Talk:Quantum machine

Definition of "machine"

This article seems to assume that a machine must be a mechanical system, contrary to, e.g., the Wikipedia definition. If a machine can also be an electrical system, then the claim that the 2010 Nature paper (ref. 5 in the article) was the first quantum machine is not true. For example, the 1999 paper by Nakamura et al. (Nature 398, 786-788 (1999)) describes an electrical quantum machine. I think some clarification of this issue is needed. Tls60 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: If a machine must "accomplish a task," then it would seem that neither ref. 5 nor the above mentioned article meet the definition of a quantum machine; something like this, however, does. Tls60 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Q in the Light of O'Connell Qubit Resonator"?

Does this so-called "Quantum Machine" or the coupling of a mechanical resonator, similar to a tiny springboard, and a qubit invalidates Penrose's Interpretation? Any follow-up would be welcome.

ref → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_D._O%27Connell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.230.247 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did all the readers come from?

On the 7th January 2011 this article attracted 5900 readers, compared to about 100 on a usual day. I'm intrigued as to why, can anyone tell me?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it got linked from some high-traffic news aggregator site. DS (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up if you're from Stumbleupon. 67.189.50.77 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

observation

Hello, I understand most of the article but I don't get HOW one is able to observe both vibration t the same time.Klinfran (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In his Ted Talks presentation of his experiment, Aaron O'Connell says, "It is only AT PRECISE TIMES when they [the atoms] align [during the vibration]. THE REST OF THE TIME, they are delocalized. That means that every atom is in two different places AT THE SAME TIME." If the atoms "align" at "precise times," and if the same atoms are "delocalized" the "rest of the time," then every atom is in TWO different places (aligned and delocalized) at TWO different times (at precise times and the rest of the time). Therefore, Aaron's conclusion that "every atom is in TWO different places AT THE SAME TIME" is an obviously FALSE conclusion (a lie). The only thing that Aaron's experiment proves to me is that people (who accept Aaron's incorrect conclusion) are easily duped. 7Jim7 (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article on quantum superposition. The basic idea: they prepared and measured the system in the same way many times. Some of the times they measured that the system was in its ground state, and some of the time it was in its first excited state. From the statistics of many measurements, they infer the original quantum state, which is a superposition of the ground and first excited state. Also, it may not be a great idea to base one's understanding of physics on Ted talks. Tls60 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But the words that I quoted from Ted Talks are the experimenter's (Aaron's) own words. They're his words, not anyone else's. Aaron is the one who stated that the atoms "align" at "precise times" and are "delocalized" the "rest of the time." That is Aaron's own description of the data in his own experiment. There is nothing wrong with Aaron's experiment itself. His experimental data, as explained by Aaron himself, shows the atoms in two different places (aligned and delocalized) at two different times (at precise times [aligned] and the rest of the time [delocalized]), as Aaron himself specifically states. So Aaron's experiment is valid. Aaron's experiment, as explained by Aaron himself, proves that the quantum mechanics concept of something being in two places at the same time could not be experimentally reproduced. That is a valid experimental result. It is only Aaron's conclusion, which is the exact opposite of what his own experimental data shows, that is incorrect. I'm thinking that maybe Aaron's real experiment is to see how long he can present a clearly self-contradictory presentation before people begin to question it. That's the kind of thing that con artists do all the time. 7Jim7 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

By "experimental data", I think you are referring to a sketch of wiggling atoms from the Ted talk. This sketch is not data. The only thing the speaker may be guilty of is not doing a great job of explaining the science to a non-technical audience. Again, if you want to understand the experiment, I'd start by reading up on the concept of quantum superposition. Tls60 (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

By experimental data, I'm referring to Aaron's own explanation (Aaron's words) that the atoms "align" at "precise times" and that the same atoms are "delocalized" the "rest of the time," which describes the atoms being in two different places at two different times. By conclusion, I'm referring to Aaron's contradictory statement that "that means that the atoms are in two different places at the same time." According to you, Aaron's conclusion is right, but Aaron's explanation of the data is wrong. According to you, Aaron knows how to prove that a thing can be in two places at the same time, but he doesn't know how to speak English. I did as you suggested. I read the article to which you directed me. The article regarding quantum superimposition states, “Quantum Superimposition … Concept … Anton Zeilinger … has elaborated … QUANTUM SUPERIMPOSITION … is ONLY valid if there is NO WAY TO KNOW … WHICH PATH THE PARTICLE TOOK. … The ABSENCE of any SUCH INFORMATION is THE ESSENTIAL CRITERION for quantum interference to appear.” In other words, quantum superimposition CANNOT be observed or proven, because quantum superimposition is an EXCUSE to which a theoretical physicist turns when he cannot determine why his mathematical formula in his theory does not work, the same way that a medical physician turns to the EXCUSE that “it’s all in your head [you’re imagining it]” when he cannot determine why his patient is ill. 7Jim7 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find the double-slit experiment to be one of the most compelling demonstrations of the validity of quantum theory. If you don't find that convincing, then I'm not sure I can help. Tls60 (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying that light photons exhibit the characteristics of both particle and wave is NOT the same as saying that something can be in two different places at the same time. There is no comparison between the two. A car with a retractible hardtop exhibits the characteristics of both hardtop and convertible, but that does not mean that the car can be in two different places at the same time. The "relational interpretation" section of that article regarding the double spit experiment states that some of the observations result from the influence of the method of observation on the object being observed and therefore do not correctly measure the qualities of the object itself. The experiment itself causes alterations that result in false observations, such as the appearance that the same electron passed through both slits. Thus, it is not a true observation, but an illusion caused by the experiment itself. If the experimenter want to believe that something can be in two places at the same time, then he chooses to interpret the result in that way. This says more about the experimenter than it does about the object. 7Jim7 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The double-slit experiment shows that an interference pattern is generated even if the particles (photons, electrons, atoms, even light molecules) are sent one at a time. This means, to put it simply, that each particle interferes with itself. There is no classical explanation for this phenomenon. Tls60 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand. One electron, two slits. But the relational interpretation section in that article states that the method of observation (using an electron to observe an electron) can cause a false observation, hence the ILLUSION of one electron going through two slits. The mere fact that something APPEARS to be true does not guarantee that it is true. Ask any magician. 7Jim7 (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)