Subject: quant-ph/0111124
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:02:23 +0200 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at> To: vaidman@post.tau.ac.il CC: p.knight@ic.ac.uk, a.beige@ic.ac.uk, m.plenio@ic.ac.uk, artur.ekert@qubit.org, tapster@falcor.dera.gov.uk, slloyd@mit.edu, lkgrover@lucent.com, preskill@theory.caltech.edu, itamarp@vms.huji.ac.il, meir@research.haifa.ac.il, Shahard@richfx.com, grusseya@post.tau.ac.il, gottesma@eecs.berkeley.edu, toyoninfo@toyon.com Dear Dr. Vaidman, You explained in your revised "Instantaneous measurement of non-local variables", quant-ph/0111124, that a verification measurement can yield the eigenvalues of the nonlocal variables, but can not prepare the eigenstates of the system. Can you infer from this that quantum computing is actually based on counterfactual propositions (=belief) about the eigenstates of the system? Please see my efforts to zoom on this issue at http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Czachor.html I will appreciate the opinion of your colleagues as well. It seems to me that there is too much religious belief involved with the so-called quantum computing [Ref. 1], and I have no idea why many military institutions, such as your MOD, DERA, DARPA, etc., are supporting and funding these beliefs. I think all you need is a brain, not religion. Kind regards, Dimi Chakalov
Reference [Ref. 1] D. Deutsch, A. Ekert and R. Lupacchini, Machines, logic and quantum physics, Bull. Symbolic Logic 6, 265-283 (2000). "The fact is that quantum computers can prove theorems
by methods that neither a human brain nor
any other Turing-computational arbiter will ever be able to reproduce." |