Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r

Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.

Says the idiot who denies all science,

Swan wrote:
the last ice age

Swan wrote:
and the holocaust.

Swan wrote:
Seriously you need to take your meds, on time, every time.

Swan wrote:
But no you have to argue every reality here so as to give some apparent meaning to your life.

Swan wrote:
Sorry kid, you have no meaning to the rest of the World, which is why you are here at a web page with 5 users, making meaningless arguments to justify your as said meaningless faggots existence.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.

Says the idiot who denies all science,

He has denied no theory of science. YOU on the other hand, have.

Swan wrote:
the last ice age

Not a theory of science. Not science at all. A religion.

Swan wrote:
and the holocaust.

Not a theory of science.

Swan wrote:
Seriously you need to take your meds, on time, every time.

Mantra 1d.

Swan wrote:
But no you have to argue every reality here so as to give some apparent meaning to your life.

Bulverism fallacy. Mantra 5.

Swan wrote:
Sorry kid, you have no meaning to the rest of the World, which is why you are here at a web page with 5 users, making meaningless arguments to justify your as said meaningless faggots existence.

Kettle fallacy. Insult fallacies.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.

Says the idiot who denies all science,

He has denied no theory of science. YOU on the other hand, have.

Swan wrote:
the last ice age

Not a theory of science. Not science at all. A religion.

Swan wrote:
and the holocaust.

Not a theory of science.

Swan wrote:
Seriously you need to take your meds, on time, every time.

Mantra 1d.

Swan wrote:
But no you have to argue every reality here so as to give some apparent meaning to your life.

Bulverism fallacy. Mantra 5.

Swan wrote:
Sorry kid, you have no meaning to the rest of the World, which is why you are here at a web page with 5 users, making meaningless arguments to justify your as said meaningless faggots existence.

Kettle fallacy. Insult fallacies.

In other words, you do not understand.

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

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.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...

Swan wrote:

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

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.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...

Quantum computers are at the same point now that analog computers were circa 1960-1970, however 1000 times the amount of scientist are perfecting this new area

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

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.

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

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.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...

Swan wrote:

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

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.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...

Quantum computers are at the same point now that analog computers were circa 1960-1970, however 1000 times the amount of scientist are perfecting this new area

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

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

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.

From on of the other quantum threads, I though 900 qubits on a full wafer, as a milestone, sort of telling. Specially when they had to search for them... They get hundreds of microprocessors on of those wafers...

Quantum computers are at the same point now that analog computers were circa 1960-1970, however 1000 times the amount of scientist are perfecting this new area

We were doing digital computers in the 1940s... But, technically, computers have been around much longer. Analog computers are an entirely different thing, dealing with signals, mostly for sound, video, and communication.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqpfQ8-jFI

So, in four words or fewer: You fell for it.

The CEO of a company has one job: keep the stock prices high.

You didn't recognize this "quantum computing" gibberish for the artificial stock price booster that it is.

Oh well. Enjoy. Maybe it will evolve into a moraine.

Says the idiot who denies all science,

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

HarveyH55 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.

Nuclear fusion was achieved a long time ago. The problem is controlling it, and using it to generate electricity. The longest they managed to produce fusion in a lab, was about 90 seconds. Never read about any attempts to generate electricity, and keeping the plasma under control from whats generated. Maybe a Bessler Wheel would help them achieve this... The magnetic field used to control the plasma, is a huge energy drain. Fusion is really another free-energy, perpetual motion scam.

Swan wrote:Actually the largest fusion issue is that achieving it takes far more energy put into the reaction than is created by the reaction

The increase burning of carbon is going to be a disaster in the near future and current levels are bad enough (412 ppm and climbing)

You hit the nail on the head; I like to point out that our Sun, with its staggering mass and huge core temp still only produces about 500 watts per cubic meter - and that cubic meter is many millions of degree C and about 10^28 atoms/m^3. A fusor is lucky to have 10^20 atoms and if I calculated correctly, about 10^5 C "equivalent temperature" on average; a lot less than the Sun in all respects. As for energy, well, that has been discussed endlessly here but it is many orders of magnitude under a watt. Still, that cubic meter of solar core doesn't even get to what your oven can do.

Again, thank goodness main sequence stars are so terrible at doing fusion! It allows them to burn for billions of years. It is great, and a Godsend that energy based, controlled fusion seems impossible to do on earth. If it were easy, the universe would have had a very short lifespan.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually the largest fusion issue is that achieving it takes far more energy put into the reaction than is created by the reaction

Incorrect.

There is no fuel issue with fusion. The reason fusion is so desperately sought is that fuel for fusion reactors is cheap and plentiful in the earth's crust. It would cost exceedingly little to provide abundant energy to many cities.

There are nonetheless many problems with fusion, and they come in both political and technical flavors, with the biggest problem I see being the containment of the plasma: it cannot be allowed to come in contact with anything. Also, the primary heat exchangers will need to be able to withstand the continued thermal radiation of tens of millions of degrees. Is that possible to accomlish? Will there be enough money to rebuild the reactor after the first meltdown accident? How about after the second? The plasma cannot be allowed to touch anything!

Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer.

Xadoman wrote:

Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer.

Unfortunately true.

A black pilling video about fusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder

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

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.

HarveyH55 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.

Nuclear fusion was achieved a long time ago. The problem is controlling it, and using it to generate electricity. The longest they managed to produce fusion in a lab, was about 90 seconds. Never read about any attempts to generate electricity, and keeping the plasma under control from whats generated. Maybe a Bessler Wheel would help them achieve this... The magnetic field used to control the plasma, is a huge energy drain. Fusion is really another free-energy, perpetual motion scam.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually the largest fusion issue is that achieving it takes far more energy put into the reaction than is created by the reaction

Incorrect.

There is no fuel issue with fusion. The reason fusion is so desperately sought is that fuel for fusion reactors is cheap and plentiful in the earth's crust. It would cost exceedingly little to provide abundant energy to many cities.

There are nonetheless many problems with fusion, and they come in both political and technical flavors, with the biggest problem I see being the containment of the plasma: it cannot be allowed to come in contact with anything. Also, the primary heat exchangers will need to be able to withstand the continued thermal radiation of tens of millions of degrees. Is that possible to accomlish? Will there be enough money to rebuild the reactor after the first meltdown accident? How about after the second? The plasma cannot be allowed to touch anything!

Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer. None of your babbles can change this

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again since fusion reactions consume more energy than they put out, a fusion reaction is an energy consumer, not an energy producer.

Unfortunately true.

A black pilling video about fusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder

Hossenfelder is a stuck-up kraut who personally called me stupid, yet could in no way prove her point or disprove my point about there being no way to know whether other universes would be in higher or lower dimensions since we have only one universe as a reference point. She is also about to freeze her ass off this winter because Merkel made Germany fully dependent on Russian oil and gas. So, find some blankets Sabine, you dumb asses should have listened to Trump

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

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.