Reputation
Next privilege 250 Rep.
View close votes
Badges
1
Newest
 Student
Impact
~1k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 0 votes cast
Oct
15
comment A question on qbit
Quantum tomography is apparently of direct relevance to verification of gates. Though with my beginner's knowledge I could hardly capture the sophisticated arguments in the Wiki article on it, I read there "The number of experimental configurations (state preparations and measurements) required for full quantum process tomography grows exponentially with the number of constituent particles of a system. Consequently, in general, QPT is an impossible task for large-scale quantum systems." Doesn't that indicate the chance of having a moderately large quantum computer is low from the beginning?
Oct
13
comment A question on qbit
Sorry for typos: "do do" --> "to do". "the fact that fact" -->"the fact". "checked on" --> "checked on diverse occassions: design, manufacturing and maintenance on application."
Oct
13
comment A question on qbit
Thank you and the other experts who answered very much. You are right in seeing that my question is essentially "how do we know the gates work?" IMHO for that question the difference between classical and quantum hardware could be quite essential due to the fact that fact that in the first case one is fairly freely do do measuments while in the second case not. The issues involved are mondane but practically of significance in my view. For a hardware circult may have necessity to be checked on
Oct
12
comment A question on qbit
I see that my post is down-voted. I wonder whether there is anything essentially improper that a beginner attempting to learn quantum computing requests help in this forum. I had expected to obtain at least one relevant literature reference that resolves my difficulty of understanding.
Jan
17
comment Aren't all physical relations non-linear?
I may have misunderstood, but you seem to claim that a (currently most popular) theory is not to be doubted "at all". But Newtonian mechanics was a very well accepted theory. If one had excluded apriori any possiblity of doubts, then there would today not be the theory of Einstein, right? As to your term "deform", imagine that we were back into the time of Newton, wouldn't you similarly claim that his theory is robust and can't be deformed?
Jan
16
comment Aren't all physical relations non-linear?
"garanteed by theory" in physics is virtually the same as accepting axioms in math IMHO. Now who garantees that a given theory is in fact true (in the genuine sense)? History tells that lots of theories got replaced later by better ones as science progresses and experimental means become more sophisticated. BTW I am not well informed but I remember to have read that there was a project not long ago to test the theory of relativity. If one simply accepts the theory, there would of course be no need of a test. After all, a theory is a "theory", not exactly the same as "truth", isn't it?
Jan
16
comment Aren't all physical relations non-linear?
I suppose there is a logical problem with your argumentation. You accepted that pV = nRT isn't exact, but why should then (apriori) other linear relations be completely exact? Experimental measurements could confirm a postulated relation but only to a certain confidence level corresponding to the accuracies achievable with the best apparatus that are currently available, isn't it?