Quantum Entanglement Has Now Been Directly Observed at The Macroscopic Scale

Is it possible that inertial motion under zero external forcing can change the rate of a mechanical or atomic clock? No! Because with zero external forcing there is nothing which can affect the inner working of a clock and thus the clock rate must be independent of inertial motion. It is inconceivable that clock rate can be affected by inertial motion.

What to make out of this? Is the clock rate really affected by motion, or is it only an illusion? Lorentz gave the answer by pointing out that the transformed time t′ is not physical time, but only illusionary time. It was Einstein who against the judgement of Lorentz claimed that the transformed time t′ is physical time, and out came the special theory of relativity, which is no theory according e.g. Louis Essen as shown in the preceding post. An mere illusion is not a physical theory.

Xadoman wrote: [error -filled quotes from Xadoman's thought controllers deleted]

Xadoman wrote: As for moon, it does not rotate. It has zero rotational energy.

But the question remains: Is it true that moving clocks really slow down, or is it just an illusion? Is it like two people viewing each other at distance, both having the impression that the other is smaller, while they are equally tall in reality?

They answer can only be: Yes, it is an illusion. A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion in the words of Einstein.

Why? Because the rate of time is measured by clocks and clocks are mechanical devices, classical or quantum mechanical, and it is unthinkable that the rate of a clock can be affected by motion with constant velocity because mechanics is invariant under translation with constant velocity.

According to Leibniz Principle of Sufficient Reason, no physical event can happen without a sufficient reason. But there is no reason whatsoever for the mechanics of a clock to be affected by translation with constant velocity. And so, without reason there can be no physical time dilation, only apparent fictitious illusion.

Einsteins two postulates for special relativity are (i) physical laws are required to take the same form in all inertial systems, (i) the speed of light is required to be constant to all observers. Both (i) and (ii) are empty of physical content since they are just requirements imposed on physics, which cannot be false.

To require reality to behave in a certain way is not physics. Physics is to observe what actually happens as a passive observer, not to impose predetermined outcomes as an active participant.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

You are clearly owned. You are clearly grabbing your ankles.

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

EVERYTHING you describe is an egregious violation of physics. If your belief brings you comfort in a chaotic world of vegetable gardening, please avail yourself to the maximum extent possible.

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

They absolutely work together. Quantum mechanics is really just statistical mathematics, i.e. mostly probability math, and doesn't impinge on physics.

Mathematics works with physics.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Actually Heisenberg figured this out in 1927

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

No one objects except for you because as said you need the attention that your mother deprived you of for all those years

So now you choose to misquote Heisenberg.

Nope I actually quoted Caltech

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/uncertainty-principle#:~:text=Formulated%20by%20the%20German%20physicist,about%20its%20speed%20and%20vice

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

To understand the general idea behind the uncertainty principle, think of a ripple in a pond. To measure its speed, we would monitor the passage of multiple peaks and troughs. The more peaks and troughs that pass by, the more accurately we would know the speed of a wave—but the less we would be able to say about its position. The location is spread out among the peaks and troughs. Conversely, if we wanted to know the exact position of one peak of a wave, we would have to monitor just one small section of the wave and would lose information about its speed. In short: the uncertainty principle describes a trade-off between two complementary properties, such as speed and position.

Side by side illustration of a roller coaster. On the left a coaster sits at the top about to go down a drop. On the right, the coaster speeds down a drop.
The rollercoaster above serves as an analogy for how the uncertainty principle works at scales much smaller than this. Left: When the rollercoaster car reaches the peak of the hill, we could take a snapshot and know its location. But the snapshot alone would not give us enough information about its speed. Right: As the rollercoaster car descends the hill, we can measure its speed over time but would be less certain about its position. The uncertainty principle is a trade-off between two complementary variables, such as position and speed.
Credit: Lance Hayashida/Caltech

The fundamental law comes into play in the quantum world because subatomic particles can behave like waves. A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior.

Silly girl, so argue with them

Okay. So you deny differential calculus as well and feel like misquoting Caltech.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

You are clearly owned. You are clearly grabbing your ankles.

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

EVERYTHING you describe is an egregious violation of physics. If your belief brings you comfort in a chaotic world of vegetable gardening, please avail yourself to the maximum extent possible.

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

They absolutely work together. Quantum mechanics is really just statistical mathematics, i.e. mostly probability math, and doesn't impinge on physics.

Mathematics works with physics.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Actually Heisenberg figured this out in 1927

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

No one objects except for you because as said you need the attention that your mother deprived you of for all those years

So now you choose to misquote Heisenberg.

Nope I actually quoted Caltech

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/uncertainty-principle#:~:text=Formulated%20by%20the%20German%20physicist,about%20its%20speed%20and%20vice

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

To understand the general idea behind the uncertainty principle, think of a ripple in a pond. To measure its speed, we would monitor the passage of multiple peaks and troughs. The more peaks and troughs that pass by, the more accurately we would know the speed of a wave—but the less we would be able to say about its position. The location is spread out among the peaks and troughs. Conversely, if we wanted to know the exact position of one peak of a wave, we would have to monitor just one small section of the wave and would lose information about its speed. In short: the uncertainty principle describes a trade-off between two complementary properties, such as speed and position.

Side by side illustration of a roller coaster. On the left a coaster sits at the top about to go down a drop. On the right, the coaster speeds down a drop.
The rollercoaster above serves as an analogy for how the uncertainty principle works at scales much smaller than this. Left: When the rollercoaster car reaches the peak of the hill, we could take a snapshot and know its location. But the snapshot alone would not give us enough information about its speed. Right: As the rollercoaster car descends the hill, we can measure its speed over time but would be less certain about its position. The uncertainty principle is a trade-off between two complementary variables, such as position and speed.
Credit: Lance Hayashida/Caltech

The fundamental law comes into play in the quantum world because subatomic particles can behave like waves. A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior.

Silly girl, so argue with them

Okay. So you deny differential calculus as well and feel like misquoting Caltech.

Do they still pay you when you get totally humiliated like I just humiliated you?

The really sad thing about you is that you actually believe that there is something to achieve here. LOL a pile of cow manure has more worth than anything at this site, including your pathetic trolls

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clearly owned,

You are clearly owned. You are clearly grabbing your ankles.

Swan wrote: ... and yes quantum entanglement is far faster than light and still does not violate the flawed theory of relativity which does not work with quantum mechanics?

EVERYTHING you describe is an egregious violation of physics. If your belief brings you comfort in a chaotic world of vegetable gardening, please avail yourself to the maximum extent possible.

Swan wrote:Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don't seem to work together.

They absolutely work together. Quantum mechanics is really just statistical mathematics, i.e. mostly probability math, and doesn't impinge on physics.

Mathematics works with physics.

Swan wrote: Physical phenomena rely on the relationship of motion between the observed and the observer.

No physical phenomena rely on any such relationship. Physical phenomena will exist just fine without either motion or observers.

Actually Heisenberg figured this out in 1927

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

No one objects except for you because as said you need the attention that your mother deprived you of for all those years

So now you choose to misquote Heisenberg.

Nope I actually quoted Caltech

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/uncertainty-principle#:~:text=Formulated%20by%20the%20German%20physicist,about%20its%20speed%20and%20vice

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time.

Though the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is famously known in quantum physics, a similar uncertainty principle also applies to problems in pure math and classical physics—basically, any object with wave-like properties will be affected by this principle. Quantum objects are special because they all exhibit wave-like properties by the very nature of quantum theory.

To understand the general idea behind the uncertainty principle, think of a ripple in a pond. To measure its speed, we would monitor the passage of multiple peaks and troughs. The more peaks and troughs that pass by, the more accurately we would know the speed of a wave—but the less we would be able to say about its position. The location is spread out among the peaks and troughs. Conversely, if we wanted to know the exact position of one peak of a wave, we would have to monitor just one small section of the wave and would lose information about its speed. In short: the uncertainty principle describes a trade-off between two complementary properties, such as speed and position.

Side by side illustration of a roller coaster. On the left a coaster sits at the top about to go down a drop. On the right, the coaster speeds down a drop.
The rollercoaster above serves as an analogy for how the uncertainty principle works at scales much smaller than this. Left: When the rollercoaster car reaches the peak of the hill, we could take a snapshot and know its location. But the snapshot alone would not give us enough information about its speed. Right: As the rollercoaster car descends the hill, we can measure its speed over time but would be less certain about its position. The uncertainty principle is a trade-off between two complementary variables, such as position and speed.
Credit: Lance Hayashida/Caltech

The fundamental law comes into play in the quantum world because subatomic particles can behave like waves. A common misconception about the uncertainty principle in quantum physics is that it implies our measurements are uncertain or inaccurate. In fact, uncertainty is an inherent aspect of anything with wave-like behavior.

Silly girl, so argue with them

Okay. So you deny differential calculus as well and feel like misquoting Caltech.

Do they still pay you when you get totally humiliated like I just humiliated you?

The really sad thing about you is that you actually believe that there is something to achieve here. LOL a pile of cow manure has more worth than anything at this site, including your pathetic trolls

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You think you actually humiliated me???????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Swan wrote:Actually you humiliate yourself rather well with no need of assistance from me.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually you humiliate yourself rather well with no need of assistance from me.

... but this time, you are going to totally call his bluff by posting those quantum computing architectures that were released, and humiliate him beyond humiliation. It will be on a totally different level, well beyond any humiliation he could generate himself ... and you are going to HAMMER IT HOME!

Just post those architectures and send him packing!

Swan wrote:LOL is it your belief that credit card companies always post their newest security codes to the internet?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually you humiliate yourself rather well with no need of assistance from me.

... but this time, you are going to totally call his bluff by posting those quantum computing architectures that were released, and humiliate him beyond humiliation. It will be on a totally different level, well beyond any humiliation he could generate himself ... and you are going to HAMMER IT HOME!

Just post those architectures and send him packing!

LOL is it your belief that credit card companies always post their newest security codes to the internet?

Calling all men in white coats, please get to IBdaMann's West Virginia trailer ASAP, with Thorazine darts

What law school did you go to?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL is it your belief that credit card companies always post their newest security codes to the internet?

You get a pass because we know that you cannot read English beyond the third-grade level.

I wrote "architectures" not "security codes", and you posted that the architectures had been released.

Of course any builder of quantum computing will release the architectures so that developers can develop applications ... silly girl. And now the moment has arrived for you to absolutely BURY Into the Night with those architectures that were released that he has been denying left and right. I have my popcorn, my soda and my front row seat. I wouldn't miss this for the world. You have him dead to rights and now you are going to pull the trigger and blast those architectures (that have been released) right in his face!

Fire when ready, Gridley! (and don't screw the pooch).

.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually you humiliate yourself rather well with no need of assistance from me.

... but this time, you are going to totally call his bluff by posting those quantum computing architectures that were released, and humiliate him beyond humiliation. It will be on a totally different level, well beyond any humiliation he could generate himself ... and you are going to HAMMER IT HOME!

Just post those architectures and send him packing!

LOL is it your belief that credit card companies always post their newest security codes to the internet?

Calling all men in white coats, please get to IBdaMann's West Virginia trailer ASAP, with Thorazine darts

What law school did you go to?

There are no 'security codes' for credit card companies.

Swan wrote:LOL every credit card is in essence a group of multiple security codes.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Architecture is key, you can't use a microprocessor, if you don't know how it communicates, or what needs, so it can do it's job. Where do you hook up the memory? How do you address it? Read/write data? Your program needs to tell the processor what you want done, where the data is, and where you want to store the results. Just not seeing this done with a few dozen qubits. Still looking for a compete hardware layout.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL every credit card is in essence a group of multiple security codes.

Nope. Every credit card is an account on a particular network. That network has an architecture that is released so that vendors can develop applications. You were gracious enough to set the record straight, i.e. that quantum computing is not mere science fiction, but is a working reality. Thank you, Swan. You also delivered the good news that the architectures for quantum computers have been released! Yesssss! Now developers can develop quantum computing applications. Yesssss!

... you just need to confirm all this by producing the architectures that you assure us have been released. Now's the time to dispel all rumor that you are gullibly regurgitating what you have been ordered to believe by your thought controllers. Now is the time to triumphantly throw those architectures in Into the Night's face and give everyone a hearty laugh at his expense!

Post those architectures (that have been released) and let's close out this chapter on Swan's big win!

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL is it your belief that credit card companies always post their newest security codes to the internet?

You get a pass because we know that you cannot read English beyond the third-grade level.

I wrote "architectures" not "security codes", and you posted that the architectures had been released.

Of course any builder of quantum computing will release the architectures so that developers can develop applications ... silly girl. And now the moment has arrived for you to absolutely BURY Into the Night with those architectures that were released that he has been denying left and right. I have my popcorn, my soda and my front row seat. I wouldn't miss this for the world. You have him dead to rights and now you are going to pull the trigger and blast those architectures (that have been released) right in his face!

Fire when ready, Gridley! (and don't screw the pooch).

.

LOL actually the first babble of architectures was yours, which you are now trying to imply was mine. So what law school did you drop out of, so as to end up here babbling your life away?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually you humiliate yourself rather well with no need of assistance from me.

... but this time, you are going to totally call his bluff by posting those quantum computing architectures that were released, and humiliate him beyond humiliation. It will be on a totally different level, well beyond any humiliation he could generate himself ... and you are going to HAMMER IT HOME!

Just post those architectures and send him packing!

LOL is it your belief that credit card companies always post their newest security codes to the internet?

Calling all men in white coats, please get to IBdaMann's West Virginia trailer ASAP, with Thorazine darts

What law school did you go to?

There are no 'security codes' for credit card companies.

LOL every credit card is in essence a group of multiple security codes. So did you drop out of the same law school as your schizzo friend?

or

Okeedokee ifm u um seu um so, um so

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL every credit card is in essence a group of multiple security codes.

Nope. Every credit card is an account on a particular network. That network has an architecture that is released so that vendors can develop applications. You were gracious enough to set the record straight, i.e. that quantum computing is not mere science fiction, but is a working reality. Thank you, Swan. You also delivered the good news that the architectures for quantum computers have been released! Yesssss! Now developers can develop quantum computing applications. Yesssss!

... you just need to confirm all this by producing the architectures that you assure us have been released. Now's the time to dispel all rumor that you are gullibly regurgitating what you have been ordered to believe by your thought controllers. Now is the time to triumphantly throw those architectures in Into the Night's face and give everyone a hearty laugh at his expense!

Post those architectures (that have been released) and let's close out this chapter on Swan's big win!

HarveyH55 wrote:
Architecture is key, you can't use a microprocessor, if you don't know how it communicates, or what needs, so it can do it's job. Where do you hook up the memory? How do you address it? Read/write data? Your program needs to tell the processor what you want done, where the data is, and where you want to store the results. Just not seeing this done with a few dozen qubits. Still looking for a compete hardware layout.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Architecture is key, you can't use a microprocessor, if you don't know how it communicates, or what needs, so it can do it's job. Where do you hook up the memory? How do you address it? Read/write data? Your program needs to tell the processor what you want done, where the data is, and where you want to store the results. Just not seeing this done with a few dozen qubits. Still looking for a compete hardware layout.

Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

Really

Next

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL every credit card is in essence a group of multiple security codes.

Nope. Every credit card is an account on a particular network. That network has an architecture that is released so that vendors can develop applications. You were gracious enough to set the record straight, i.e. that quantum computing is not mere science fiction, but is a working reality. Thank you, Swan. You also delivered the good news that the architectures for quantum computers have been released! Yesssss! Now developers can develop quantum computing applications. Yesssss!

... you just need to confirm all this by producing the architectures that you assure us have been released. Now's the time to dispel all rumor that you are gullibly regurgitating what you have been ordered to believe by your thought controllers. Now is the time to triumphantly throw those architectures in Into the Night's face and give everyone a hearty laugh at his expense!

Post those architectures (that have been released) and let's close out this chapter on Swan's big win!

Actually a credit card will operate on millions of networks, so try again moron

Swan wrote:Actually a credit card will operate on millions of networks, so try again moron

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Architecture is key, you can't use a microprocessor, if you don't know how it communicates, or what needs, so it can do it's job. Where do you hook up the memory? How do you address it? Read/write data? Your program needs to tell the processor what you want done, where the data is, and where you want to store the results. Just not seeing this done with a few dozen qubits. Still looking for a compete hardware layout.

Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

Really

Next

No microprocessor is used to connect a contact closure with a simple solenoid and mechanics that deliver a banana.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Architecture is key, you can't use a microprocessor, if you don't know how it communicates, or what needs, so it can do it's job. Where do you hook up the memory? How do you address it? Read/write data? Your program needs to tell the processor what you want done, where the data is, and where you want to store the results. Just not seeing this done with a few dozen qubits. Still looking for a compete hardware layout.

Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

Really

Next

No microprocessor is used to connect a contact closure with a simple solenoid and mechanics that deliver a banana.

Wrong because the chimp (your mother) chooses the banana from a computer touch screen which is operated by a microprocessor.

LOL

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Architecture is key, you can't use a microprocessor, if you don't know how it communicates, or what needs, so it can do it's job. Where do you hook up the memory? How do you address it? Read/write data? Your program needs to tell the processor what you want done, where the data is, and where you want to store the results. Just not seeing this done with a few dozen qubits. Still looking for a compete hardware layout.

Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

Really

Next

No microprocessor is used to connect a contact closure with a simple solenoid and mechanics that deliver a banana.

Wrong because the chimp (your mother) chooses the banana from a computer touch screen which is operated by a microprocessor.

LOL

The chimp doesn't care whether a microprocessor was installed to operate the machine. Your level of computer expertise is not even as good as the chimp. At least the chimp doesn't imagine a 'quantum computer' or anything else that doesn't exist. He only wants the banana.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Architecture is key, you can't use a microprocessor, if you don't know how it communicates, or what needs, so it can do it's job. Where do you hook up the memory? How do you address it? Read/write data? Your program needs to tell the processor what you want done, where the data is, and where you want to store the results. Just not seeing this done with a few dozen qubits. Still looking for a compete hardware layout.

Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

Really

Next

Swan wrote:Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

The chimp might very well get a banana but won't develop any apps.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Not true because chimps have been taught to use microprocessors to get a banana and chimps certainly do not know how microprocessors operate.

The chimp might very well get a banana but won't develop any apps.

Actually the chimp was being used as a research tool, to develop the simpleton apps that you use to whack off