IBM quantum experience

Robert Wagner wrote:

keepit wrote:
RW,
What is the definition of "quant" in the usage here?

(physics) the smallest discrete quantity of some physical property that a system can possess (according to quantum theory)

Robert Wagner wrote:
Lots of photons have more energy than the least energetic photon.

keepit wrote:
RW,
So, taking energy of a photon as a quantum number of a photon, the taking a quant would mean taking part of a photons energy (not the photon itself) and sending it in a different direction would be, in effect, transmitting information?

keepit wrote:
Thanks for your reply.

On the other hand, if you take the photon's energy and send it to two places or more, is there anything left of the photon?

keepit wrote:
ibd-these questions are for RW, Robert Wagner, not you.

Swan wrote:
Why are you... talking to yourself again

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

keepit wrote:
RW,
What is the definition of "quant" in the usage here?

(physics) the smallest discrete quantity of some physical property that a system can possess (according to quantum theory)

Quantum mechanics does not discuss the smallest discrete quantity.

Robert Wagner wrote:
Lots of photons have more energy than the least energetic photon.

Define 'least energetic photon'.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

keepit wrote:
RW,
What is the definition of "quant" in the usage here?

(physics) the smallest discrete quantity of some physical property that a system can possess (according to quantum theory)

Quantum mechanics does not discuss the smallest discrete quantity.

Robert Wagner wrote:
Lots of photons have more energy than the least energetic photon.

Define 'least energetic photon'.

Figure it out yourself, I don't argue with idiots.

keepit wrote:
Still don't understand quantum computing and don't understand quantum entanglement very well. I'm pretty good at detecting baloney though.

keepit wrote:
No, i don't, and i don't even know what the church of global warming is. What does the word "church" mean to you?

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
Still don't understand quantum computing and don't understand quantum entanglement very well. I'm pretty good at detecting baloney though.

Nah. You suck at it.

You still believe in the Church of Global Warming.

Swan wrote: and FBI security rating of super bimbo.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: and FBI security rating of super bimbo.

Why do you believe the FBI assigns "security ratings"?

IBdaMann wrote:
I guess you'd know better if only they would interview you.

keepit wrote:
No, i don't, and i don't even know what the church of global warming is. What does the word "church" mean to you?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
Still don't understand quantum computing and don't understand quantum entanglement very well. I'm pretty good at detecting baloney though.

Nah. You suck at it.

You still believe in the Church of Global Warming.

Let ...

GasGuzzler wrote: For you, IBdaMann, I'll put it in layman's terms.

GasGuzzler wrote: The algorithm calculates a proxy score based on your tomato/moraine ratio, divided by the trellis height in your backyard.

GasGuzzler wrote: Top level clearance is only given to those who can prove their eggplant was a result of the last ice age. (A Google search is acceptable proof)

GasGuzzler wrote: Now go clean up behind the dumpster.

GasGuzzler wrote: Now go clean up behind the dumpster.

IBdaMann wrote:
I can't. I sublet the area behind the dumpster to an illegal gambling racket. Don't tell Sven or he'll demand his cut.

keepit wrote:
The way quantum entanglement of photons was explained to me was that it would involve TWO photons which when entangled would become part of the one quantum wave. Then when something happened to one photon (not a 1/2 photon or a split photon), the other photon would be affected because each had become part of the new entangled wave.
The way i understand it is that there is only a certain amount of any quantity, be it mass ,spin, charge, etc), and if you add some amount (quant) of that characteristic, then the universe can only supply less of that quantity to the other entangled particle. The universe's engine is limited.

keepit wrote: The way quantum entanglement of photons was explained to me was that it would involve TWO photons which when entangled would become part of the one quantum wave.

keepit wrote: The universe's engine is limited.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
You were the one that was promoting the "splitting the photon" explanation, not me.
What i like is the "many worlds hypothesis" explanation. In that scenario there is a world where the spin is up and the far away electron (or photon) has spin down.
Then we go off on one of the worlds believing that there was instant communication between the 2 electrons but there was really not. There was simply a world where the local electron was "spin up" and another world where there was just the opposite. No instantaneous communication, just different worlds with different spins.

By the way, the word "engine" in my previous post was just a figure of speech. I'm not sure why that always eludes you. Where were you educated?

keepit wrote: ibd, You were the one that was promoting the "splitting the photon" explanation, not me.

keepit wrote: What i like is the "many worlds hypothesis" explanation. In that scenario there is a world where the spin is up and the far away electron (or photon) has spin down.

keepit wrote: By the way, the word "engine" in my previous post was just a figure of speech.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: ibd, You were the one that was promoting the "splitting the photon" explanation, not me.

keepit, have I mentioned lately that you are a moron? There is nothing about quantum computing that I am promoting. I have been debunking everything. Your dual photon model of entanglement is also impossible because there is no such thing as entanglement.

keepit wrote: What i like is the "many worlds hypothesis" explanation. In that scenario there is a world where the spin is up and the far away electron (or photon) has spin down.

In that scenario, there is one world for every possibility. What does it get you beyond an incomprehensible possibility tree for all of time and space that you will never get to see? What is there to like about that? What about the theory of "The Neatest Thing"? It's absolutely the neatest thing and you will equally never see it. Surely you prefer that theory, yes?

keepit wrote: By the way, the word "engine" in my previous post was just a figure of speech.

You don't say. Do you think, perhaps, that it was a poor figure of speech to use? I'm not sure why that always eludes you. Where were you deprived of an education?

You're full of baloney, keepit. You're just playing semantics.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: The way quantum entanglement of photons was explained to me was that it would involve TWO photons which when entangled would become part of the one quantum wave.

That's the thing about sci-fi technology that doesn't really exist. Everybody gets to invent his own creative explanation for "how it works."

You're correct that entanglement does not involve splitting a photon because it is not possible to split a photon. If you will recall, I have written much explaining many things about quantum computing that are not possible. The inevitable result is that people such as yourself concoct new and wackier explanations for how the impossible is somehow accomplished.

keepit wrote: The universe's engine is limited.

What kind of torque are we talking about here? What kind of mileage (rough estimate only)?

keepit wrote:
ibd,
Nice try.

keepit wrote:
itn,
That's the thing about quantum mechanics - lots of questions but not very many new answers!

keepit wrote:
itn,
What fallacies?

keepit wrote:
itn,
Could you specify? I don't have any idea what you're talking about, as usual.

keepit wrote:itn, Could you specify? I don't have any idea what you're talking about, as usual.