Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?

Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."

Matter can never be destroyed; it can only fluctuate into energy and vice versa.

Too funny. Matter can certainly be destroyed by converting it to thermal energy.

How do you imagine energy can somehow "fluctuate" into becoming matter?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?



Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."

HarveyH55 wrote:Doubt that much matter was burned up.

HarveyH55 wrote: Believe even the under ground tests also created dust clouds.

HarveyH55 wrote:Matter doesn't get destroyed, only changed.

HarveyH55 wrote: The gas you put in your car, has mass. Eventually, you have to put more gas in the tank, unless you enjoy getting stranded some place. The gas wasn't destroy, only changed into planet-killing CO2, and fresh water, which California desperately needs.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Doubt that much matter was burned up.

Look at the crater. Roughly that much matter was destroyed (converted to thermal energy).

HarveyH55 wrote: Believe even the under ground tests also created dust clouds.

This is what it looked like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORxWy5MXnOk&t=10s

HarveyH55 wrote:Matter doesn't get destroyed, only changed.

Incorrect. Matter can be destroyed. You are thinking of energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) says that energy can neither be created from nothing nor destroyed into nothing. Matter, however, can be converted to energy (which destroys the matter) which can then change form but will not be returning into matter.

HarveyH55 wrote: The gas you put in your car, has mass. Eventually, you have to put more gas in the tank, unless you enjoy getting stranded some place. The gas wasn't destroy, only changed into planet-killing CO2, and fresh water, which California desperately needs.

Harvey, everything you are saying is correct. Your error in this case is that you are discussing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and explaining the increase in entropy ... while believing that you are discussing the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If you do a little more research on fusion, you'll find that the energy harnessed from fusion comes from matter being destroyed as the fusion occurs (releasing a large amount of energy that was formerly matter).

.

Swan wrote:Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed

The sun is constantly fusing hydrogen into helium, and is constantly losing mass in the process as matter is destroyed.

All that heat that the sun produces is matter being destroyed.

Enjoy. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Xadoman wrote:

1st, the reactor vessel itself. Fusion of hydrogen into helium occurs at only very high temperatures...enough to melt any material. So no material can touch the area where fusion is taking place.

I am going to quote a phrase from fusor.net:

In solids, quintillions of particles all colliding with each other, make a "feelable" temperature to our skin. In a vacuum, (low pressure), level gas of deuterium in a fusor, all of the gas particles moving about at a relative temperature of 100 million kelvin degrees would feel incredibly cold.

Fusion temperatures are conversions of the energy of the deuterons, neutrons, electrons, and neutral molecules in motion, (kinetic energy), to an equivalent temperature of a particle in motion in a sea of molecules in a solid substance at that temperature. In the fusors or any fusion device, you are in a "near space" vacuum of flying deuterons, electrons, fusion debris - (neutrons Tritons, 3He, protons) and neutrals and not in a solid, so, you can't relate this to a "feelable", "touchable", temperature that our senses are commonly linked to. The normal method of talking among fellow physicists would be to discuss the energies as "electron volts" (ev). The relation of electron volts to kelvins is to multiply the (ev) kinetic energy of the particle by about 11,000. A 1kev particle is said to represent an 11 million kelvins particle. (11 million kelvin degree particle)

The general public would have issues understanding this concept. The fusion physicist absolutely relies on this to befuddle and confound, the public, yet impress enough to obtain continued funding. Don't be a "general public" type! If you are still confused, read up on the physics and Boltzmann's work on thermodynamics.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.

Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.

That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.

Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you

Nope. It's not fission. It is fusion. Fusion bombs only use a fission bomb as the detonator. All H bombs are fusion bombs.

Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost.

LOL

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?

Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."

Matter can never be destroyed; it can only fluctuate into energy and vice versa. LOL you said so yourself but are too dumb to understand

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?

Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."

Matter can never be destroyed; it can only fluctuate into energy and vice versa.

Too funny. Matter can certainly be destroyed by converting it to thermal energy.

How do you imagine energy can somehow "fluctuate" into becoming matter?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?

Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."

Matter can never be destroyed; it can only fluctuate into energy and vice versa.

Too funny. Matter can certainly be destroyed by converting it to thermal energy.

How do you imagine energy can somehow "fluctuate" into becoming matter?

Guess you skipped third grade physics

Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost. LOL

Matter can be destroyed. Were you not aware?



Each one of these craters is the site of a previous underground nuclear test. The crater represents the amount of underground earth that was converted into thermal energy from the blast, leaving the earth above it to "cave in."

How did they get the bombs underground...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Doubt that much matter was burned up.

HarveyH55 wrote:
More likely to have been moved, compressed, or converted to desert glass.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Believe even the under ground tests also created dust clouds.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Matter doesn't get destroyed, only changed.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The gas you put in your car, has mass. Eventually, you have to put more gas in the tank, unless you enjoy getting stranded some place. The gas wasn't destroy, only changed into planet-killing CO2, and fresh water, which California desperately needs.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Another good point though. Nothing is perfectly stable, and unchanging.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Quantum computing is sub-atomic,

HarveyH55 wrote:
but most everything sheds particles, semi-regularly.

HarveyH55 wrote:
How do they plan on keeping everything from getting influence by these random particles.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Super-cold, can slow, maybe stop some of it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
But, wouldn't it also have the same slowing effect on computer processes?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Doubt that much matter was burned up.

Look at the crater. Roughly that much matter was destroyed (converted to thermal energy).

HarveyH55 wrote: Believe even the under ground tests also created dust clouds.

This is what it looked like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORxWy5MXnOk&t=10s

HarveyH55 wrote:Matter doesn't get destroyed, only changed.

Incorrect. Matter can be destroyed. You are thinking of energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) says that energy can neither be created from nothing nor destroyed into nothing. Matter, however, can be converted to energy (which destroys the matter) which can then change form but will not be returning into matter.

HarveyH55 wrote: The gas you put in your car, has mass. Eventually, you have to put more gas in the tank, unless you enjoy getting stranded some place. The gas wasn't destroy, only changed into planet-killing CO2, and fresh water, which California desperately needs.

Harvey, everything you are saying is correct. Your error in this case is that you are discussing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and explaining the increase in entropy ... while believing that you are discussing the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If you do a little more research on fusion, you'll find that the energy harnessed from fusion comes from matter being destroyed as the fusion occurs (releasing a large amount of energy that was formerly matter).

.

Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed, they both merely oscillate back and forth. You really need to get out of the shed more often

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed

The sun is constantly fusing hydrogen into helium, and is constantly losing mass in the process as matter is destroyed.

All that heat that the sun produces is matter being destroyed.

Enjoy. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

The sun may be losing mass, but that mass is merely distributed, it is not lost, mass is never lost

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.

Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.

That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.

Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you

Nope. It's not fission. It is fusion. Fusion bombs only use a fission bomb as the detonator. All H bombs are fusion bombs.

Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost.

LOL

It can.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.

Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.

That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.

Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you

Nope. It's not fission. It is fusion. Fusion bombs only use a fission bomb as the detonator. All H bombs are fusion bombs.

Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost.

LOL

It can.

Where does the lost mass go to then fool?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:I think quantum computing will be mainstream, about the same time fusion reactors go online...

I see it a little differently.

With fusion, you can see the valid science theory (chemistry: nuclear fusion); it's just a matter of whether you believe it can be feasilbly implemented, or whether funding can be established, or whether partner nations can agree, etc...

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: General Relativity) that says quantum entanglement is not possible.

With quantum computing, you can see the valid science theory (physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) that precludes the use of an elementary particle as a bit. If you can finally establish its position, you won't know its state.

HarveyH55 wrote:Best I've seen from my reading (other than here), is that quantum computers are barely proof-of-concept. There are online quantum computer simulators.

You should watch the video Swan posted. It's a layman's explanation of quantum computing and it's hardly coherent. The entire objective is to hype the viewer into accepting crap and to not ask any questions out of sheer excitement. Please watch the video.

.

Nuclear fusion has already been achieved in the lab, but naturally you know this.

It's been achieved in the field too.

That is not fusion kid, but on the flip side your stupididity is perfect

It is fusion.

Actually nukes employ fission reactions kiddy, but you know this and are just trolling because you need the attention that your mother never gave you

Nope. It's not fission. It is fusion. Fusion bombs only use a fission bomb as the detonator. All H bombs are fusion bombs.

Says the idiot that believes that mass can be lost.

LOL

It can.

Where does the lost mass go to then fool?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

RQAA

Swan wrote:Where does the lost mass go to then fool?

HarveyH55 wrote:Still not getting how entangled qubits perform computations.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still not getting how entangled qubits perform computations.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still not getting how entangled qubits perform computations.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still not getting how entangled qubits perform computations.

The microwave that flips a qubit is changed as a result. This is what determines what the binary code allows for. It is the change in the signal.
This suggests that each change results in another minor change. If you consider
that what you see on your computer screen might be 1 billion bits of information, how do you express that as a function of 1 wave of energy?
Kind of why with computer's functions per second matter.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still not getting how entangled qubits perform computations.

The microwave that flips a qubit is changed as a result. This is what determines what the binary code allows for. It is the change in the signal.
This suggests that each change results in another minor change. If you consider
that what you see on your computer screen might be 1 billion bits of information, how do you express that as a function of 1 wave of energy?
Kind of why with computer's functions per second matter.

Doesn't really matter how fast the processor, it always comes back to how quickly you can feed it instructions and data to process, and how quickly you can read the results. The processor goes into a 'wait' state, until buffers are filled sufficiently to processor, or empty, so it can send more results. Have seen any mention of quantum storage (memory), which may be in the works, but of little concern, considering how few qubits are being used in the processors. I'm fairly certain it's just a simulation of how a quantum computer is expected to function. It's still silicon based hardware, just a different architecture. Doubt there is anything 'quantum' involved. other than the name, and the scheme. It's a simulation, so they can play with a concept. Maybe the scheme might be faster than how we've been computing, in some ways, but not a huge improvement. Obviously, you can't be a member of the 'geek' club, if you don't learn and regurgitate the marketing hype. It'll never go mainstream, since there is a limited field of applications. No Quantum Xbox, or iPhone...

HarveyH55 wrote: The processor goes into a 'wait' state, until buffers are filled sufficiently to processor

HarveyH55 wrote: Have seen any mention of quantum storage (memory), which may be in the works, but of little concern, considering how few qubits are being used in the processors.

HarveyH55 wrote: I'm fairly certain it's just a simulation of how a quantum computer is expected to function.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: The processor goes into a 'wait' state, until buffers are filled sufficiently to processor

Technical Quibble: There is no "sufficiently filled" buffer state for which processors wait. The moment that first instruction enters the buffer, the processor gets working on it.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
Still not getting how entangled qubits perform computations.

The microwave that flips a qubit is changed as a result. This is what determines what the binary code allows for. It is the change in the signal.
This suggests that each change results in another minor change. If you consider
that what you see on your computer screen might be 1 billion bits of information, how do you express that as a function of 1 wave of energy?
Kind of why with computer's functions per second matter.

The processor goes into a 'wait' state, until buffers are filled sufficiently to processor, or empty, so it can send more results.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: The processor goes into a 'wait' state, until buffers are filled sufficiently to processor

Technical Quibble: There is no "sufficiently filled" buffer state for which processors wait. The moment that first instruction enters the buffer, the processor gets working on it.

This is something not usually discussed. ROM helps to interpret RAM.

James_ wrote:
Until a viable file is stored in RAM

James_ wrote:
that can be read by the ROM then it cannot be processed.

James_ wrote:
The buffer would be in the RAM because the processor can only compute complete files.

James_ wrote:
With your TV set, it translates an incoming signal and does not store any data.

James_ wrote:
That is why it is not a computer.

James_ wrote:
It cannot store data which can be retrieved.

James_ wrote:
I think this is something that any 2nd grader today would know.

James_ wrote:
Should I send a note home with you to your parents? You do seem to be falling behind in your lessons.