Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Self-Learning Computers Versus Quantum Computers

Sylwester Kornowski

Published Dec 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Here we answer the following extremely important questions. Why, contrary to obvious experimental facts, is it denied that quantum entanglement carries information at superluminal speed? Why quantum mechanics is an illusion? Why self-learning (mental) computers based on the classical superposition will be most creative?

Related papers

Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?

Princeton University Press eBooks•Apr 24, 2015•11 citations

Quantum mechanics and reality

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?

Physics Today•Sep 1, 1970•678 citations

Quantum Learning Speed-up with Classical Training Data

Joong-Sung Lee, Jeongho Bang, Sunghyuk Hong +4 more

The primary question in the emerging field of machine learning (QML) is: can we achieve speed-up of machine learning? and/or what and how the effects contribute to the speed-up? The positive answers to such questions have recently been provided, for example, by the support vector machine (QSVM) which classifies many data vectors exponentially fast. However, to realize such an exponential learning speed-up, it is demanded to develop full-scale computer with a specific device, so-called quantum random access memory (QRAM)---which stores the classical big data, extremely fast, in the novel form of being quantum-mechanically superposed. Therefore, another question now arises: is it possible to attain learning speed-up even with the classical training data, and hence, requiring no full-scale computer and QRAM? To seek a satisfactory answer to this question, we consider a binary classification learning where the classicality of the training data are preserved. We then focus on a small unit structure for whole classification task, in which the minimum achievable learning speed-up would be exhibited. We provide the analysis and proof-of-principle experimental validation of a certain degree of learning speed-up in such a small unit, advocating an affirmative answer to the aforementioned main question. Through further investigation, it is also shown that our QML scheme is quite robust against the decoherence.

•Jun 5, 2017•0 citations

Quantum algorithms

Bilha Segev

I review a few of the most famous quantum algorithms, and discuss them from a practical perspective. What should a quantum system be able to do, in principle, to qualify as a quantum computer for which these algorithms work? The role of superposition, parallelism, and entanglement is discussed.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Jul 31, 2002•0 citations

On Quantum Computation

Mika Hirvensalo

As early as 1982 Richard P. Feynman suggested that it might be impossible to simulate quantum mechanical phenomena with a computer without an exponential slowdown the efficiency of computation. He also proposed that this problem may be avoided by allowing the computer to run according to the laws of quantum mechanics, thus implicitely suggesting that a computer based on the quantum mechanical systems, a quantum computer, might have exponentially more computational efficiency than any classical one. A quantum mechanical phenomenon that never occurs classical physics and which actually makes quantum computation interesting and powerful, is the superposition of states, which, loosely speaking, means that instead of being totally one single state, a particle can be in between many states. Compare this to the elements of classical computer, bits. A bit takes values zero or one, but never anything between. In a quantum computer, one is able to store it both values simultaneously one quantum bit, equally weighted or not. Moreover, the classical computer one can store a number from zero to $2^n-1$ a register of length $n$, whereas, quantum computation, all the values could be stored simultaneously. The computation, which is performed via unitary transformations the state vector space, then applies to all these values simultaneously. Thus the power of the quantum computation lies not the absolute speed of the hypothetetical quantum computer but the possibility to actually follow many computational path simultaneously, as a nondeterministic automaton does. Alas, the observation of the outcome will yield only one value destroying the rest irreversibly. However, using a procedure smart enough one could obtain some valuable information about the computation.

•May 14, 1997•5 citations

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as the Theories Dependent on the Observer/Detector

Sylwester Kornowski

General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are the theories dependent on the observer/detector so they are not the theories of the independent from observer Nature. In GR it follows from the fact that each act of observation (the photon-detector interaction via exchanges of the invisible superluminal particles responsible for quantum entanglement i.e. there are exchanged the spin-1 entanglons) sets the speed of light in “vacuum” c in relation to the detector (the speed c is in relation to the emitter or a last-interaction object - sometimes it is a detector). In QM it results from the fact that we cannot observe the entanglons directly and because time of observation lasts much longer than the time of exchanges of the invisible superluminal entanglons so there appear wavefunctions, superposition of states, and probabilities to find a particle in different states. Simultaneity of different states of the same particle is an illusion that appears only in the theories dependent on the observer. There must be in existence a more fundamental theory, which should be a theory of Nature independent on the observer - it is the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST). SST leads to the initial conditions applied in GR and QM and shows that these theories are dependent on the observer. Moreover, SST shows that we cannot unify GR and QM within the same methods. SST shows that Nature behaves classically in a deterministic way but it does not mean that the free will is not in existence.

•Nov 1, 2016•0 citations
Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?
Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?
The primary question in the emerging field of machine learning (QML) is: can we achieve speed-up of machine learning? and/or what and how the effects contribute to the speed-up? The positive answers to such questions have recently been provided, for example, by the support vector machine (QSVM) which classifies many data vectors exponentially fast. However, to realize such an exponential learning speed-up, it is demanded to develop full-scale computer with a specific device, so-called quantum random access memory (QRAM)---which stores the classical big data, extremely fast, in the novel form of being quantum-mechanically superposed. Therefore, another question now arises: is it possible to attain learning speed-up even with the classical training data, and hence, requiring no full-scale computer and QRAM? To seek a satisfactory answer to this question, we consider a binary classification learning where the classicality of the training data are preserved. We then focus on a small unit structure for whole classification task, in which the minimum achievable learning speed-up would be exhibited. We provide the analysis and proof-of-principle experimental validation of a certain degree of learning speed-up in such a small unit, advocating an affirmative answer to the aforementioned main question. Through further investigation, it is also shown that our QML scheme is quite robust against the decoherence.
As early as 1982 Richard P. Feynman suggested that it might be impossible to simulate quantum mechanical phenomena with a computer without an exponential slowdown the efficiency of computation. He also proposed that this problem may be avoided by allowing the computer to run according to the laws of quantum mechanics, thus implicitely suggesting that a computer based on the quantum mechanical systems, a quantum computer, might have exponentially more computational efficiency than any classical one. A quantum mechanical phenomenon that never occurs classical physics and which actually makes quantum computation interesting and powerful, is the superposition of states, which, loosely speaking, means that instead of being totally one single state, a particle can be in between many states. Compare this to the elements of classical computer, bits. A bit takes values zero or one, but never anything between. In a quantum computer, one is able to store it both values simultaneously one quantum bit, equally weighted or not. Moreover, the classical computer one can store a number from zero to 2n−12^n-12n−1 a register of length nnn, whereas, quantum computation, all the values could be stored simultaneously. The computation, which is performed via unitary transformations the state vector space, then applies to all these values simultaneously. Thus the power of the quantum computation lies not the absolute speed of the hypothetetical quantum computer but the possibility to actually follow many computational path simultaneously, as a nondeterministic automaton does. Alas, the observation of the outcome will yield only one value destroying the rest irreversibly. However, using a procedure smart enough one could obtain some valuable information about the computation.
General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are the theories dependent on the observer/detector so they are not the theories of the independent from observer Nature. In GR it follows from the fact that each act of observation (the photon-detector interaction via exchanges of the invisible superluminal particles responsible for quantum entanglement i.e. there are exchanged the spin-1 entanglons) sets the speed of light in “vacuum” c in relation to the detector (the speed c is in relation to the emitter or a last-interaction object - sometimes it is a detector). In QM it results from the fact that we cannot observe the entanglons directly and because time of observation lasts much longer than the time of exchanges of the invisible superluminal entanglons so there appear wavefunctions, superposition of states, and probabilities to find a particle in different states. Simultaneity of different states of the same particle is an illusion that appears only in the theories dependent on the observer. There must be in existence a more fundamental theory, which should be a theory of Nature independent on the observer - it is the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST). SST leads to the initial conditions applied in GR and QM and shows that these theories are dependent on the observer. Moreover, SST shows that we cannot unify GR and QM within the same methods. SST shows that Nature behaves classically in a deterministic way but it does not mean that the free will is not in existence.