Thread 16773934

We dont have quantum computers yet because quantum mechanics is wrong.
The Schrodinger/Dirac equation is only an approximation just like newtonian gravity is an approximation.
Quantum electrodynamics is garbage
Quantum chromodynamics is garbage of the garbage

>>16773934 (OP)
Isn't quantum computing just calculation a massive amount of premises at the same time instead of hard trying one after another

>>16773941
Well, sort of. Except it requires "bits" for computation that are able to exist at any intermediary state between 0 and 1. I guess you could technically achieve this with really large transistors with a non-trivial linear band, but then you're super heat and clock-speed limited.

>>16773934 (OP)
QFT is the most accurate scientific theory in existence

>>16773934 (OP)
Lemme know when we have interest in analog computers. Dumbass larpers and their pie in the sky 3 state.

>>16773934 (OP)
>i got nothing but reeeeeeee in my bones

>>16774019
>QFT is the most accurate scientific theory in existence
Explain how to measure the electron magnetic moment. Like, experimentally in an actual laboratory.

>>16773934 (OP)
Shut up nigga

>>16774174
Ok nigga, bitch ass neega it’s a q bit scaling issue. It’ll take 200 years at the current rate the world will end before that so ergo no qm

>>16774175
Jesus will make time infinite before that so we’re safe

>>16774019
it cant explain magnetic moment of the electron and even less so of proton and neutron which was the whole point of the theory in the first place

>>16774019
You mean incorporate fudge factors into your theory so that it can never be wrong?

>>16774678
QFT is an unbelievable grift, I don't understand how it is allowed to be taught, who pours more money into research and why

>>16773934 (OP)
we already do have them thoughbeitever

>>16774621
>it cant explain magnetic moment of the electron
Its famous for being able to calculate this very well. The other particles not so much, and to be fair things like neutrons or muons have other interactions that may have dominant effects so a pure QED calculation wont give good results.
>>16774678
I saw the calculations for the magnetic moment of the electron, i did not see any fudge factor involved

quantum computers are just bruteforce

>>16775370
this. idk what OP is yapping about. maybe the idea that we'd have consumer quantum computers that are a trillion times faster in every single task. right now they're just useful at reducing the time complexity on specific algorithms.

>>16775647
>Its famous for being able to calculate this very well
the math that predicts the magnetic moment is famous for giving a different answer every time
>>16775650
there is not one quantum computer that uses quantum bits. All the quantum computers that currently exist use a combination of qbits and classical bits and when they compute they do not use any qbit so they are practically just regular computers

>>16775667
>the math that predicts the magnetic moment is famous for giving a different answer every time
Lmao, what's this nigga yapin about. Nigga you high lmao.

>>16775674
>what is anomalous magnetic moment of the electron

>>16775714
It was the divergence between measurement and Dirac's theory. QFT explains it completely.

>>16775716
>QFT explains it completely.

>>16775667
>the math that predicts the magnetic moment is famous for giving a different answer every time
That makes no sense. Its a classical calculation from the 1940s

>>16775716
How do you measure it anyway?
The magnetic moment is in essence the strength of the magnetic field of an electron, if you imagine it as a little sphere of charge spinning. I have no idea how this gets measured.

>>16776409
except that every paper published calculated a different g factor

>>16773934 (OP)
The correct term is "Cult of Einstein"

>>16774019
>Accurately does nothing
wow, color me impressed.

Tell me about your big G measurements because I need a chuckle.

>>16774019
it's not, its probabilistic

>>16773934 (OP)
so which field of physics is actually worth studying? chaos? stat mech? electromagnetism? tell me already what’s worth it

>>16777233
Organic chemistry.

>>16776616
...it's almost like g isn't a constant and neither is G

>>16777265
they probably arent but i am still correct

>>16775353
can someone explain to me what domains of physics are actually legit

>>16777265
>almost like
No. That's not how an equation being wrong works.

>>16777406
>a non constant number being treated as a constant has slightly different values depending on who is writing the equation
>The equations have slightly different results between the people using different values for it
>That isn't how equations work though

>>16777416
ah you mean fudge numbers because if you are talking about "constants" like G then in a few years the change in the value of G is non measurable

>>16777360
if it has a practical application it is most likely legit

>>16777431
doesn’t this invalidate OP? entire field of solid state physics relies on understanding QM

>>16777624
you dont use relativity to calculate the weight of a bridge you use newtonian mechanics. Like wise Dirac's equation is good enough approximation for most applications as i stated. My point stands

>>16777430
>The change in the value of G isn't measurable
>Except it's been repeatedly measured and those measurements vary.
>Fuck it we'll take the average--t. CODATA

>>16777830
Just out of curiosity, what IS relativity used for?

Satellite timing and orbit adjustments use Lorentz's work, which predate Einsteins "relativity." and the "relativistic" effects are so minor they're ignored.

All the science used to make computers and the internet work don't use relativity--they don't even use standard model.

>>16777881
No one on this board has ever answered this question any time it's ever been asked.

>>16777233
condensed matter so you actually fucking discover something useful to humans

>>16777881
classical orbits dont intersect each other where relativistic orbits can. Maybe nasa uses a simpler model for easier computation but general relativity predicted these orbits were possible
>>16778088
there i am the first person to answer it i guess

>>16778137
i meant intersect themselves like in pic rel