Dear Dr. Berman:

May I ask questions regarding your paper on the role of entanglement in quantum neural processing [Ref. 1], to be presented at SPIE's International Symposium on Microelectronics and Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems, 4591-49 (17-19 December 2001, Adelaide, Australia).

You wrote [Ref. 1, p. 1 from your PDF file): "Note, that only feature of entangled state is that it is more or less non-factorizable superpositional state."

Then you argue (p. 2) that the essence of quantum computing is in using entangled states to perform real quantum computing, and clarify your standpoint (p. 7) by resorting to Everett's relative-state interpretation of QM:

"But it seems that there exists some reason to use MUI not only because of its evident convenience in applying to quantum computing and heuristic power [footnote 3: Opposite opinion can be also found: " ... quantum computers are not wedded to "many worlds" interpretations, not only in terms of the prediction of the results of experiments, but also in terms of insight into what is going on within the quantum computational process" (Steane, 2000)] in development of different quantum-like algorithms (e.g. quantum Turing machine [46] or quantum genetic algorithm [48]), and not only because it can clarify easily the essence of analog quantum neural systems. It is possible to use it also, because it gives another look to the problem of resources, which can give the preference to quantum computations. It is also important to note, that Deutsch's variant of MUI is not operational but explanational theory."

And on p. 8, you wrote: "The main feature of MUI, which seems to be most important for quantum computing, is the possibility for the multiple universes to interfere with each other in a short time. Just the result of universes interference can be observed, making the quantum computing possible."

Q1: In what reference frame, measured with some physical clock "in a short time", would you envisage the interference of multiple universes?

Q2: Regarding your reference to quantum *neural* systems (p. 9): 

Have you read Max Tegmark on decoherence rates in the human brain?

 I'm afraid you can rely on quantum coherence in the brain to the extend to which you could utilize those states in Zurek's theory, which were *not* lucky to be einselected.

You wrote (p. 9) "We would like to thank Peter Milloni, ... ." 

I very much respect Peter Milloni.

Q3: Did he endorse your ideas on quantum *neural* systems?

You also wrote: "The work of GPB was partly supported by the National Security Agency (NSA), and by the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA)."

I'm curios, why would NSA be interested in metaphysics [Ref. 2]. You may, of course, employ some ad hoc models of the brain, such as those produced by AI community, but please be aware that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is not necessarily a duck.

If you understood the meaning of this saying, may I ask my last question.

Q4: In what reference frame, and with what physical clock would you measure the duration of the Platonic idea which helped you understand the meaning of the saying above?

My problems with understanding how we could manipulate entanglement locally can be read at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/right.html#Note_1
and at
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/right.html#Note_2

I hope to hear from you and from all recipients of this email.

Regards,

Dimiter G. Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html
--
I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming-house, than a physicist.

A. Einstein, Born-Einstein Letters, 29 April 1924
 

References

[Ref. 1] A.A. Ezhov, G.P. Berman. Role of interference and entanglement in quantum neural processing. Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:02:00 GMT,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0112082
 

[Ref. 2] W. Zurek. Decoherence, Einselection, and the Existential Interpretation (the Rough Guide). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 356, 1793-1821 (1998).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9805065

"The interpretation based on ideas of decoherence and [environmentally induced] einselection has not really been spelled out to date in any detail. I have made a few half-hearted attempts in this direction, but, frankly, I was hoping to postpone this task, since the ultimate questions tend to involve such 'anthropic' attributes of the 'observership' as 'perception', 'awareness' or 'consciousness'."