His view of QM is supposing something additional to it, namely mathematical realism. Given his view of what constitutes QM, I agree but that’s not QM. QM is a minimalist theory. He might want to look up the ensemble interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation

Probability is used to quantify counterfactuals (note: many are meaningless) but probability is just an interpretation. Probabilities are not something you can empirically show to exist and it used in ways that treat quanta like they are classical. The probability of an electron’s location is assuming an electron is a particle. It isn’t! QM gives expected values of observables and we use probability for the same reason we use it in classical physics. Non-commuting observables? Big deal. The uncertainty principle is the entire basis of QM.

“Scott says the core of the quantum voodoo is amplitude interference. But all sorts of classical phenomena have interfering waves, and that is not particularly mysterious. It only becomes mysterious when you think of those amplitudes as probabilities or generalized probabilities.”

http://blog.darkbuzz.com/2016/12/comic-about-quantum-computing.html

Scott says that there are “positive and negative amplitudes” that interfere but the wave function for an electron is a complex-coefficient spinor function. It’s not so simple. Again, who ever said it was probabilities interfering?

Terry Tao: “Note carefully that sample spaces (and their attendant structures) will be used to model probabilistic concepts, rather than to actually be the concepts themselves. This distinction (a mathematical analogue of the map-territory distinction in philosophy) actually is implicit in much of modern mathematics, when we make a distinction between an abstract version of a mathematical object, and a concrete representation (or model) of that object.”

Nathaniel David Mermin writes, “In a 1931 letter from Erwin Schrödinger to Arnold Sommerfeld: ‘Quantum mechanics forbids statements about what really exists–statements about the object. It deals only with the object-subject relation. Although this holds, after all, for any description of nature, it appears to hold in a much more radical and far-reaching sense in quantum mechanics.'”

Scott is WRONG to say QCs trivially follows from QM. Not true. Fake news. As a matter of fact, the success or failure of QCs will tell us something deeper than existing QM does. He says this himself: “The one thing in foundations of QM that does matter for QC, is simply whether you believe QM is literally true or whether you think it needs to be modified. As I never tire of pointing out (because others never tire of forgetting it), if QM did need to be modified, that would be a far greater scientific breakthrough than a mere success in building scalable QCs, and we can only hope that the quest to build QCs would terminate with such an exciting outcome.”

]]>Apparently, physicists have only recently discovered graph theory. lol ]]>

believe have seen some born-rule like measurement laws/ strong analogy outside of QM in classical physics but havent been able to nail it down exactly myself (anyone else know of any refs?). it seems almost nobody is drawing the analogy. think that needs to change asap! *in particular it seems to me related to the root-mean-square measurement of intensity or avg power of a wave…*

it seems there is so much uncanny similarity of QM formalism with classical wave mechanics in so many ways but again, really struggle to find refs that draw the analogy as tightly as possible. seems its almost as if its been heaviily obscured by interpretational bias. “when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.” the hammer seems to be something like the copenhagen interpretation.

some recent musings on related ideas here

https://vzn1.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/latest-on-killing-copenhagen-interpretation-via-fluid-dynamics/

People keep ignoring the Bayesian issue here. The Born rule is just metaphysical fluff and QM simply produces expected values of observables. Probabilities are derived (psi is complex, spinor, vector, negative, etc. and is a real number) and can been seen as a lack of information about the system. In the words of Heisenberg, “One may call these uncertainties [i.e. the Born probabilities] objective, in that they are simply a consequence of the fact that we describe the experiment in terms of classical physics; they do not depend in detail on the observer. One may call them subjective, in that they reflect our incomplete knowledge of the world.” http://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/Born.pdf

Those like Lubos Motl tell me that “probabilities interfere all the time” but there is no empirical evidence of this, the same way we never observe an electron that is 1/4 in a cavity and 3/4 out. If probabilities are late in the calculation then “amplitudes” might interfere but not probabilities. The game is up before you even begin. QC people are repeating the Schroedinger’s cat fallacy. You can’t run Turing complexity arguments backwards but that’s what Feynman did. Uncertainty leads to speedups? ROFL!

Baby stuff.

]]>1) Quantum information theory is a great subject;

2) Quantum codes are very interesting mathematical objects;

3) It is true that I regard the ability to realize quantum computers and quantum codes implausible; Research in this direction is also in the realm of quantum information.

4) My (minority) view on the matter of quantum computers is irrelevant to the workshop.

5) In any case, my skeptical angle is irrelevant to my community service, e.g., I organized conferences on quantum information (that did not involve the skeptical angle), etc.

]]>KRONECKER CAPELLI THEOREM AND APPLICATIONS

Author Mircea Orasanu

ABSTRACT

In this lecture we recall the definitions of autonomous and non autonomous Dynamical Systems as well as their different concepts of attractors. After that we introduce the different notions of robustness of attractors under perturbation (Upper semicontinuity, Lower semicontinuity, Topological structural stability and Structural stability) and give conditions on the dynamical systems so that robustness is attained. We show that enforcing the appropriately defined virtual holonomic constraints for the configuration variables implies that the robot converges to and follows a desired geometric path. Numerical simulations and experimental rMethods

1 INTRODUCTION

This is definitely more of a mess that we’ve seen to this point when it comes to separating variables. In this case simply dividing by the product solution, while still necessary, will not be sufficient to separate the variables. We are also going to have to multiply by to completely separate variables. So, doing all that, moving each term to one side of the equal sign and introduction a separation constant gives,Joint angles tracking the reference joint angles in simulations in the presence of measurement noise. The joints of the robot track the sinusoidal motions in the presence of measurement noise (above). The joint tracking errors converge exponentially …Aceasta ecuatie spune un lucru foarte interesant, anume ca orbita este simetrica fata de punctele de intoarcere. Imaginati-va ca particula a trasat portiunea de orbita dintre cele doua puncte, si fixati un plan perpendiular pe planul orbitei ce contine punctele de intoarcere. Atunci, daca orbita este simetrica, pentru a obtine portiunea ce inca nu a fost parcursa ar fi suficient sa “reflectez” orbita fata de acel plan, ca intr-o oglinda. Daca alegem sistemul de coordonate in asa fel incat punctul de intoarcere sa corespunda chiar unghiului , atunci operatia de reflexie se poate efectua prin substitutia , ce ar corespunde unei rotatii in sens invers fata de acel punct, ori ecuatia pe care am gasit-o mai sus este clar invarianta la aceasta transformare, deoarece variabila apare numai in derivata de ordinul doi, si schimbarea dubla de semn nu schimba nimic. De fapt, aceasta reflexie poate fi facuta in pasi si mai marunti. Oricat de mica ar fi distanta parcursa dincolo de un punct de intoarcere, pot intotdeauna s-o reflectez in sens opus.

THESIS ]]>

https://vzn1.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/qm-computing-summer-2017-update/

]]>