Stochasticity (randomness) is pervasively used in classical algorithms that one compares to. That is nothing new and has always been part of comparisons.
"Error prone" hardware is not "a stochastic resource". Error prone hardware does not provide any value to computation.
I think you will have best luck by searching for "open quantum systems" toolboxes in your language of choice. My preferences are, in order:
- QuantumOptics.jl in Julia
- QuantumToolbox.jl in Julia
- qutip in python
These are all "just" nice domain specific wrappers around linear algebra and differential equation tools. They do the "silly" exponentially expensive simulation technique that works for any quantum system. If you are interested in efficient (not exponential) simulation techniques that support only a subset of all quantum dynamics try out:
- stabilizer formalism (e.g. for error correction) with QuantumClifford.jl or stim
- Gaussian quantum optics (e.g. for laser physics) with Gabs.jl
- tensor networks (e.g. for arbitrary low-rank entanglement) with ITensors.jl
"deterministic", "superdeterministic", "measurement independence", "local", "causal" and more are well defined terms (with potentially poorly chosen names) in quantum information science and "quantum foundations". She is a crank, but a paragraph like that can be found in essays by well-respected mathematicians, physicists, and computer scientists.
Maybe I wasn’t being clear enough. I know that all those terms have definitions. But in my opinion superdeterminism is not really falsifiable, and in fact very much more problematic than nonlocality as it actually appears in QM contexts.
In the most plain terms, the author is claiming that the collapse of the wave function can be explained deterministically if you just accept that it was preordained.
Superdeterminism is an interpretation, not a theory. It's only falsifiable by falsifying the theory -- which would also falsify any other interpretation.
Which means that "we must use a superdeterministic approach" is incorrect. It means that you may use a superdeterministic approach. If that approach is productive, that may cause people to favor your interpretation. But it does not rule out other interpretations. At most, it can make them sufficiently inconvenient as to dismiss them.
The description she gives of what she is doing is a stellar example of good scientific inquiry.
The problem, or at least my perception of the situation, is that she does not do what she claims to be doing. She forms uninformed opinions optimized to be engaging, interesting, and conspiratorial, instead of boring sound interpretations of what she has read.
The sad thing is that the only way for someone reading this to know whether I am gatekeeping or warning about an actual crank is to do all of this work from scratch yourself.
(I easily concede that there are plenty of problems with the institution of "Science" today -- I just think she exploits the existence of these problems to aggrandize herself instead of engage in fixing them in a productive way)
Its the curse of engagement. If she read the literature and came to a "boring" opinion it would be much harder to gain a following online. It isn't impossible to gain a following without getting conspiratorial, but it is much harder.
While I sympathize with some of your arguments, you are wrong about scholarships. Getting financial aid as a foreign student at an institution like Harvard, Yale, or MIT is the norm.
Independently of political opinion, I believe your edit and anger at downvotes are due to misunderstanding the etiquette of the forum. Forum moderators have repeatedly described the culture here as "downvote without a comment is a perfectly fine way to express disagreement, but of course it would be better if you also comment".
Quantum Information Science classes now exist at most universities. If you have average linear algebra and probability theory knowledge, it is relatively easy to jump into them (without physics background). The Scott Aaronson lecture notes are pretty great: https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec.pdf
reply