Quantum Randomness (A possible reason why not)

[Gen-X]

There was a post on here earlier about Quantum Computers.

The article discussed how they were going to use 5 particles as the processor of a computer because these particles were able to perform simultaneous calculations.


Assumptions

1. The Feasibility of computers rely on their ability to give predictable and accurate results 100% of the time.

2. The particles used in the computers are quantum particles


False Assumption by Randomists

3. Quantum objects have an aspect of randomness to them.


Conclusion

If quantum particles have an aspect of randomness to them then the use of them within a computer would produce "random" and unpredictable results and thus would fail the tenant of making a computer in the first place.

Therefor, as these scientists (who are all experts in their field) are actually using quantum particles as the CPU for a computer it provides absolute proof that Quantum Objects have no randomness associated with them at all.



I'm interested to hear how people explain this one away.

[()InDiGo)))>]

whoa gen-x, the whole working of a quatum computer depends on the randomness. plack's constant (or was it the heisenburg's uncertainty?) states that you can't detect a position and the speed of the particle at the same time. and so we could represent particles as a cloud, the center being the most likely place that the particle would be and the edge of the cloud being the most unlikly place that thje could would be.
as far as my understanding of the quatum computers go, because the partciles could exist in all places at once, thus giving all the answer to the questions at once. there would be no such thing as "encryption" because when the particles "fall" back to it's place, i twould fall in an infinet different combinations.

errr.... sorry this may seem a little confusing, but i'm not very good at explaining things in a hurry (in work

[Gen-X]

I think you have the wrong idea of what "randomness" is.

Just because we cannot "predict" where the particle is within a cloud doesn't mean there isn't a pattern to it... It just means we don't know it.

What you are saying is that the particle is randomly moving (oscilating? vibrating? wavering?) within a given area for absolutely no reason.

This would require a "force" to be exherted on the particle to make it deviate from its position.

What is that force?

[HarryW]

There is no position to change. It has no position. I think you are misunderstanding, or refusing to understand this. No position means no force required to move it.

[Gen-X]

I am the one misunderstanding???

I like that

He says "Its POSTION can not be determined" and I am the one who is misunderstanding

I know perfectly well the theory behind QM in that a particle is simply a resonance of energy that has NO position. How does that make something random?

[HarryW]

I don't claim to know much about this, it's pretty new to me, but you were asking what the force was. Well, there isn't one. I can't really say much more than that because it's not something I've looked at a lot. I know particle physics and the basics of relativity, that's about as far as my knowledge of this kind of thing goes.

[Sam Finch]

Gen-X

I'd hate to say that you'd missed the point but the whole science of quantum computing is pased on the assumption that quantum events are random, and experiments show it can work, wheras this doesn't prove that it is random it certainly isn't an argument for determinism.

[Gen-X]

Harry

I think you missed the point of my question. I asked it in light of what THEY believed to be true. If what THEY believed to be true it would indicate a force.. by asking them to define what that force was it would highlight the fact they were incorrect in saying "position".

Sam

Actually they don't base it on the assumption that the quantum events are "random"... they actually base it on the fact that it is extremely consistent and dependably repeatable.

Its like neural networks in the 80's... they didn't know HOW they worked... they just knew they worked... Same applies here.

But to say they are basing a computational device on the fact that what they are using to make precise calculations is random is like saying rolling a dice is used as a calculator to add numbers.