4 ms·

I'm not sure if that is the case or not but if that is the prediction then they are in good company. Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft also has a cellular automat

I'm not sure if that is the case or not but if that is the prediction then they are in good company. Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft also has a cellular automaton theory and one of his conclusions is: "If engineers ever succeed in making such quantum computers, it seems to me that the CAT is falsified; no classical theory can explain quantum mechanics." By "such quantum computers" he means computers that can run Shor's algorithm. "...but factoring a number with millions of digits into its prime factors will not be possible – unless fundamentally improved classical algorithms turn out to exist." https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

naasking 7y ago
I believe most of these theories essentially suggest that the error correction required to produce a precise and reliable answer from more qubits, will grow faster than the computing power added by those qubits. > no classical theory can explain quantum mechanics." Not sure I can agree with 't Hooft on this. A GR-based theory with closed timelike curves can easily have particles travelling through time to interfere with themselves, and thus reproduce the quantum phenomena like the double-slit experiment. There's been some work on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1gjekn/the_logic_of_quantum_mechanics_derived_from/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1gjekn/the_logic_o...