/sci/ - Science & Math

1s, 0s and superpositions of 1s and 0s

Quantum computation is a method of computation, not data storage.

I wouldn't ask that question, Dave.

"0", "1", and "0&1 dual quantum state thing I can't remember the name of".

>>3271487
Superposition.

>>3271484
you have to store the data to work with it, usually in the nucleus of carbon in diamonds. (no matter how many times I hear/say that, it sounds made up)

>>3271484
can you go further in explaing difference?

>>3271484
>Krakengineer
should have known, someone who doesn't understand QM doesn't have the right to comment on how quantum computers work.

"maybe" and "prehaps"

A qubit is still only 1 or 0. A quantum mechanical process computes on superpositions* of the possible states.

*A superposition is a (complex number) linear combination of possible states.

>>3271483
>mfw i'm the one who started the whole replying-to-thread-with-Hal thing
>fuckyeah.jpg
>why am i proud about this

>>3271678
prove it

>>3271669
>(complex number) linear combination of possible states.

The computer doesn't calculate the qbits superpositioned states, it uses them.

Probably ones and zeros too at the moment. However, instead of doing one operation at a time each quibit can do several.

>>3271692
I think you're mixind up the model with the physical implementation.

As said a qubit is either 1 or 0.

The abstract quantum logic gates are hermitian transforms no the complex space.

The physical implementations of these gates could be any sort of half silvered mirror or laser setup: that's engineering.

>>3271702
utterly wrong

>>3271716
Please explain.

>>3271718
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

>>3271707
A bit is the basic unit of computer information. Regardless of its physical realization, a bit is always understood to be either a 0 or a 1. An analogy to this is a light switch— with the off position representing 0 and the on position representing 1.

A qubit has some similarities to a classical bit, but is overall very different. Like a bit, a qubit can have two possible values—normally a 0 or a 1. The difference is that whereas a bit must be either 0 or 1, a qubit can be 0, 1, or a superposition of both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit#Bit_versus_qubit

>>3271720
ಥ_ಥ

>>3271725
> yeah he just parroted some crap from wikipedia without even understanding it

>>3271732
Please explain how the article is not correct given a quibit works by being a bit in superposition.

>>3271732
And your jealous because he at least rewords it first. You were busted before for reciting it word for word, weren't you?

No wonder nobody understands quantum mechanics with you uninformed fucks trying to mislead everyone.

> 2011
> he still believes in quantum bullshit

>>3271742
Set us straight, messiah.

>>3271742
What the fuck is quantum in the first place?

I am the quantum jesus

>>3271749
> he posts using a computer that couldn't have been designed without knowledge of quantum mechanics

>>3271749
>>3271749
QUANTUM MECH IS A PROVEN SCIENCE DIPSHIT. IT HAS GREAT PREDICTIVE AND EXPLANITORY POWER!

IT FUCKING WORKS BETTER THEN ALL OTHER SCIENCE TO DATE!

FUCK OFF!

>>3271811
> he thinks QM has explanatory power

Anyone who claims to understand how quantum mechanics works doesn't understand how quantum mechanics works.

>>3271821
It does

Troll harder nigger

>>3271821
>implying asian chicks don't love quantum mechanics

>>3271825
anyone who endlessly recites trite quotes like that doesn't understand quantum mechanics

>>3271821

>>3271828
>acknowledges troll
>replies anyway
>mfw

>>3271821
>uses a modern computer
>doesn't believe in QM

I feel like a lone quantum warrior.

>>3271845
> sage in every field
> calling other people retarded

>>3271843
>posts bullshit
>people tell him that he posts bullshit
>he calls it "trolling"
>he is trying to feel important
>he needs others attention
>he has serious self esteem issues

It's ok kid. Hang in there, your life will better one day.

Proof that quantum mechanics is real: Some "scientists" say so.
Proof God is real: The Holy Bible says so.

I know which one I'm gonna believe. You guys keep playing with your funny words.

>>3271839
I guess that makes three and/or none of us.

>>3271868

>>3271868
> It's 2011 and he's not done the double slit experiment for himself

>>3271851
>doesn't post sage in every field

>>3271868
Every belief is always the words of someone else.

Everyone is wrong simultaneously.

>>3271868
>Implying QM isn't used in the construction of modern computers

>>3271868
>only believes in quantum mechanics because some scientists said so
>laughingsluts.jpg

>>3271881
>Everyone is wrong simultaneously.
Quantum mechanics in action.

trollface.jpg

>doesn't figure out shit for himself

QM is still a theory, not a law. It's well understood, but incomplete. I believe there are at least 2-20 force/particles it still needs to identify.

>>3271910
>everyone is wrong and right simultaneously
quantum superposition in action

trollface.jpg

>>3271918
> doesn't know what a theory is!

>>3271926
Ugh, you are so pathetically disappointing. I thought you were trying to discuss an actual view. Instead you laugh at me from behind your beliefs.

>>3271941
Try saying things that aren't hilariously stupid (like "QM is still a theory") if you don't want people to laugh at you

Hey quantumfags

I bet you believe in dark matter too
amirite

>>3271875
>>3271878
>>3271881
>>3271899
>>3271905
Oh no, QM DF is here. Quick, throw logic at them! It's not very effective...

>>3271945
>Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum THEORY!!!(BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LAW, BUT IT HAS MORE SUPPORTING OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE THAN A HYPOTHESIS...)

>>3271926
>>3271905
>>3271910
>>3271918
>>3271919
>>3271926

Sametroll.
Doubts QM, yet continues to benifit from its application in technology.

You doubt all you fucking want, the people who make all your tech don't give a shit what you think, they are just glad to take your money. Keep using QM faggot, and make them even richer!

>>3271918
>QM incomplete

NO. Look up the work of Bell.

>>3271960
>Doubts QM

No, YOU abused the scientific method. There is no doubt that there are sub-atomic particles, but QM can't be called a complete law until we OBSERVE them all.

IDIOTIC, INBRED HICKS.

>>3271968

>>3271964
Yes. Look up the higgs boson, and it's -lack- of observational evidence, you complete redneck.

>>3271974
It's the personal shame. As bad as I understood /sci/ to be, I didn't think, I never IMAGINED(I kept my expectations so low they could crush steel) they could disappoint me more than /b/.

"We're discussing quantum mechanics, would you like to join us?"

>>3271988
>>3271988
haha