According to Scott Aaronson Joy Christian claims, presumably due to his arguments around quantum correlation, Bell's Inequality violations and so on, that a scalable quantum computer is impossible.
That same post by Scott makes reference to Joy's proposed "toy exploding balls experiment", which a browse of what Joy has written in the years that have passed since last I went looking for criticisms that make sense to me about his ideas shows he has proposed again since last I had looked.
The thing is, his exploding balls experiment is supposed to be a macroscopic classical experiment in which toy balls designed to explode into two symmetric halves will, if Joy is correct, result in the same inequalities or violations of inequalities as the quantum behaviors that, apparently, Joy also seems to think account for "quantum entanglement".
In a nutshell-as-I-understand-it, Joy thinks the topology of space, or at least of both the quantum correlating things and his macroscopic "toy balls", accounts for the "mysterious" correlation-measurement results that others conjure things like "entanglement" and such to attempt to explain, so that, according to Joy, so-called "entanglement" is more along the lines of an illusion conjured by the correlations / inequalities that are actually "merely" an artifact of topology.
The topology involved is that of a 7-sphere, involving octonians, and I have yet to grasp that part of it. But this thing about all of that somehow meaning that quantum computers cannot be scalable seems to me to totally clash with the idea that a bunch of macroscopic "exploding balls" could produce the same results, since to my mind a bunch of macroscopic toy balls that provide the same mathematical results as a bunch of sub-microscopic quantum particles sounds a heck of a lot like a "scaling up", what do you think?
In other words, I get the impression or idea that if he is right about what his exploding balls experiment will show then aren't the exploding balls basically functioning as giant-sized classical "quantum particles" and thus eligible for use as components in a giant sized classical "quantum computer"?
Ahh but is a "quantum computer" built out of macroscopic exploding toy balls "truly" a "quantum computer" at all? Maybe Joy would claim it is in fact a classical computer using topology and thus, to follow through, that so called quantum computers are themselves merely sub-microscopic classical topology-based computers not actually "quantum computers" at all. Wordgames. That doesn't alter the idea that whatever we call them Joy's ideas ought, it seems, to permit of scaling them up?
Congratulations @markmetson! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 1000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out our last posts: