What is quantum computing?

What is quantum computing?

John Bjarne Grover

Once again I try to understand what 'quantum computing' is. I struggle with the reasoning in e.g. this exposition and here try to explain it as simple as I believe it really is.

Quantum computing means computing with particles that can be (seen to be) in two places at the same time.

This means that if particle A can be in two places at the same time, it can influence the state of a neighbouring particle B in the one place and another particle C in the other place - and since B and C also can get in contact with each other either directly or indirectly, it means that the whole system is 'entangled' since it is hard to tell exactly what is going on when a change in particle A in the one position (with its neighbouring B) can lead to changes in A in the other position (and hence also with its neighbouring C).

If this conception is right, it should be very easy to describe it in simple terms. Then why isnt there anybody who can describe it in simple terms?

The enormous advantage with such particles that can be in two places at the same time is that information can be transmitted instantly even if the particles are millions of kilometres apart: That is when the information transfer is much quicker than the speed of light and hence a computer with such quantum-mechanical connections (inside the computer, that means) will be much quicker than even the fastest computers with traditional connections inside - however lightening-fast these could be.

This simple exposition of 'entanglement' tells that Einstein didnt like it because it was 'spooky'. That is probably not right - what he meant was probably that if information transfer is that quick or instantaneous, it is hard to find out of within the human historic reality because our measuring tools will have to use normal speed.

It is known that the one who has the quickest computer wins the war, since it is all about stopping incoming laser beams and missiles and making own laser beams and missiles be unstoppable - and such stopping ('defence') is all about having the quickest computer. That is a part of the reason why quantum computing has such high priority.

A winning missile that enters into the area above a continent must contain a computer in its head which can survey and analyze the whole continent it enters into for finding any laser generator that could hide anywhere and analyze by way of its surveillance gear (without assistance from other sources) the tiny components (which can be so small that they are hardly visible) in the microchips of this generator and its state and find out what is the quality of the laser beam it is just about to send off - then the incoming missile can itself generate a counter-beam (and then it must know all about the smallest details and micronanometers for the beam planned on the earth) which stops (annihilates) this beam coming up from the ground, otherwise the missile is lost. This is why only the quickest computer wins the war. But it is possible that only quantum computing could do this since it is faster than the speed of light.

In addition, if such computing gets under control, it means that we could come to communicate with remote parts of the universe, which otherwise is impossible. Even a normal email to the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) or one of its planets would take 4 years the one way and then 4 years for the answer back again since this star is 4 lightyears away. But with quantum computing the email could be there in an instant. However, how can we find out of whether the email system really functions right? How can we verify the answer that came - if it takes 100 lightyears each way to find out of it? An email to Andromeda would take 2,5 million years and the same time back again so it is not much worth to try with normal computing.

The fact that a particle can be in two places at the same time is what is called a 'superposition' and hence the two 'places' of the one and the same particle can be considered either on or off both of them, depending on the context - and therefore a 'qubit' is a value of 4 possible states: On-on, off-off, on-off or off-on. However, it is hard to know much about this with normal measuring tools - therefore the state of a quantum computer will be about probabilities more than exact values. In other words, this is the same as to say that the values are 'entangled' - since we have to keep the uncertainty up while continuing the computation.

This should be very easy to understand, if it is right.

But normal expositions seem to tell that quantum computing is so much quicker than normal computers because they use 4 units (on-on, off-off, on-off or off-on) instead of only 2 (on or off).

Thinking a little about this, it is seen that quantum computing is only a variant of my fundamental theorem of linguistics - which tells that "two and only two items can be the same across different realities". When these items are 'the same', it means that they are conceived by us humans as only one particle, but that is within the borders of the human reality - seen from outside this redundant and limited reality (which is hard for us to find out of) they are still two - which is another and less clumsy way of saying that 'one and the same particle can be in two places at the same time'. Christian philosophy calls this problem of ours for 'human sinners'.

Why do these simple things look so difficult in most expositions? Probably because humans are afraid of realities bigger than their own. Religions exist in all human cultures and these bigger realities are what religion is about. People are afraid of doom as soon as they think about crossing the border to a bigger reality and that is why quantum mechanics is scary and 'difficult to understand'.

Mathematics since at least the mid 19th century has been 'paper flat' - two-dimensional symbols are moved around on a two-dimensional paper or 'board' for checking their tautological reliability - that they dont hop outside the human reality (that is what a mathematical 'proof' really is about) - and then it is hard to come to grips with this double reality matter. Therefore the mathematics of quantum computing is 'difficult'.

'Ex nihilo' phenomena tell of the border to the human reality and the fact that this border can be crossed. My article 'The submorphemic Aristotle' tells that 'ex nihilo' is the key to understanding the phenomenon of Aristotle's philosophy that the part can be bigger than the whole. It is this which was squeezed out of culture history and therefore the conflict between catholicism and protestantism arose - and much warfare and problems arose thereby. It is because humans are afraid of other realities. Typically it is hard to measure 'ex nihilo' phenomena when social power explains it with psychiatry - "you were absent-minded or psychotic - that is why you believed that the matter suddenly took form spontaneously". This problem is a part of the reason why quantum computing is 'difficult'.

But the one who has the quickest computer wins the war, so it is not so smart to cling to that psychiatric explanation. But some think perhaps that doom isnt fun however you twist and turn it and therefore they try to construct human-controlled doom - which should be so scary that you dont try to come up with this philosophy once again. Psychiatry should really be about solving those problems of that angst-ridden doom construction - not about being a part of it.

My fundamental theorem of linguistics tells that when the two items (or particles) are collapsed into one in our limited understanding, the collapse produces also (as a drop-off from the collapse, so to speak) a piece of 'semantics' which applies to the single particle or item that comes out of the reduction. This drop-off is closely related to the phenomenon of 'gravity' which arises from the inertia that results from the two particles or items being attached to each other in the human reality. That is why semiotics can be seen as providing possible solutions to quantum-mechanical problems. I recall from the end decades of the previous millenium how difficult it was for semiotics to get beyond that 'form-meaning' understanding - how 'meaning' was glued to 'form' - and it was very difficult to think clearly about those things in those years - however much you concentrated it would slip off by some strange force - and many could reach for some on-off jargon for solving this problem. That limited word-level arbitrarity (which was the problem in those days) could be much the same problem as the mathematics of quantum computing could be struggling with nowadays.

PST: If it should be the case that american computers are much slower than the russian, is that because they show plagiarist soap on TV in USA? Plagiarism is the wrong way of understanding 'double reality'. Quantum computing should not be about 'more than one reality' in the sense of 'swindle'. Is this the reason why EU believes that Russia could come to attack within a few years? Is it really that they are afraid that the europeans havent got the quickest computers after all - and that is a reason for worry and doesnt this really mean that Russia is going to attack us? Then plagiarisms could appear as 'calming the nerves' since, "ah, of course, with other realities - you mean simply a piece of swindle?" But that understanding cannot really calm many nerves.