warplants

warplants t1_j4ycoh2 wrote

Reply to comment by U17sses in Energy Teleportation and Negative Energy Observed in Quantum Research Breakthrough by Gari_305

> no one denies that entanglement can “communicate” FTL

Wrong, plenty of physicists will deny this. Only certain interpretations of quantum mechanics rely on an FTL “wave function collapse” (namely, the Copenhagen interpretation, which at best is an incomplete description of reality, but more likely is just flat wrong.)

3

warplants t1_ittj4fl wrote

Reply to comment by throwaway23410689 in NASA announces its unidentified aerial phenomena - A 16-people team — including an astronaut, a space-treaty drafter, a boxer, and several astrobiologists — will soon begin its review of unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) for NASA research team to examine mysterious sightings. by yourSAS

Uh huh. So to recap, you know they’re here because a bunch of known liars said so? Except they didn’t actually say so, but that’s expected because they’re liars. Is that the argument?

1

warplants t1_ittdi77 wrote

Reply to comment by throwaway23410689 in NASA announces its unidentified aerial phenomena - A 16-people team — including an astronaut, a space-treaty drafter, a boxer, and several astrobiologists — will soon begin its review of unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) for NASA research team to examine mysterious sightings. by yourSAS

Do you even read your own links?

> Chinese researchers confirm that sighting reports from across the country are on the rise but aliens are unlikely to be responsible

1

warplants t1_ittddg6 wrote

Reply to comment by throwaway23410689 in NASA announces its unidentified aerial phenomena - A 16-people team — including an astronaut, a space-treaty drafter, a boxer, and several astrobiologists — will soon begin its review of unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) for NASA research team to examine mysterious sightings. by yourSAS

> there’s footage of objects in the sky and we don’t know what they are

That’s alien disclosure to you?

2

warplants t1_itt931u wrote

Reply to comment by throwaway23410689 in NASA announces its unidentified aerial phenomena - A 16-people team — including an astronaut, a space-treaty drafter, a boxer, and several astrobiologists — will soon begin its review of unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) for NASA research team to examine mysterious sightings. by yourSAS

I read your links, watched the timestamped video for a few minutes. Didn't find a single statement that even remotely approaches support for your assertion.

Maybe you could directly quote which statements you think are most relevant?

2

warplants t1_itt8br9 wrote

Reply to comment by throwaway23410689 in NASA announces its unidentified aerial phenomena - A 16-people team — including an astronaut, a space-treaty drafter, a boxer, and several astrobiologists — will soon begin its review of unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) for NASA research team to examine mysterious sightings. by yourSAS

> Former presidents, NASA, DOD, CIA, Navy

Cuz no one in the above group would lie to keep state secrets?

−1

warplants t1_istgc1j wrote

Reply to comment by leaky_wand in Rolls-Royce says a combination of quantum compputing and classical computing is likely to be in use for at least a decade before pure quantum takes over. The company is working with Classiq to create hybrid algorithms to speed up simulations for fluid dynamics and new materials. by upyourego

Here’s the problem with quantum computing: yes you’re simultaneously evaluating countless potential “possibilities”, but at the end the QC only gives you the answer for one randomly chosen possibility. In that sense it’s far worse than just brute-forcing through every possibility with a classical computer, as at least with the classical computer you know which result corresponds with which possibility.

The sole advantage of the QC is that it can evaluate far more possibilities than can be classically brute-forced. But, again, when it spits out the answer, it erases the work done on all possibilities except the one randomly chosen by your measurement.

This means that at a minimum, you have to run the same problem many times on a QC to get a distribution of possible answers (since each individual answer is basically meaningless). Once you have a distribution, if you’re lucky you might see that certain solutions are more/less common that others, and this in itself may give you some insight to the problem you’re originally trying to solve.

TLDR computing anything with a QC is hugely inefficient compared to classical compute, the only problems you might even consider for a QC are those that simply can’t be classically computed in human timescales.

4

warplants t1_ist5dor wrote

Reply to comment by upyourego in Rolls-Royce says a combination of quantum compputing and classical computing is likely to be in use for at least a decade before pure quantum takes over. The company is working with Classiq to create hybrid algorithms to speed up simulations for fluid dynamics and new materials. by upyourego

> over time they'll become more useful until they can beat out supercomputers.

Completely wrong. Quantum computers can never, even in principle, be faster than conventional computers for 99.99% of computing tasks. Quantum computers only might have an advantage for a very tiny subset of computing problems.

6