Reply to post: Quantum has a simple flaw

Quantum has a simple flaw

Is Schroedinger correct?

Does the atom exist in all states until it is measured, at which point it is in *one* known/measured state?

Does the act of measuring it, set its state? And all the states of everything that it interacted with (and thus must have a known component... when you measure atom1 the whole universe changed to fix up the result due to atoms1 infinite previous interactions), even propagating those changes faster than the speed of light and backwards in time? (i.e. entanglement)

Does this magic happen?

Because Public/Private key encryption requires that Schroedinger be correct. That the magical entanglement thing happens.

Solvers don't work for these problems, you cannot run a solver to decrypt a message, something like this:

DecryptedDelta = Delta(Decrypt(Msg, EncryptionFunction(PrivateKey(A,B,C,D,E,E,F,G,....))). realMsg)

Solve DecryptedDelta=0 by changing A,B,C,D.... to find the private key.

Being NEAR the private key, does not result in the decrypted message being NEARER the decrypted text. The decrypted text is garbage till you have the *actual* real key. Solvers do not work and never will. Its not that you narrow the key down, and as you do that, so the decrypted text becomes more and more readable! The quantum computers of today are solvers.

When you see a Chinese researcher say "its 10000 times faster", thats garbage, because it would need to be infinity faster if it actually worked.

Literally, a Quantum Computer would really have to be in *every* state at the same time, constrained so that the only valid state is the correct result, then you measure that "correct" result. Bingo you have the private key.

What you measure is the net effect of the detector and atom. The atom's state is unknown only because you do not (yet) know the state of the net(detector, atom). It's the detector that's the unknown! Those "successful entanglement" filters you run on your experiments, they are filtering for the detectors. Effectively to ensure that net(detect1, atom) = net(detector2, atom)... then, as if by magic, you find lots of the parameters you measured with detector1(atom) are the same as detector2(atom).....

Is that magic? Are you comedians? Tell me you cannot understand what I just said there. Tell me it's not staring you in the face!?

At some point science has to clean house.

These quantum computers don't work and they never can, because Schroedinger's model was an approximation of the system, not the system itself.

He did not understand what he was looking at, so he modelled a statistical approximation to it.

As long as you throw money at Quantum Research there will be lots of companies who will be there to take that money. This thing of huge value (decoding all encryption) is apparently not worth them spending their OWN money, but gee, they'll take the billions in research you thrown at it.

Underlying that is the unpleasant truth there.... even these huge companies with lots of their own money can see the problem with the physics here.

They see you coming.