Today I received a great question from a reader that was worth posting here. First, he references my paper on the impossibility of scalable quantum computing and says:

*There seems to be nowhere for
anyone to discuss it. Academia is sealed off to the public nowadays. *

Agreed. That’s because, as I discussed in this post, there is an unholy marriage between the prophets of quantum computing and the Cult of U (i.e., the fanatical belief that quantum wave states always evolve linearly). After attempting to submit several papers to the arXiv that questioned the assumption of U, I had assumed I was blacklisted until the unexpected happened.

Then, he asks a key question:

*We hear (ad nauseum) that the
spin on an electron can be both 'up' and 'down' simultaneously, but what does
that actually mean? It may be true in
ket space, but it cannot be true in actual space.*

First, let me point out that this *should* be a
really stupid question. No intelligent person
should ever have to ask, “What does it mean if X is true AND X is false?” Logically, that looks like X ∩ ¬X, which any
logician will say is a contradiction and therefore a false statement.

But here’s the thing… the reader’s question is a perfectly reasonable and rational question in the physics world, because we are constantly bombarded by characterizations of quantum superpositions that are completely nonsensical. For example, Schrodinger’s Cat is constantly described by physicists as “a cat that is both dead and alive simultaneously.” But this is a contradiction and is necessarily false.

This is the kind of logical error that physicists routinely make. I have tried to point them out in papers like this and this.

If an object is in quantum state described by |A> +
|B>, it is simply not the case that the object is in both state |A> and
|B> simultaneously. In fact, none of
the following statements are true:

·
The object is in state |A>.

·
The object is in state |B>.

·
The object is not in state |A>.

· The object is not in state |B>.

Indeed, there simply is no fact about whether the object is in state |A> or |B>.

In other words, dear reader, you have been misled by physicists who either don't understand basic logic or are intentionally trying to deceive the world with bad characterizations of quantum mechanics, because that is what is necessary to keep the investment money flowing into quantum computing.

By the way, infinity itself is also a contradiction. As I discuss in this post, atheist physicists like to posit infinitely many universes to account for the existence of something that has a zero probability. But all contradictions are false, so infinity cannot be used to imply anything true.