"As of 2020, quantum computing (QC) has become a very hot field of research and technology. Governments, corporations, and investors around the world are competing with each other to pour billions of dollars into development projects that promise revolutionary breakthroughs in computer performance. Articles in the popular and scientific press are reporting claims of "quantum supremacy", that a QC can outperform any conceivable classical computer. ... The power of QC depends on the entanglement of interacting quantum bits (qubits), which expands the Hilbert space exponentially."

With regard to quantum computing, what are the similarities and differences between your view and 't Hooft's view?

"Q&A: Gerard 't Hooft on the future of quantum mechanics", Physics Today, 11 July 2017

Have you carefully studied the following?

"MOND Newtonian Dynamics, an Introductory Review" by Riccardo Scarpa, arXiv, 2006

    Dear Mr. Brown,

    With respect to quantum computing, I have several objections, as described in the essay. Some systems are not quantum at all, and others are so noisy as to making practical entanglement-based quantum computing impossible. But I also have a fundamental objection - I believe that the entire Hilbert space formalism of QM (due to John von Neumann), with linear superposition and entanglement, is wrong. This is not an alternative interpretation of QM, it is testably distinct on the laboratory scale. These tests have not been done.

    Within the orthodox theoretical physics community, one else has criticized the von Neumann formalism. Not even Einstein, who was right down the hall from von Neumann at Princeton. So there is no similarity with the views of t'Hooft.

    Regarding MOND, I believe that modifies classical Newtonian gravitation to avoid the need for dark matter in galaxies. The dark matter puzzle is real, and indicates that something important is missing in our understanding of types of matter. But I'm not ready to accept that MOND is the answer.

    My alternative interpretation of GR without spacetime is consistent with Newtonian gravitation, so that also does not provide any insight into dark matter.

    Thank you for your interest.

    Alan Kadin

    Hi to both of you, Mr Kadin, I beleive the same about this DM, and I consider it essential at all scales, I have even encoded it in nuclei and I have reached this quantum gravitationa in considering different distances because I consider that our standard model has a deeper meaning and is encircled by these BHs and DM, here is my equation about this DM encoded in nuclei, X is a parameter correlated with the cold and l their linear velocity, I must maybe correct a Little bit this equation but I see like this. E=mc^2+Xl^2 , I have also a fith force due to these series of quantum BHs farer than our nuclear forces. I am persuaded also that we must not modify this newtoniam mechanics wich seem important balancing our forces at all scales. Of course I must prove my equation and renormalise correctly this quantum gravitation to quantize it but that converges. must make the same for my gravitational coded aether and my theory and 3D quantum and cosmological spheres in an universal sphere or a future sphere in spherisation optimisation.

    About this quantum computing, of course we cannot create it because we don t know these foundamental mathematical and foundamental objects and what is the real planck scale, it is only simple than this.

    Let s go deeper, what is this space time for you, what is exactly in your imagination the space, the vacuum, me I consider a gravitational coded aether playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature, finiet series of spheres where space disappears, the photons are coded also and are these series , they are just a fuel implying this electromagnetism, the life Death and the fact to observe, but what is your space really ? I am curious, tell us more, let s discuss a Little bit about its essence and why philosophically. Regards

    Thank you Prof Alan M. Kadin,

    I saw your wonderful essay "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", Even though I could not go through it in full detail. I got some questions like does your model have Blackholes or Multiverses, Does it require Dark matter/ Dark energy, etc..??

    Best wishes to your essay sir

    Best

    =snp.gupta

    Dr Kadin,

    Congratulations, it seems you are well on your way to winning another contest. We need your contribution. I read and studied your essay and read your vixra publication "A Neoclassical Framework That Reunifies Modern Physics". I looked up solitons and then discovered the comparison below. Maybe you have seen it.

    May I know which block best describes your current thoughts? It seems we live in different worlds. Further thoughts? Not sure we can even communicate without some basic commonality; what a situation! Although I have been at this many years my solutions seem naïve (but of course correct).

    Comparison[edit]

    The most common interpretations are summarized in the table below. The values shown in the cells of the table are not without controversy, for the precise meanings of some of the concepts involved are unclear and, in fact, are themselves at the center of the controversy surrounding the given interpretation. For another table comparing interpretations of quantum theory, see reference.[57]

    No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to "interpret" the theory. Nevertheless, designing experiments which would test the various interpretations is the subject of active research.

    Most of these interpretations have variants. For example, it is difficult to get a precise definition of the Copenhagen interpretation as it was developed and argued about by many people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Summaries

    Page down to summaries and there is a large table.

      Dear Gene,

      Thank you for your comments. You are asking the right questions.

      We should focus on the big picture, and not get lost in the weeds.

      When the foundations of physics have not made sense for a century, that's because we are not thinking about them in the right way.

      Discussions of multiple alternatives interpretations of QM means that there is something seriously wrong with the theory. I have focused my criticism on the von Neumann mathematical formalism, specifically superposition and entanglement. Von Neumann's reputation during his lifetime was so great, that no one would criticize him, not even Einstein or Schrodinger.

      Everyone thinks that QM has been precisely established, but the only aspect that has been established is the Schrodinger equation for atoms and solids, and that does NOT contain either superposition or entanglement.

      Quantum computing is the first technology that depends critically on entanglement to be successful. Despite all the hype, this has not been demonstrated. We should have some answers within a few years. If quantum computing is a catastrophic failure, as I predict, then, finally, the physics community may be willing to reconsider the foundations of QM.

      Alan

      Alan,

      Very well written and a pleasure to read, again. I confess much of that came from consistent close agreement (also again) but you also nailed all the scoring criteria.

      I found your starting point perfect agrees with mine; 'A foundation is wrong',, and agree NO quantum computing, entanglement, 4D space time, wormholes or mathematical solution, etc. Then 'spin' is a rotating vector field, and unification IS possible (both agreed previously).

      I'm sure you'll also like mine this year, suggesting what foundation is wrong and a logical correction actually producing possible solutions!

      But back to yours, I HAVE found some questions;

      1. Did Einstein not just 'carelessly' loose ether in 1915, Minkowski having said "everywhere there is substance", finding it in 1921 (space without it being "unthinkable")?? I find that need NOT be contradictory, and found he agreed why in Appx.V 1952; "*bounded* spaces in motion with spaces," with boundary form & process identified.

      2. Entanglement. Did AE not 'find' and object to that Bohr solution at Solvay 1927 - pre EPR?

      3. QG. Do you consider the wide 'dark energy' findings inc. Casimir, Coulomb, pair production etc. reasonable experimental proof some kind of 'condensate' exists? If so I suggest it MAY be possible to test a coherent hypothesis for SUB-matter gravity (ref.vi in my essay.)

      4. GR High Order Tests. A good test seems to be to give deep space probes GR trajectories & see where they go. NASA is reticent of course, but ALL go off course! (frequent 'anomalous accelerations'). No error or correction can be found so they now install on-board AI with star charts to ALL probes as real time corrections are needed. (A solution does emerge from revised foundations.)

      But great essay Alan, certainly marked down for a top score. I look forward to also discussing mine.

      Very best regards

      Peter

        Thanks again for your thoughts. I have been working on some of your concerns and see some things worth considering.

        QM should be formulated by incorporating what we know. We know that we see neutrons in space and time (although most have decayed to protons, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos). All of these particles are identical although they are duplicated many, many times. Once the neutron and its associated space is understood we understand everything. Neutron duplication was outside each other, consistent with the Pauli exclusion principle. Could it explain it (one of your goals)? I agree with you that QM should be formulated without logical inconsistencies like macroscopic superposition. Of course it has to recognize entanglement of properties because that has been demonstrated but I don't think this includes entanglement of energy. QM must also be formulated in a way that explains where energy originates. Also, as you point out it has to have a fundamental time base. My essay incorporates all of the above but it takes some time to understand (since I am not a PhD no one has tried).

        I use the unitary solution to Schrodinger's equation exp(iEt/H)*(-iEt/H)=1. But probability=1 means "we observe neutrons in nature". The neutron components are 1=1*1*1*1, where each 1 is a set of four probabilities. For one of the quarks P=1=exp(-15.43)*exp(-12.43)/(exp(-17.43)*exp(-10.43)). Energy is defined by another probability: p=e0/E where e0 is a constant. The energy components of the neutron then are E=e0*exp(N) (Example: E=2.02e-5*exp(10.136)= 0.511 MeV, the energy of the electron). The two energies that are positive for quark above are mass plus kinetic energy and the two negative ones are field energies. This means for this quark that: (101.95+5.08+646.96)- (753.23+0.69)= 0. The first constraint for the model was P=1 and this provides the second constraint E-E=0. Pleased don't be put off by a quark with 101.95 MeV, it actually decays to the measured value 4.3 MeV while conserving mass plus kinetic energy. But energy in this model is an information operation that separates energy from zero. I think zero is a great starting point in an information based universe. The proton becomes our peephole into reality if and when we eventually involve from protons.

        The remainder of the construction has been carefully worked out with consistent rules and reported many times (reference 12 for example). I won't bore you with details but I would like to suggest/discuss how it relates to your quest to re-formulate QM. I am aware that the Schrodinger equation is linear and allows superposition but the Schrodinger equation in my model becomes unity every 1.47e-21 seconds. The field energy I associate with gravity is 2.801 MeV. The radius associated with the energy is R=hC/E=7.04e-14 meters and time around this circle is 1.47e-21 seconds. My "proof" that they define time and space is the calculation for gravitational constant G. But many I think are put off by my use of a scale factor. I want to consider everything by considering one proton. But G is a macroscopic measurement. But all mass in the universe is central mass, one proton would orbit as some kinetic that would define G for that proton. The equation is in my essay and the kinetic energy is 10.15 MeV, one of the basic energies in the model and the scale value 1/exp(90) comes from the probability of the components. Back to the superposition problem: With my interpretation of P=1 being re-established every 1.47e-21 seconds, there can be no macroscopic superposition. Re-formulating with no entanglement violates EPR measurements if the experimental conclusions are correct. But I don't believe energy entanglement is possible. My essay recognizes that the Left Hand Side of the Schrodinger construction represents mass plus kinetic energy. The proton mass is unchangeable but the overall energy balance E-E=0 has energy outside the proton-electron. The electron can emit light, be polarized and then changed in the EPR experiments. The light emitted is now outside the proton and in the "energy reservoir" that balances everything to E-E=0. I point out that zero can't be fooled. Each proton is energy complete and identical all the time but my theory doesn't speak to properties in the reservoir before they are statistically reduced to zero.

        Of course all protons do not have the same kinetic energy. Interacting protons share their energy and obey all the statistical laws of thermodynamics. But there are many other kinds of energy that must be considered in the total.

        Peter,

        Thank you for your interest and comments. In response to your questions:

        1) Ether

        Einstein's 4D spacetime is effectively a generalization of an ether.

        I have flipped relativity on its head. There is no spacetime, but time and space remain relative, due to the varying quantum clocks and rulers that calibrate time and space. This is an alternative interpretation of GR that no one else seems to have considered.

        Both quantum waves and EM waves travel through vacuum - no ether with any special properties is necessary.

        2) Entanglement

        Yes, Einstein had early objections to entanglement, although that term had not yet been identified by Schrodinger. But I find it particularly interesting that Einstein did not directly question von Neumann's mathematical formalism, and neither did anyone else at the time. They were both at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in the 1930s, but evidently they didn't get along. You can't find them in the same photograph together.

        3) Quantum Gravity

        I don't think that it is useful to consider regimes that cannot be accessed in observations. That is virtually unknowable, and is not science.

        4) GR

        Yes, I think higher order tests of GR would be helpful. We have no way to knowing what the results will be, although I suspect that the divergent form that gives rise to event horizons will turn out to be wrong.

        I will read your essay more carefully, and may have some further comments on your essay page.

        Alan

        Hi, I don t know if you are just specialised in computing and sperconductivity only or if you are general also in theoretical physics.

        Like I am curious, I d like to know your general philosophy about this universe and what do you consider like foundamental mathematicalobjects at this planck scale. Strings or points,and how do you formalise all this puzzle with the geometrical algebras for example? It is a question personal but I beleive it is important to have a general point of vue, explain me please. Like that we can extrapolate and correlate with the universal informations and what they are and by what they are created, if these questions are not important for you and that you search only some details, forget my questions, regards

          Dear Steve,

          Thank you for your interest.

          I make it clear in my essay that I have broad interests that encompass science, math, technology, history, philosophy, and futurism.

          Regarding objects on the Planck scale, I don't believe any of that is science, since it is not testable. Further, math and physics are different. Points, lines, planes, infinities, and extra dimensions may "exist" in math, but do not exist in the real world. Math can model aspects of the physical world, but abstract math should not be expected to provide inspiration for new physics.

          I believe that confusion between abstract math and physics led much of 20th century physics into unproductive dead ends. A neoclassical synthesis can reunify physics, as I argued in my previous FQXi essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics"

          Alan

          Dear Dr Kadin,

          Your are welcome, and thanks for developping. I understand your Words, it is a kind a wisdom and pure determinism. I beleive also like that even if I have several extrapolations in theoretical physics and my 3D spheres and this spherisation of the universe, an optimisation evolution of this universal sphere or future sphere.

          I make Always so a difference between a proved laws, axioms or equations and intuitive assumptions if I can say.

          I agree also about what you tell with the maths, these maths permit to prove our assumptions but they must be interpreted with a kind of wisdom also. Let s take for example the whormholes, or the warp drives or the multiverses or the reversibility of time, they are all for me mathematical plays but they don t seem to be rational and objective.

          It is due to these maths and how we interpret our symmetries, or mirrors or this or that, so I agree with you , we must be prudent.

          I make the same for my works, I don t affirm , I just suppose intuitively. I am very deterministic also you know but about my theory, I say me that these 3D quantum spheres could be the answer seeing the nature, I have ranked a Little bit of all, animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, physics, Chemistry, biology, evolution,and it is due to this that I found this theory of spherisation and these spheres, I beleive that they are the choice of this universe , the spheres, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere and when we consider for the quantum series these 3D coded spheres, and the Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture,the Hamilton Ricci flow, the assymetric Ricci flow that I have invented, the topological and euclidian spaces, the lie groups, the lie derivatives, and others mathemtical Tools, that becomes relevant.

          I don t consider that all comes from Waves or fields, I beleive strongly that all is made of particles coded and they oscillate also these spheres in a kind of superfluid space, vacuum, that is why I have considered 3 E8, and series finite of 3D spheres playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature instead of points or strings. I have a specific fractal where this space disappears for these series sent for me from the central cosmological sphere, this center intrigues me a lot. All this is intuitive but we can solve many problems in considering this generality.

          The maths and the fashion of strings and geonetrodynamics in considering that all is made of Waves, fields and Cosmic fields has created for me a prison, We can create all geonetries, topologies, properties of matters.These 3 E8 superimposed so with the spheres instead of points or strings are relevant at my humble opinion because we have one E8 for the space , coded and the two others are for fuels if I can say, one for the photons and one for the Dark cold matter. I have reached this quantum gravitation with this reasoning, I formalise all this but not easy I must say,the quantization renormalization is important and must be precise and deterministic.

          I know now that you are not interested to know these foundamental objects and its correlated philosophy, but maybe you could Think about all this.

          I liked your essay and I wish you good luck,,best regards

          Steve

          10 days later

          Dear Alan,

          I particularly enjoyed your sub-essay on "Why We Should Be Skeptical About Quantum Computing" It is a topic that my friend Barry Gilbert and I often discuss, and we are in agreement with you over the future of QC. You have provided me with many references to pursue over the next few months of Covid19 isolation.

          I note in your second last paragraph you say:

          "For qubits to entangle, they must interact. But an array of classical coupled oscillators will form a band of collective modes throughout the system, at slightly different frequencies. The same is true for coupled electronic states in solids - they form energy bands. But this does not increase the phase space of the system; N oscillators give rise to N delocalized modes, without the exponential increase from entanglement needed for QC".

          I thought that entanglement stopped the need for exponential increase in phase space, whereas a proliferation of classical oscillators gave QC an advantage over classical computing. For in a system of N cubits where each cubit can be represented by two classical oscillators, we have 2N oscillators. Now if the N cubits give rise to 2N quantum states, the simulation of a general coupled system requires 2N classical oscillators. It is this that gives the QC the advantage over the classical computer in performing certain classes of algorithms, rather than entanglement.

          Reading your main essay, I very much liked your summary of the foundations of physics. With respect to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), I would make a comment that from my 'Machian' perspective all particles and their attendant fields are infinitely connected in some degree to all other particles and their fields, and hence there is always going to be an uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, in a dynamic system. However, I think HUP has been grossly misused when arguments are made that as we go down in scale (at particle scales) that momentum (and hence energy) increases accordingly. For those of us, like myself, who have developed working preon theorie, such a notion is preposterous, as the preon units that make up the fundamental particles have only their binding energies (which tally to produce the particle energy), not some enormous energy as predicted by HUP.

          I have made arguments against wave/particle duality with respect to the photon in my essay, which I hope you will comment on.

          You discuss Bell test experiments and quantum theory, and I would like to say that I think a fundamental premise behind these tests is flawed. Bell believed in the photon as a particle, and hence the criteria used for the tests is incorrect if we consider the photon as a wave.

          In your section on the Future of Physics, we share a lot of common ground. Marts Liena referenced my talk on 'The Future of Physics Part 2', in which I discuss space and time and relativity, in his essay on the aether .

          I liked your 'Soliton Theory' which is quite different my particle approach to explaining your '4 quantum phenomena that need to be explained'.

          All in all a most interesting and enjoyable read!

          Best wishes

          Lockie Cresswell

            Dear Lockie,

            Thank you for your comments and insights about my essay. It seems that you read the entire essay, which covers a wide range of topics.

            Regarding Quantum Computing, I am an inside observer, and I know some of the key players. No one wants to hear that there may be fundamental flaws in the entire approach, and that includes both government funding agents and investors. It is striking but not surprising the degree to which large sums of money are corrupting the entire R&D community. I predict an international scandal in a few years, when the field fails to produce anything useful.

            I looked at your essay, and noticed the crossword puzzle, which is a unique feature. I did the puzzle, and found all the entries in your essay. I may have more comments after I read the essay more carefully.

            Best wishes from another plague zone, near New York City.

            Alan

            Hi To both of You,

            I see your answer to Peter, I don t agree really about how you see the generality. If you conclude these things about the aether or the QG or others in telling that it is not sciences, so you just focus on things knowns and you don t go deeper in trying to understand our main unknowns. I can understand your philosophy and your knowledges but maybe the generality also is essential and not only the details about the known things. If you just consider this GR and that all others extrapolations are not sciences, never we shall find these unknowns, but I respect your philosophy.

            Regards

            What I tell so in conclusion is that many are very good for details but they cannot link the philosophy general of this universe, the sciences, physics and maths , for me it is essential this generality, it is like this that we can find our unknowns in extyrapolating assumptions that we try to prove with Concrete mathematical Tools. I respect a lot these persons specialised in details but these persons also must respect the rare generalists trying to understand this universal puzzle, we are Youngs at this universal scale considering the evolution and we must accept that we have many things to discover, in we focus only on details of things already knowns, so how can we foind new secrets ? Best Regards

            Dear Alan,

            Thanks again for reading my paper and commenting. You mentioned that I did not treat general relativity in my essay on the ontology of special relativity. It didn't fit in the 9 pages and didn't jive smoothly with my example. Nevertheless, you might find interesting a recent paper in which I provide a physical interpretation to a 98-year old metric solution to Einstein's field equations, whose physical interpretation had been "obscure". It is a soliton solution of sorts.

            A Primordial Spacetime Metric

            I hope that you enjoy it. I plan a follow-up to it.

            I will score your essay now, and hope you remember to score mine.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

              9 days later

              Dear Prof Alan M. Kadin,

              I know you got a wonderful knowledge in Physics! I got a small general question for you....

              This Godel's law is applicable to Quantum Mechanics, but will this law be applicable to COSMOLOGY.......?????.........

              I never encountered any such a problem in Dynamic Universe Model in the Last 40 years, all the the other conditions mentioned in that statement are applicable ok

              I hope you will have CRITICAL examination of my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy".....

              Best Regards

              =snp

              Hi Dr Kadin,

              I thought about the generality in linking what you told, the maths, physics, sciences, philosophy, history, futurism, the important point for me is this evolution, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, this evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere. The evolution is very important for me and we see it in all sciences , in studying also the stoy , on Earth and cosmological and in correlating with the philosophy. The fact that we evolve seems so important and the futurism is like an universal improvement after all, this consciousness seems correlated and even this darwinism is not really correct when we consider this evolution of this consciousness, because we can open our civilization to this universe , first of all in colonising correctly this solar system and in permitting to other animals and vegetals to evolve in correlation of this consciousness, so this consciousness becomes an essential point of harmonisation for the different interactions. The competition is decreased when we see that we don t lack of space and energy and that we can help the other species simply, so this free will and the lamarckist adaptation can be correlated and permits different encodings than this limited darwinism, the futurism it is this also.The technology evolves also of course and we improve our technologies in discovering new lwas and inventions. For me the next revolutionary step will be this gravitation and when we shall check it really it will be really revolutionary because we shall utilise this gravitation like a force with the need of electromagnetic forces or correlated heat. The correlated Waves also could be relevant. The futurism is also the Discovery of this universe and we have a problem technological at this moment considering the speed to travel inside this milky way and to discover the other galaxies, but it is our future if our civilisation survive after a long time. We have many secrets still to discover and this relativity seems a prison at this moment, we have probably a deeper logic than photons like main primordial essence but we cannot still find its secrets unfortunally. The philosophy is important for me and these questions seem essential. Why we exist? What are these foundamental objects and why they create this reality? what is the origin of these codes, informations creating these topologies, geomatries, matters and evolution ? that needs to be understood but we have limitations indeed and I beleive that it is necessary to encircle them if we want to complete our universal puzzle and its unknowns. I beleive so that it is necessary to analyse these things and it is the sciences, we search answers after all.

              There is an incredible crisis inside the sciences Community and specially in the theoretical sciences Community, maybe it is due to fact that many easy things have been found and that now it is more difficult , we have several problems of scales, technological, this and that, but we continue to evolve fortunally but less quickly than 100 years ago unfortunally. It is mainly technological I beleive and due to limitations, it could be well also if the scientists, searchers worked together instead to be divided, maybe our global system does not help , that decreases the velocity of discoveries instead to accelerate them but it is like that, we must accept this fact.

              Regards

              Alan,

              I have updated my essay (last 3 pages) to address the new Wolfram paper of 14 April 2020. It is a major addition to my take on ontology, and I think you might find it interesting.

              Best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman