Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 1
Generated: 06:45:34
You have not engaged in any debate whatsoever. I told you something you didn't want to hear. You either have QC stocks in your bag or you are just high on the scifi. Dodges, childish insults and quantum marketing babble do not constitute "debate". You can't "pump" decoherence. That sounds like it came out of a badly written Startrek. That's just some cringe QC marketing metaphor and not at all accurate. Logical qubits trade size for time against local noise, and only against local noise. Against self-decoherence (N²), they make it quadratically worse. It's not magic and it does "pump" anything but quantum schill bags. Lindblad is the equation for ALL decoherence, including the N² self-interaction term that dominates at scale. Qbits decohere each other. You can't remove that, because that's how they participate in the same wave function. That's why there is a ceiling at ≤170. That's the whole enchilada. I'm tired of repeating myself. Are you going to say I work in a food truck now? I've explained the same thing to you 20 ways and you have had zero valid arguments. I've given you first principles and even the formula and you just dodge and blather. Now you've resorted to petty insults.This has become far too childish and I'm not going to give it more of my time. Good luck with your quantum bags and scifi fever dreams.
2025-12-05 17:57:27 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (1)

I'd pack my bags at this point too if I were you. Let me leave this for anyone who comes across this thread, hoping for a neat conclusion. You have posted a Lindblad argument that assumes the noise scales quadratically. That quadratic scaling is the basis of your N<170qubits. Atom and microsoft have demonstrated logical qubits operating at an error rate four times better than the physical error rate. Other global teams have demonstratd similar. These results are empirical proof that the noise in their systems is correctable, and therefore does not scale quadratically, and therefore the actual noise profile is not following the eventually catastrophic scale path that defines your math (that ends up bing-bong at170) It's one or the other: Either atom and microsoft and quantinium and harvard and everyone else are lying and it’s all a scam—or your argument has already been proved wrong by experiment. Both these things cannot be true at once, that is impossible. Passing reader: which one do you think is true? .
2025-12-05 18:10:18 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply