Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
blog.c0nrad.io | ||
| | | | |
ncatlab.org
|
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
bach.ai
|
|
| | | | | I have a nagging suspicion that we misinterpret quantum mechanics. I am probably wrong, but I believe that quantum computers may always be outperformed by classical algorithms. | |
| | | | |
ayvlasov.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | Recent debates on possibility of quantum computer provoked a specific prize. Between all, Scott Aaronson wrote: [...] whether scalable quantum computing is possible is a question about the laws of physics. It's perfectly conceivable that future developments in physics would conflict with scalable quantum computing, in the same way that relativity conflicts with faster-than-light communication,... | |
| | | | |
mateusaraujo.info
|
|
| | | [AI summary] The discussion revolves around the interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment and the transactional interpretation (TI) as a viable physical explanation. Key points include the critique of instrumentalism, the role of decoherence in classical emergence, and the distinction between self-reference and self-measurement in quantum systems. The conversation highlights the importance of physical interpretations of quantum mechanics that address the nature of reality and measurement, while also addressing common misconceptions and errors in quantum thought experiments. | ||
