universes have
to
> hold to, to conform to experimentation and QM.  These conditions most
> certainly aren't proven by QM--QM is happy ignoring it and just living
with
> particles that actually have all of the states in a superposition in our
> own universe.  Far from QM proving or even implying parallel
universes...
> in order for there to be a connection, it seems that these other
universes
> need to be contrived to fit QM.
> 
> Finally, onto quantum computing.  Quantum computers work based on
> amplitudes.  The superpositioned states, which are fundamental (and as
> such, are really the particle's states), are simply contrived to
represent
> all of the states in our problem.  Then, the entire problem space (being
a
> superposiiton of these states) is sent through a mechanism designed to
> fetch the result that we want, selecting it through a method mimicing
our
> problem specification.

Quantum computing can also be done with enzymes in a testtube. On the
paranormal side it is possible that the mind has aspects of a quantum
computer which could explain some paranormal activity.


> 
> It's probably best to ignore the multiple universes where each one
contains
> a particular problem space element, since such universes can't exist
anyway
> even if multiple universes do somehow implement QM (see above paragraph
> "It's worse than this...").  Instead, just think of quantum computers as
> super-massively parallel computers, exploiting a fundamental property of
> the universe for its parallelism.




Parallel with what!!!!!!!!   The only thing it could be parallel with
is a similar universe!!