Quantum Computer Based Electrical Computer Theory

[Ars Techne]

I've developed a theory of which states that some quantum computers operating properties aren't much different than what we use today in electrical computers. This is saying that Spintronics, some of the storage, and the atomic lattice processors share qualities but not necessarily any entanglement driver.

I have all but proven that under this guideline we live in a quantum world and from it have developed and even reclassified devices under this meta-quantum.

1: All non-entanglement quantum computing devices rely on physical variances to operate. Spintronics operate on spin direction, storage depends on the atomic/compound orientation, Lattice depends on structural basis (little more complex than that but...).

2: If this is true, then a physical variance is all that's required for a quantum computer of this nature.

3: In binary, 1 and 0 is determined by a range of voltages, a variance in the voltage.

4: If more ranges can be isolated, more data values can be use. Trinary, Quaternary, Quinary, and so on.

With this concept, QUAM signals are a quantum signal as it uses a variance in the amplitude and phase. In the same concept, if you change the amplitude and wave length of light for fiber optic. And with that, our eyes are quantum receptors as we can distinguish between these variances.

QR codes data storage can be in increase by using the variance in light as well. A QR with 4 colors can either half the size or double the data.

The list can go on with these examples too, to what I have seen.

This makes sense right?

 

[S0ULphIRE]

You've said a whole bunch of nothing linked together with buzz words and quasi-science. So no, this doesn't make sense. By your definitions, my ethernet is a "quantum system" simply because it uses Convolutional Encoders...

 

[Ars Techne]

And why does it not make sense?

Saying its quasi-science yet you failed to even back your claim. Come back when you can actually argue your point.

Any binary system we have can be expanded upon based on what others claim to be quantum systems. I have only provided the bridge to link the electrical to the atomic work based on their work.

 

[iFargle]

^ calm down, his sig is a joke.

 

[Ars Techne]

Im not being serious anyways, Im just showing him that making a backless statement does nothing for the topic. I used his sig as an example of logical deduction to prove or argue a point. Lol, did you edit my post?

Anywho, back to the topic. This is applied concepts too, not necessarily saying it makes a quantum computer from electrical units. The real concept of a quantum computer uses entanglement, which hasnt been achieved yet.

This does make sense right?

 

[S0ULphIRE]

edit: Honestly, I give up. If you want to talk about making backless statements, have a look at your first post. Feel free to back up your "all but proven" "theory" any time you want

 

[Ars Techne]

edit: Honestly, I give up. If you want to talk about making backless statements, have a look at your first post. Feel free to back up your "all but proven" "theory" any time you want

I have proved it on every basis on my end, but it remains a theory based on the definition of "theory". The correct order is hypothesis, theory, law. A hypothesis is an untested expectation on an out come. After numerous tests individually of conclusive outcomes, it becomes a theory. Only after many people test it multiple times and achieve the same result does it become a law.

Your concept is that a theory is untested, which is untrue. Now "all but proven" and "hypothesis" is oxymoronic, because hypothesis are untested while testing is required to prove something.

So yes, it is, "All but proven" because I can prove on multiple cases that it works. Because it hasnt been tested by multiple people though it remains a, "Theory"

Please stop posting unless you have something more constructive to add to the topic. I'm forgiving this time because it was clear you didnt understand the difference between hypothesis's, theory's and laws.

Edit: If you wish to discuss semantics, PM me or let me start another topic

 

[iFargle]

So.. in what journals are you published again?
Where's the math behind your theories? Where's the nitty gritty? I'd love to read over them (Physics and Computer Science major here)

... I remember this stuff from high school physics

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Plus theories don't "become laws"...and if you're working on a grand unified quantum world theory, I don't know how you couldn't know this...

 

[Ars Techne]

So.. in what journals are you published again?
Where's the math behind your theories? Where's the nitty gritty? I'd love to read over them (Physics and Computer Science major here)

... I remember this stuff from high school physics

Not known well enough, nor have I released enough information to be credible (bad move so far on my end), to be in any journal. Its more applied physics than math, though math is needed to build a circuit which I have kinda done (not an EET major so it was rough balancing the voltage and amps).

The nitty gritty, I do agree, is quite fun, so here is a simple example. Take Spintronics, in layman's terms, uses the spin of an atom to denote a variable. The spin of an atom is a physical property that can be altered, like how voltage is. But lets use visible light for the example, and how the full spectrum combined is viewed as white while none of the spectrum is viewed as black. QR codes are a physical storage means that uses light for data transfer, and say for simplicity that white is 1 and black is 0 (this isnt how it works exactly and is just for the example). What if you use only parts of the spectrum rather than the full this, say green, red, blue, and yellow (denoted by the ink composition on the paper). With these four colors, you have four possible variables rather than the two from just black an white.

so basically, if spintronics can be called a quantum computer, then technically so can any computing device that uses variances in physical properties. But since the grand scheme is the quantum computers use entanglement, neither point in reality are quantum computers. But none the less, computing power can be increased.

Cant remember when it said it was, but there was a debate on using binary or trinary electron tubes. Binary won out because the trinary tech was too unstable as identifying individual variables was difficult due to being unable to differ specified voltages.

Make Sense?