Quantum Computing and Solving Interpretation

[idav]

I've been wondering if Quantum Computing somehow can solve the issue of quantum interpretation, particularly regarding Copenhagen vs Many World interpretations. The Copenhagen interpretation as I understand says that reality cannot exist until measure where as Many Worlds takes the quantum world as more "real" and that it exists without having to be measured.

Sorry if thats not the best explanation. Feel free to clarify, I'm sure there is more to consider.

In my trying to understand the answer I found a fascinating article which gets into both interpretations.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/...reveal-the-true-meaning-of-quantum-mechanics/
If its to long to read (I did manage to read the whole thing, quite fascinating) the gist is that Quantum Computing gives fuel to both interpretations, but, if anything, Quantum Computing technology can prove that the issues are more than real.

Perhaps even this has been debunked. Does anyone know if Quantum Computing shows that we can't actually get any real information because we just get random answers back? I don't understand this to be the case but perhaps there is more to it.

From the article, the MIT professor quoted a Mathematician saying:

Boris Tsirelson, who said: “a quantum possibility is more real than a classical possibility, but less real than a classical reality.”

Scott Aaronson ends up saying there is plenty to still debate(for those who like to debate) even with the technological advances.

One of the best reads I have found on the subject.

Thoughts, ideas or disagreements?

 

[DawudTalut]

..........Does anyone know if Quantum Computing shows that we can't actually get any real information because we just get random answers back? I don't understand this to be the case but perhaps there is more to it.

.....

Perhaps info may help:
A quantum computer operates by setting the qubits in a controlled initial state that represents the problem at hand and by manipulating those qubits with a fixed sequence of quantum logic gates. The sequence of gates to be applied is called a quantum algorithm. The calculation ends with a measurement, collapsing the system of qubits into one of the {\displaystyle 2^{n}}

pure states, where each qubit is zero or one, decomposing into a classical state. The outcome can therefore be at most {\displaystyle n}

classical bits of information. Quantum algorithms are often non-deterministic, in that they provide the correct solution only with a certain known probability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

 

[idav]

..........Does anyone know if Quantum Computing shows that we can't actually get any real information because we just get random answers back? I don't understand this to be the case but perhaps there is more to it.


Perhaps info may help:
A quantum computer operates by setting the qubits in a controlled initial state that represents the problem at hand and by manipulating those qubits with a fixed sequence of quantum logic gates. The sequence of gates to be applied is called a quantum algorithm. The calculation ends with a measurement, collapsing the system of qubits into one of the {\displaystyle 2^{n}}

pure states, where each qubit is zero or one, decomposing into a classical state. The outcome can therefore be at most {\displaystyle n}

classical bits of information. Quantum algorithms are often non-deterministic, in that they provide the correct solution only with a certain known probability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

From the wiki, Aaronson is referenced tackling the NP complete problems, there is difficulty in solving NP-Problem in a "physical reality".
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502072
The wiki puts it this way " Currently,defining computation in such theories is an open problem due to the problem of time, i.e., there currently exists no obvious way to describe what it means for an observer to submit input to a computer and later receive output.[92]"

The problem of time being that "there is no time in general relativity". That is quite the interesting issue, I never really though about that. I mean I thought of time slowing down and such but then what that means when your trying to use it to do "real-time" calculations. Ok, mind blown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

 

[Native]

The Copenhagen interpretation as I understand says that reality cannot exist until measure

This is nonsense. It´s the same to postulate that the Universe didn´t exist before the measument stick was invented.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I've been wondering if Quantum Computing somehow can solve the issue of quantum interpretation, particularly regarding Copenhagen vs Many World interpretations. The Copenhagen interpretation as I understand says that reality cannot exist until measure where as Many Worlds takes the quantum world as more "real" and that it exists without having to be measured.

Sorry if thats not the best explanation. Feel free to clarify, I'm sure there is more to consider.

In my trying to understand the answer I found a fascinating article which gets into both interpretations.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/...reveal-the-true-meaning-of-quantum-mechanics/
If its to long to read (I did manage to read the whole thing, quite fascinating) the gist is that Quantum Computing gives fuel to both interpretations, but, if anything, Quantum Computing technology can prove that the issues are more than real.

Perhaps even this has been debunked. Does anyone know if Quantum Computing shows that we can't actually get any real information because we just get random answers back? I don't understand this to be the case but perhaps there is more to it.

From the article, the MIT professor quoted a Mathematician saying:

Scott Aaronson ends up saying there is plenty to still debate(for those who like to debate) even with the technological advances.

One of the best reads I have found on the subject.

Thoughts, ideas or disagreements?

I think the Copenhagen ("do you really think the Moon is only there when we look at it"--Einstein) and Many Worlds (

) interpretations along with most of the rest, are essentially and slowly being discarded. The only interpretation that addresses ALL quantum weirdness, is the Transactional Interpretation. Codified by UofW professor, John Cramer, based on the inspiration of Richard Feynman, and made more intuitively understandable by Ruth Kastner in Understanding Our Unseen Reality (2015), TIQM is finally taking hold. If you don't have a copy of Kastner's book handy, this might tide you over:
http://www.thefunisreal.com/2013/09/transactional-interpretation-quantum-mechanics/

 

[idav]

I think the Copenhagen ("do you really think the Moon is only there when we look at it"--Einstein) and Many Worlds (

) interpretations along with most of the rest, are essentially and slowly being discarded. The only interpretation that addresses ALL quantum weirdness, is the Transactional Interpretation. Codified by UofW professor, John Cramer, based on the inspiration of Richard Feynman, and made more intuitively understandable by Ruth Kastner in Understanding Our Unseen Reality (2015), TIQM is finally taking hold. If you don't have a copy of Kastner's book handy, this might tide you over:
http://www.thefunisreal.com/2013/09/transactional-interpretation-quantum-mechanics/

Thanks for the reference. I had seen you talk about this interpretation but can't say I know what the differences are. When I looked it up before I read that the transactional interpretation was waning, but I did go over some of the details of your reference.

The interpretations discussed are still standing, because as you know, they are interpretations of facts. The professor I referenced didn't mention the transactional interpretation, seems he should know about it if it were really the latest and greatest. It's very hard to eliminate things that are likely not testable but the ramifications of being in multiple points in time and space makes multiverses a possibility.

from the reference you posted, many worlds interpretation resolves the same things transactional claims to resolve, like nonlocality and collapse of the wave function. Many worlds does not have a collapse.

from your reference

• it is paradox-free, resolving all of the paradoxes and counter-intuitive aspects of standard quantum theory, including nonlocality and wave function collapse

Many worlds is not a paradox it is a literal interpretation of something being in multiples places and times at once. How does the transnational interpretation reconcile that?

I am also particularly interested in how it reconciles the delayed choice experiment, many worlds does not have to invoke faster than light non locality nonsense.

The transactional interpretation seems to be in agreement with many worlds interpretation that photons can affect the past.

from your reference

In the TIQM, interactions are explicitly nonlocal because “the future is, in a limited way, affecting the past (at the level of enforcing correlations)”.

So I sort of have a hard time seeing the difference other than perhaps, treating the measurements as measuring something real and not real at the same time.(?)