You can create superpositions of larger systems, but they’re much more fragile. Even if by some supernatural means you get all the particles in some large macroscopic system like say a cat to be in all of their possible superposed states, that would be instantly destroyed as soon as the particles interact - which they will simply by virtue of their kinetic energy not to mention the electromagnetic forces which bind the atoms together in the form of a cat.
Plus, as I mentioned earlier, you can have spontaneous decoherence caused by vacuum fluctuations. There IS some sematic gymnastics at times though. Sometimes it’s said that there is no actual decoherence just that the other superposed states have become unmeasurable. Eh. IDK. I tend to skip over the stuff that doesn’t seem to have any practical implications.
So, like… You maybe could do the double-slit experiment with salt crystals, but they’d have to be of the exact same number of atoms? And you couldn’t do it with water molecules, because the angle between the O and the two Hs can vary a little, so they’re too “wiggly” to do the job?
I seriously doubt it. Let put it this way. Creating stable superpositions is critical to being able to do quantum computing. So people all over the world are furiously working on this. Some have tried to isolate individual nitrogen atoms in a diamond matrix. Some have tried using quantum dots. Others have tried emulating the phenomenon of superposition and entanglement via other means - see the link. Bottom line, no one has succeeded as far as we know.
There’s one company that claims to have built something quantum-like, but it appears to be a special purpose machine, assuming it actually works at all - can’t remember the name of the company.
In every case the issue is decoherence caused by interactions with other particles or environmental factors. So the focus has mostly been on isolating individual qubits in every way imaginable and they still haven’t been able to do it. So, good luck with your superposed quantum cat.
If that’s what you got out of QM 101, then I suggest you retake that course, because it’s simply wrong. Again, if it were right, we’d have no measurement problem (but of course, we’d have the problem that we wouldn’t have an explanation for many observed features, such as e.g. entanglement). The collapse of the superposition only happens if you trace out or forget about some of the interaction partners; otherwise, we simply only have an evolution from pure states to pure states. I mean, even the wiki article is careful to point out:
[
](Quantum decoherence - Wikipedia)
And if the system is perfectly isolated, or you take into account whatever parts of the environment it interacts with, then that is just the ‘global level’.
As for the vacuum fluctuations, it’s not a semantic issue. From Klaus Hornberger’s Introduction to Decoherence Theory, under the heading ‘Decoherence by “Vacuum Fluctuations”?’:
So even in the case of quantum fields, many body systems, continuous variables etc., one can take account of that and then finds that the superposed states do not decohere, as one of course must.
This isn’t about you, or us. As long as you’re claiming things that are patently wrong, I’ll correct you if I know how—it’s kinda the spirit of the site we’re on. If you feel threatened by that, I’m sorry, but you need to accept that, on a difficult subject in which you apparently have had little to no formal training, you’re simply likely to be wrong, Mensa membership notwithstanding. You could accept that graciously and try to learn something new, or try to impress people with your posturing and kindergarten rhetoric—it’s your call. But in all honesty, the latter really isn’t working in your favour.
(And…I hope they succeed! I wanna see quantum computing come in to its own. I hope it lives up to its hype, the way neural net programming never quite did.)
Just bear in mind that it’s not going to be a general purpose type of computer like we have now. I’m a little fuzzy on exactly the type of problems it would be optimized for but I think it tends to be of the np type. So things like the traveling salesman shortest route problem for example.
The one you hear most frequently is prime factoring, but it would also be hugely valuable for simulating quantum level interactions.
And can you substantiate this accusation in any way? I mean, you’re the one saying things like ‘interactions collapse superpositions’, when the exact opposite is true—interactions generate entanglement, and any entangled state is a superposed state.
No. You’ve demonstrated that the truth is irrelevant to you. So in spite of the fact that I have no life, even I have better things to do than engage in more semantic sophistry.
No doubt you will see this as some sort of rationalization on my part. I don’t really care as long as you manage to take the win gracefully this time. Of course if you want to come back and to try to pretend that you’ve put me in my place or some other such nonsense, well, I’m sure that work out just as well as last time.
I’m not trying to put you in you place or ‘win’ an argument—it’s solely you who chooses to contextualize our discussion in this way. All I’ve done is point out flaws in your understanding, at each point backed up with citations and trying to be as clear as possible. The amount of abuse coming from you as a thanks should dissuade me from such endeavors, perhaps, but I’m hoping that at least other people reading this might gain something from it.
I mean, if it were just me towards whom you had this attitude, I would perhaps reevaluate my stance and look for something I may have missed in my own posts, something maybe formulated ambiguously or in a way conducive to misunderstanding, but this has been your MO in almost every discussion with somebody more knowledgeable than you on a topic: present your views, and, if they are contested, react with a barrage of google results and half-sentences, afterwards professing incredulity (‘What, you don’t even understand my simple argument?’) when the other party asks for clarification, and if even that should fail, attacking the other’s intellectual honesty without so much as backing up a single claim you make. I mean, this isn’t even a pattern anymore—it’s the shtick the one-trick pony keeps beating the dead horse with.
I’m sure that’s what you believe. Please continue in that belief.
There have been a handful of disagreements I’ve had with people here relating to their areas of expertise - actually only 2 that can recall off hand. One was when I first joined the board and that related to the person’s attitude rather than their knowledge. The other ended up being a miscommunication as I recall. So it appears that you can’t even get that much right.
But hey, as soon as someone credible raises these criticisms with me, I will certainly take them to heart, as long as it’s clear to me that they’re legitimate and factual and made in the spirit of community this forum stands for.
Just from a quick search, here’s an example of you dancing your little dance with Pasta, who tries to very graciously educate you on the subject of collider based high energy physics, here you’re doing the same thing with ZenBeam as a target (starting roughly post 57) (earlier on in the thread, we’d already had a small kerfluffle), and here you’re taking on Pasta again (from about post 30). These were the ones I remembered off hand that didn’t involve me; I’d be surprised if it’s an exhaustive list.
This just to make good on my earlier assertion that I back up the points I make; you’ll find a way to dismiss it I’m sure, but then that’s just how it is.
The first was the miscommunication I spoke of. Try to pay attention. You seem to have a problem viewing things except through the filter of your emotions and expectations.
Oh I do so hope people will read that one. Your utter intransigence and inflexibility is on full display there.
I was probably a little out of line here, but I tend to get that way when it seems that what I’m being told isn’t consistent with other sources. There was also a good bit of fuzziness here between the color force per se and as a residue of baryogensis. However I expressed my satisfaction with the resolution in post 36.
Got any more there buddy? I’m not worried. Dig as much as you want.
I could point out some of the pseudo-intellectual tripe you’ve posted, but I think you’ve been here long enough and do it with such monotonous regularity, it wouldn’t even be fair to call it overkill.
