warplants t1_j4ycoh2 wrote

> no one denies that entanglement can “communicate” FTL

Wrong, plenty of physicists will deny this. Only certain interpretations of quantum mechanics rely on an FTL “wave function collapse” (namely, the Copenhagen interpretation, which at best is an incomplete description of reality, but more likely is just flat wrong.)


warplants t1_ittj4fl wrote

Uh huh. So to recap, you know they’re here because a bunch of known liars said so? Except they didn’t actually say so, but that’s expected because they’re liars. Is that the argument?


warplants t1_ittdi77 wrote


warplants t1_itt931u wrote

I read your links, watched the timestamped video for a few minutes. Didn't find a single statement that even remotely approaches support for your assertion.

Maybe you could directly quote which statements you think are most relevant?


warplants t1_istgc1j wrote

Here’s the problem with quantum computing: yes you’re simultaneously evaluating countless potential “possibilities”, but at the end the QC only gives you the answer for one randomly chosen possibility. In that sense it’s far worse than just brute-forcing through every possibility with a classical computer, as at least with the classical computer you know which result corresponds with which possibility.

The sole advantage of the QC is that it can evaluate far more possibilities than can be classically brute-forced. But, again, when it spits out the answer, it erases the work done on all possibilities except the one randomly chosen by your measurement.

This means that at a minimum, you have to run the same problem many times on a QC to get a distribution of possible answers (since each individual answer is basically meaningless). Once you have a distribution, if you’re lucky you might see that certain solutions are more/less common that others, and this in itself may give you some insight to the problem you’re originally trying to solve.

TLDR computing anything with a QC is hugely inefficient compared to classical compute, the only problems you might even consider for a QC are those that simply can’t be classically computed in human timescales.


warplants t1_ist5dor wrote

> over time they'll become more useful until they can beat out supercomputers.

Completely wrong. Quantum computers can never, even in principle, be faster than conventional computers for 99.99% of computing tasks. Quantum computers only might have an advantage for a very tiny subset of computing problems.