<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8216;t Hooft and quantum computation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/</link>
	<description>The curious ways to see the World of a theoretical physicist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:41:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mfrasca</title>
		<link>http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/#comment-4191</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mfrasca]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/?p=4204#comment-4191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear David,

my view on questions about quantum mechanics and relativity is similar to the one given by Steven Weinberg: We incurred in the fundamental laws of nature entailing exactness. So, I personally avoid to try to find what is behind them but rather I like a reformulation work as I did quite recently in http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5091. Given this, I respect the work of colleagues that think differently from me but, of course, I would appreciate to see a couple of conditions to be satisfied:

1) Concrete models.

2) Experimental predictions to check the idea.

Given these, I could admit that a search for a deeper layer to quantum mechanics or relativity should prove to be viable. So far, I have never seen both conditions met.

Marco]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear David,</p>
<p>my view on questions about quantum mechanics and relativity is similar to the one given by Steven Weinberg: We incurred in the fundamental laws of nature entailing exactness. So, I personally avoid to try to find what is behind them but rather I like a reformulation work as I did quite recently in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5091" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5091</a>. Given this, I respect the work of colleagues that think differently from me but, of course, I would appreciate to see a couple of conditions to be satisfied:</p>
<p>1) Concrete models.</p>
<p>2) Experimental predictions to check the idea.</p>
<p>Given these, I could admit that a search for a deeper layer to quantum mechanics or relativity should prove to be viable. So far, I have never seen both conditions met.</p>
<p>Marco</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/#comment-4179</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:54:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/?p=4204#comment-4179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Marco Frasca: have you read any of &#039;t Hoofts most recent papers ? I ask because I&#039;d love to know what you think of his general hypothesis.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marco Frasca: have you read any of &#8216;t Hoofts most recent papers ? I ask because I&#8217;d love to know what you think of his general hypothesis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mfrasca</title>
		<link>http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/#comment-4136</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mfrasca]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/?p=4204#comment-4136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Prof. Shor,

Now I see your point. No, I cannot claim that any many-body quantum system becomes a classical system (I did not do it anywhere), on the basis of these theorems, but that a quite generic effect exists in the limit of an increasing numbers of particles. This is also stated in my post but I think it should made clearer. My take is that such an effect is real, we seem to agree on this, and goes somehow in the direction &#039;t Hooft took. But it does not prove him right either for such an extremist take. Maybe, his theory is in need for further work.

Marco]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Prof. Shor,</p>
<p>Now I see your point. No, I cannot claim that any many-body quantum system becomes a classical system (I did not do it anywhere), on the basis of these theorems, but that a quite generic effect exists in the limit of an increasing numbers of particles. This is also stated in my post but I think it should made clearer. My take is that such an effect is real, we seem to agree on this, and goes somehow in the direction &#8216;t Hooft took. But it does not prove him right either for such an extremist take. Maybe, his theory is in need for further work.</p>
<p>Marco</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Shor</title>
		<link>http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/#comment-4130</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Shor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/?p=4204#comment-4130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The problem is that &#039;t Hooft&#039;s view implies that all quantum many-body systems are classically computable in the limit of very large systems. Theorems that say some but not all quantum systems behave classically in the limit don&#039;t support &#039;t Hooft&#039;s theory.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem is that &#8216;t Hooft&#8217;s view implies that all quantum many-body systems are classically computable in the limit of very large systems. Theorems that say some but not all quantum systems behave classically in the limit don&#8217;t support &#8216;t Hooft&#8217;s theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mfrasca</title>
		<link>http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/#comment-4087</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mfrasca]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:45:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/?p=4204#comment-4087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You misunderstood both the papers and my post. Of course, I never said that a quantum many-body system becomes _always_ classical. But if you read the post with attention you will find that, in some cases, quantum fluctuations are amplified rather than damped and macroscopic quantum behavior happens (one can just think about quantum phase transitions where quantum fluctuations can extend to all the system). The papers just say that classical behavior is really generic for quantum many-body systems and most of them becomes classical systems as the number of components become increasingly large. This makes smaller the set of possible quantum systems that one can think of to build up a quantum computer and it means that a principle exists that bounds the realization of a quantum computer. The proof of existence relies always on people, very smart indeed, that is working in the field. This supports &#039;t Hooft&#039;s view but does not prove him right yet.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You misunderstood both the papers and my post. Of course, I never said that a quantum many-body system becomes _always_ classical. But if you read the post with attention you will find that, in some cases, quantum fluctuations are amplified rather than damped and macroscopic quantum behavior happens (one can just think about quantum phase transitions where quantum fluctuations can extend to all the system). The papers just say that classical behavior is really generic for quantum many-body systems and most of them becomes classical systems as the number of components become increasingly large. This makes smaller the set of possible quantum systems that one can think of to build up a quantum computer and it means that a principle exists that bounds the realization of a quantum computer. The proof of existence relies always on people, very smart indeed, that is working in the field. This supports &#8216;t Hooft&#8217;s view but does not prove him right yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aramharrow</title>
		<link>http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/t-hooft-and-quantum-computation/#comment-4086</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aramharrow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/?p=4204#comment-4086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Those papers seem to say that in some cases, quantum systems appear to be classical.  But it doesn&#039;t follow that quantum systems _always_ appear classical.  Thus, I don&#039;t see how they support &#039;t Hooft&#039;s idea, or any other skeptical take on quantum computing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those papers seem to say that in some cases, quantum systems appear to be classical.  But it doesn&#8217;t follow that quantum systems _always_ appear classical.  Thus, I don&#8217;t see how they support &#8216;t Hooft&#8217;s idea, or any other skeptical take on quantum computing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
