Nostr Web Client

You are completely misunderstanding physical qubits<>logical qubits.

If you understood what a logical qubit was you would understand that QEC doesn’t “repeal” Lindblad. Also repeal is a legal term, are you a lawyer? That would explain a lot.

Lindblad itself is fine as far as math and physics goes. It’s about limits imposed by environmental decoherence. Great. Key point though: if you have a way to pump coherence back into the logical qubit faster than the physical environment can drain it out, then this limit, which is again fine in itself, simply does not come into play.

What atom and many others have *already* done is empirical proof that the pump works, so to speak. You cannot say oh such a pump can never be built, because they exist today and are proven to work. And you cannot say the the resulting logical (yes logical) qubits can't preform the right knid of computation, because that's also proven. You've been proven out of an argument.

The fact that you’re misunderstanding this as “falsifying” (or, er, “repealing”) the Lindblad limit, as opposed to simply removing the need to worry about hitting it, makes it pretty clear that you don’t understand what a logical qubit actually is.

It’s like you’re saying there is a physical limit to how fast a human being can work an abacus. This is provably true, you can keep that one in your bag. But then you go on to claim that this “abacus limit” in turn limits the complexity of the mathematics that our species can do. Except, hello calculators and computers.

Dunno. It’s like debating OP_RETURN with someone only to find out at some point that they don’t actually understand what what a UTXO is. How far can the debate really go?

Zsubmariner 0mo ago 💬 1

You have not engaged in any debate whatsoever. I told you something you didn't want to hear. You either have QC stocks in your bag or you are just high on the scifi. Dodges, childish insults and quantum marketing babble do not constitute "debate".

You can't "pump" decoherence. That sounds like it came out of a badly written Startrek. That's just some cringe QC marketing metaphor and not at all accurate.

Logical qubits trade size for time against local noise, and only against local noise. Against self-decoherence (N²), they make it quadratically worse.

It's not magic and it does "pump" anything but quantum schill bags.

Lindblad is the equation for ALL decoherence, including the N² self-interaction term that dominates at scale. Qbits decohere each other. You can't remove that, because that's how they participate in the same wave function. That's why there is a ceiling at ≤170.

That's the whole enchilada. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Are you going to say I work in a food truck now?

I've explained the same thing to you 20 ways and you have had zero valid arguments. I've given you first principles and even the formula and you just dodge and blather. Now you've resorted to petty insults.This has become far too childish and I'm not going to give it more of my time.

Good luck with your quantum bags and scifi fever dreams.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

JOE2o 0mo ago 💬 1

I'd pack my bags at this point too if I were you.

Let me leave this for anyone who comes across this thread, hoping for a neat conclusion.

You have posted a Lindblad argument that assumes the noise scales quadratically. That quadratic scaling is the basis of your N<170qubits.

Atom and microsoft have demonstrated logical qubits operating at an error rate four times better than the physical error rate. Other global teams have demonstratd similar. These results are empirical proof that the noise in their systems is correctable, and therefore does not scale quadratically, and therefore the actual noise profile is not following the eventually catastrophic scale path that defines your math (that ends up bing-bong at170)

It's one or the other: Either atom and microsoft and quantinium and harvard and everyone else are lying and it’s all a scam—or your argument has already been proved wrong by experiment.

Both these things cannot be true at once, that is impossible.

Passing reader: which one do you think is true? .

Zsubmariner 0mo ago 💬 1

Ending with one last dodge.

Pure quantum shitcoin.

Live long and prosper. 🖖

JOE2o 0mo ago 💬 1

Dodge accusation as a dodge, how very novel. You have no answer of course. You know you can't say they're all scamming.

Zsubmariner 0mo ago 💬 1

Smoking that hype isn't good for you, man. When you play at shitcoin bubbles, you're rugging or you're getting rugged.

JOE2o 0mo ago 💬 1

Summary of the topic you cannot confront:

You (quoting)

“QEC doesn’t repeal Lindblad. It adds more measurements and makes the N2 term worse.”

Results of multiple real-world experiments:

“Hi! We provide irrefutable empirical proof that QEC makes the N2 term considerably better, across the board!”

Classic case of real world experiments forcing theorist back to the drawing board.

Drawing board’s over there.

Zsubmariner 0mo ago 💬 1

You are falling for weasel words, Joe.

That's how they weaponize your lack of expertise to get you to draw the wrong conclusions and keep you on the sauce.

"Better N²" means they reduced noise (very locally) and plugged a smaller number into the equation. That doesn't change the equation.

Again, we arrive at the max of 170 under the maximally generous assumption that they get those factors to zero.

This means nothing but "we did a better isolation".

BTW, I was going to give you a consolation zap and I couldn't. Set up you wallet, broham.

JOE2o 3w ago

Nostr has too many features. I’m building a soft fork with no DMs, no zaps, no reactions, no media. Just text. you can zap some random nostr wierdo in my behalf.

And this better isolation + smaller number attempt to retroactively add an asterisk after your "QEC makes the N2 term worse" from earlier, pretty sure you know that can't fly.

Under you assumptions, the error rate for the logical qubit has to *always be worse* than the physical qubit, no matter how good the isolation is. But look, it's actually better. Also the logical lifetime of the logical qubit would have to always be shorter (for Google's Willow it's like 3x longer).

The results prove irrefutably that the N is *not* the governing factor in these QEC systems at all.

To argue that the ceiling remains at 170 despite multiple results showing the logical error rate is better (yes better) and the lifetimes longer (yes longer) than the physical is to break your own math.

It's correctable, exponential scaling, proven out by experiment. Not the uncorrectable, quadratic scaling your math depends on, and that you just broke with your asterisk anyway.