Will textbooks Quantum Computing work ?
QC needs the quantum entanglement to be physical. We found classical ways to get the same labs results without the need to credit the entanglement notion.
You know the Bell theorem. It opposes alleged classical and quantum solutions and describes a procedure to discriminate the good solution.
Many great experimentalists did this experiment and conclude, following Bell, that the quantum entanglement is physical.
I claim that the EPR-Bell lab proof is not rigorous. It needs at least 75% of cross detection rate to discard classical mechanics and not only one serious experiment has reached this detection level. Some claim they did but we are still waiting for collected data with referees or reproducible settings. Others refer to retired or amended papers.
These pages are dedicated to prove it. You can check the javascript simulation and browse the draft. Many arguments have their own article. The most curious is Looking for a classical EPR-Bell curve.
The previous labs experiments are ruled out by our simulation. The very simple classical software is based on the assumption that the Malus law have a little bit of uncertainty which is a labs fact. It is a counter-proof very easy to understand when one knows well the Malus law and the EPR experiments. There is a large class of solutions of the same kind ; some of them are hard to compute. Anyway, as the detection level rises over root square of 75% on each arm, the correlation curve changes smoothly and the Bell inequalities don’t hold anymore.
This result is merely ignored by the quantum computing community. Most researchers believe that magical superposition and entanglement will lead to an ever seen parallelism. It is always possible that it works since unproven doesn’t imply that it is false but it is unlikely to happen, according to the publications. The socalled Quantum computers are structurally far from the expected architectures ; the alleged superpositions need still Monte-Carlo methods where the minimal number of tries depends on the complexity of the question. They need also classical computers to perform a lot of classical bit operations. There are other issues with the quantum computing theories, more or less related to bad intuitions and perhaps to sociological reasons.
Now, we must appreciate that so many creative people work in this sector… We can reasonably expect great colateral results, e.g. supraconductivity at room conditions, deep learning graphs improvments, bounds computation refinements, etc. But, they first highlighted the annealing methods with or without correlations as pretty tools on very large data sets that must be treated after less than 3 passes. In a few years, scientific computers will likely run new classes of simulations on enhanced cores facilitating Monte-Carlo algorithms and parallelized new bit operations.
What are the alternatives to treat hard problems?
Faster classical computers, better softwares, a little bit more math and the best software developpers.
It remains a lot of work but there is also a serious hope to get some generic solutions.
Entanglement and new physics
QFTs and QCD are far from all this fantasy and work pretty well. Many modernized non relativistic quantum interpretations, like thermodynamics and mean theories, encounter serious issues with the entanglement claim. Quantum gravity theories invoke entanglement too with the success we know.
After so long, there is no risk of dicarding it and starting the search for new ideas.
About the old Q-Crypt project
The challenge was to build an anti-tapping communication solution based on quantum mechanics and the theories of the most famous physicists of the XXIst century. We never were able to build the theoretical hardware, even wired in the lab. After spending the capital and an infinite time to show to the investors that our settings and understanding were not parts of the issues, the project ended.
About the new Q-Crypt Service
After 8 years, I prevented the waste of millions in the QC computing research and learning but billions are currently spent. My job today is to provide fair alternate advices in financial studies before spending. I can also check the deliveries, if any. But there was not any serious candidate until today.
Indeed, this doesn’t make all the friends happy. But sciences don’t care.
No one can invest before doing a serious study taking into account all the current knowledge, even if the choices have already been made. We did the mistake, don’t miss this step to keep your credit safe.
Igael Azoulay