Can you please provide links to the best evidence available for the statements above?
I'm a QC skeptic, but I'd change my mind if presented with evidence to the contrary.
Discussion
Just ask chat gpt what happens to the formalism of QM/QC IF time is quantized and discrete. Ask it how it can take the derivative of time if there is an invisible tick. Ask it what becomes of superposition and decoherence if time has an indivisible tick.
Just understand the assumption that backs the threat model, then you can decide what you believe.
You can’t logically believe in both Bitcoin and QC, you must choose one as they require incompatible models of time.
You're the guy who says no core cryptographic element of any blockchain on the planet earth, including what are often referred to here on nostr as shitcoins, will ever be cracked by a quantum computer.
"what are know here on nostr as shitcoins"? 💩
Yes, if time is quantized and discrete QC can’t work.
Someone could code up a "coin wallet" right now that could be easily be cracked with a quantum computer doing quantum computation.
It’d be a super weak key (maybe 22-bit RSA or ECC or something), but it would be a demonstration of real quantum computation cracking a real ‘wallet-style’ key using real quantum effects, and provable.
Any classical computer could crack that key too, of course, though not by making use of entanglement.
If time is quantized and discrete they could not perform any QC. You still haven’t shown me your answer to the question. I’m not sure you can so please use an AI and paste it here to show you are being honest and engaging with my question. You refuse to address it.
“what happens to the formalism of QM/QC IF time is quantized and discrete? How it can take the derivative of time if there is an invisible tick? What becomes of superposition and decoherence if time has an indivisible tick? What becomes of QC if this is all true?”
What happens if you turn a cello inside out?
Your questions don't mean anything. Think in terms of actual experiments. That's how science works. Experiments.
And guess what, these experiments have all been done, you can review the results for yourself. These are answered questions, you're just ignoring the answers.
You are blatantly ignoring the question lol. Stop being dishonest, please.
Ok, so please show me the experiment that empirically proves that time is infinitely divisible.
Wrong question.
Question is "is quantum advantage real?"
So you can’t show me the experiment that proves time is infinitely divisible?
I just want you to admit you are being dishonest. You can’t point to the experiment that everything you claim MUST REQUIRE but you’re a man of experiments.
So you are trusting an unproven axiom, and my only point is, if that axiom is wrong, that time is quantized and discrete rather than infinitely divisible, every “advantage” you want to claim collapses as does the mathematics supporting said theories.
Yet you are unwilling to engage or admit this, stop being dishonest, please address the question.
No you're just being bokners.
It’s like we’re discussing whether Pepsi causes burps.
I’m saying: “Lots of people have been witnessed drinking Pepsi and then burping, we can even test it ourselves.”
You’re saying: “The letter P cannot be proven to exist and that is the first letter in the word Pepsi ergo there is no such thing as Pepsi and so it’s impossible to burp from it.”
I’m simply asking you to provide me empirical evidence that supports the claim assumption that time is infinitely divisible, and you won’t. So therefore you are assuming that it’s true.
But, if time is quantized and discrete, everything you claim falls apart.
The assumption of time is beneath any physics or experiments.
You refuse to engage in providing evidence, you refuse to admit you are assuming something to be true that has NEVER been proven, and you won’t even discuss the outcome if that assumption was wrong.
I guess it’s hard to be honest when you ask someone the right questions.
Look, your position isn that quantum computing doesn’t exist.
Yet in the real world we have quantum computers doing quantum computing.
How are we supposed to have a discussion in light of that contradiction?
Either we resolve that or there's nothing to say.
Send this grump your 170-qubit absolute speed limit of the quantum universe breakthrough research paper!
He might invite you to New Zealand for some mutton and mint sauce.
Every field has grumps (this grump is actually genuinely funny, a well-liked grump you might say).
Look at AI, there’s some clip of the grump Lecun listing off a bunch of things a 2 year old can do but that LLMs will *never ever ever* be able to do because of the fundamental limits of what an LLM actually is.
Spoiler alert, LLMs can now do every singe one of these things and Lecun has now been pushed out of Meta due to Mark Zuckerberg feeling kinda embarrassed about it all.
It's also just patently false to call QM settled science at all. Non-locality was NOT resolved by the Bell's theorem experiments. Superposition is still nonsense. Einstein and Schrodinger were not wrong. Bohr did not "win" the debate.
There has been nothing but obscurantism and verbal tapdancing around the problem. The Copenhagen interpretation declared victory, wrote nonsense into all the textbooks and told everyone that they just weren't smart enough to understand it and if they wanted a career they better "shut up and calculate".
Sound familiar?
That's how we ended up building on sand and ignoring the fact that the best minds in physics in hundreds of years plainly and simply showed that QM as we know it is a broken theory that needs to be replaced with something that actually solves nonlocality. (And not by resorting to "many words" hogwash).
QM is not even close to being settled the way that Newtonian physics and relativity are. It's a jumble of quasi-mystical jive maintained by social fear.
And the PQ migration push is a motivated social attack on cryptography, based on an unfalsifiable, nonsensical threat, based on physics that are known to be broken.
"Reality isn't real and things are nonlocal, which, ignore the contradictions and nonsense terms, it's true despite nothing being real and you can't ever measure it but trust me bro, you're just not smart enough to understand it."
This is fiat science.
It's true because we say so and you will get punished if you question it. Now shut up and calculate. And take your vax, pleb. You're not a virologist!
No.
Don't trust, verify.
You seem lost in a world of "maybe nothing is true at all". (It's not just you, so don't feel bad.)
The results of the experiments speak for themselves.
Either you posit that all the universities, labs, journals, etc., are faking results as part of some massive quantum FUD conspiracy, or you accept those results and reform your understanding of the how the universe works around them.
My friend, you are like a whole a garden of logical falacies.
And your arguments keep boilimg down to "lots of people believe this, therefore it must be true." It's not an argument and its lazy. And boring.
This coming from the 170 logical qubits is the absolute speed limit of the universe and here's my formula and I'm the only one ever to have worked this out guy.
Spare me.
What specifically? The fact that we are able to do genuine quantum computation with what we've got so far is VERY public knowledge.
"everybody knows it's true" is not really evidence
I get that you love bitcoin more than anything on earth and you don’t want mean old Mr. Quantum to hurt her, but for all your logic to emanate from from this emotional (and kinda weird) part of your psyche does not make for enlightening debate.
All your posts are just one long teenage love letter repackaged into science-mush.
Can you provide a link that provides evidence that genuine quantum computing has happened?
Not press releases written by marketing departments, but something like scientific papers or live demonstrations.
I read the paper. It only further reinforced my skepticism.
I don't want to take the time to write a detailed critique, but I think the first peer reviewer's opinions are on point:
The QC "calculations" are totally made up to justify the QC actually doing something beyond random noise. There is zero connection to any practical computation.
I can't believe how many people fall for this shit. It reads like a parody of Eric Weinstein's Theory of Everything. However, the commitment to the bit is impressive.