h a l f b a k e r yWhy on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Quantum superobserver improves computer chips
People observe a double slit experiment. A new kind of computer can do it millions or billions of times faster and more thoroughly. The superobserver computer then views the surface of a CPU computer ship, emphasizing particleness of the electrons, reducing quantum noise thus permitting tinier features | |
One computer chip watches another into higher resolution.
When humans do a double slit experiment they can observe it into wave identity or particle identity. I think it is possible to create a computer that observes a double slit experiment to resolve it.
Noting GHz chips, and raster scanning
or massive parallelism, a few billion things can be observed a few billion times a second. Observing a microprocessor from above could reduce the amount of EM radio emissions as waveform electrons.
The all particle view could increase predictability permitting smaller feature size and reducing quantum noise
[link]
|
| |
Is this phenom proveable? |
|
| |
This idea is based on the kind of deep misunderstanding that can only come from failing to grasp the most essential aspects of quantum mechanics. |
|
| |
[mb] I have concerns about that as well. There is this thing called the delayed choice w\quantum eraser, where human scientists doing an observation change the distribution of the result either precausally (!) and another person thinks it is an MWI thing. |
|
| |
Creating a quantum superobserver would give the ability to mass produce precausal events or possibly measurable amounts of MWI effects (or not) |
|
| |
Also, although I do not know much, the Delayed quantum choice eraser appears to support the importance of observation. I do not really know what the copenhagen interpretation (which I think i reject, although ignorant) is, but kind of think it tries to require a human observer, I think it can be accomplished with computers though. That said, why not use computers to observe systems, where they improve with observation. if they can do it with computer chips then there will be a mass produced quantum observation technology |
|
| |
The first problem is that you're starting with the fallacy that quantum collapse is a thing. It isn't - it's a relative phenomenon like all others. |
|
| |
But is there actually anything to observe?
Observation requires information to come from the thing so observed, to the observer. I would expect a computer processor to be far too efficient to be losing information "out" of the chip, to be observed.
As per Schrödinger, you need to OPEN the box to see the cat (alive or dead); information comes out. Looking at the closed box achieves nothing. |
|
| |
I think (though it's hard to tell for sure) that [beany] wants to put the observer on the chip. But, as noted by [MaxwellBuchanan], the whole idea is based on a fallacy. |
|
| |
I once read an interpretation of relativity at Gamow's 123... infinity.
At that version there were three observers to an occurence. The original had equations i do not remember. Gamow used frames of reference to show how although for two of the observer the event had occured, for the third the event had not happened yet. |
|
| |
So even though there is relativity, it seems possible for two out of three observers to see an observed double slit outcome [|||||] or [ .] while to the third the system is unresolved, or has not happened yet. |
|
| |
I do not know what the MWI people think of an MWI that is there for two, yet not three observers. Although it should be said that the third observer does see the event. |
|
| |
[beany], that's just basic relativity, and applies to any system. The reason why your system will fail is that quantum collapse is itself a relativistic phenomenon in a non-spacetime dimension. |
|
| |
This idea is absolutely unworkable . I just wish I was smart enough to be able to do the math to describe, let alone disprove it. |
|
| |
// do not know what the MWI people think// Depends which group you ask. |
|
| |