I haven’t paid much attention to quantum computing before now (January 1, 2020) and it is probably about time I dipped my toe into it. I’ll start by reviewing basic information I find on YouTube and vendor sites.

**IBM**

I can help. The team needs to take a look at the de Broglie-Bohm non-local solution to quantum mechanics and then my work at johnmarkmorris.com for the physical implementation of nature as well as the grand narrative. Anyway, it sounds like you all are nearing the scale of nature, so the sooner you realize spacetime is implemented by particles, the better. Contact me. Who else do you all compete with? I need to go give them a heads up too. Intel? Google? Oh heck, there are a lot of them…. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_quantum_computing_or_communication

Maybe I should be clearer and more to the point. Why are you messing around at the level you describe when you can do so much better and it is not that much farther away? You should be investing in research towards technology that can leverage the continuous and/or discrete energy changes in particle shells based on their harmonic wave equation and neighbor energy. Ultimately a single particle (proton, neutron, electron, neutrino, photon, spacetime axion/graviton) can store a huge number of states based on shell wave equation and energy. The tough part is the memory core design, the information storing apparatus, and information retrieving apparatus. The main point is that instead of {up, down}, or {up,down,indeterminate), you can have {n states} per particle where n is probably limited by our technology for a long time to come. We’re talking the world of frequencies from 0 to the Planck frequency in steps of 1, ultimately in the limit.

This whole idea of entanglement and harnessing the weird effects…. How can I draw an analogy. It’s like if you had 1000 chess games with novices sitting on the left playing white and chess masters sitting on the right playing black. Well then you could predict that the percentage of black pieces would likely increase, or if you could see the actual pieces, that your scoring algorithm on black pieces by type and number would dominate. You will notice that this has nothing to do with how chess is played or which piece is on which square. It is all based on novices vs. masters and a count by color. That is how far off we are in quantum computing. See johnmarkmorris.com and contact me. I can help.

OK, in the first case with the two separated particles that are measured first and compare later, that is fine. Energy is conserved. So if Shell A has x units of energy and Shell B has y units of energy, then whatever way we entangle them, the shell energy still adds to x + y. So go measure m and n at the ends of the universe. It’s always going to be the case that x + y = m + n. Of course there will be a correlation. This is not a magic trick folks. It’s simple classical physics and conservation laws, which are a consequence of symmetry per Emily Noether, underpinning quantum mechanics and general relativity.

I think you are at a level of abstraction which is much higher than nature and also much more complicated. Nature is much simpler. Every particle has a shell – including typical particles we know (proton, neutron, electron, neutrino, photon) as well as the spacetime particle, such as an axion or graviton. The energy of the shell is the key. Energy is conserved. Energy transactions are discrete. Energy ebb and flow between neighbors is continuous and lossless.

It seems to me that nature is several orders of magnitude below the effects you are talking about in this video. Wouldn’t it be better to understand how nature really works before determining where to invest in a next generation of computing technology? You could examine investment/return for several different options along the scale with complete knowledge of nature. See johnmarkmorris.com. Contact me. I’d be glad to help.

This video by Sarah Sheldon is really fascinating. It mentions the type of gates. I’ll try to extract the key info although I’m not sure of the spelling.

“A gate is any operation that changes the state of the qubit.”

If you think about it, this is an upgrade in terminology from traditional computers where a gate was perhaps more specific to the technology and often the state passes through and may change in the gate, whereas the new terminology also allows for the gate to pass through the state which may change as the gate passes. How cools is that?

“Physically a gate is performed by applying microwave pulses that are carefully calibrated and on resonance with the Qubit transition frequency. “

“Picture a cubit as a vector on the surface of a sphere where 0 is north and 1 is south and superposition is anywhere on the equator”

**X(Qubit) gate** : Bit flip gate.

- Qubit=0 > X > Qubit=1
- If Qubit is 0 it will change to 1 (180 degree rotate around x-axis)
- What are transitions for 1, and 0+1?

**H gate** : Hadamard gate.

- Qubit=0 > H > Qubit=0+1
- Performs a rotation around x and z axis that takes qbit from 0 to the superposition 0 + 1
- Qubit=0+1 > H > Qubit=0
- A second Hadamard gate rotates the Qubit back to 0
- What is the transition for Qubit=1?

**C-Not(Q0,Q1) gate** : generates entanglement between pairs of Qubits.

- C-Not performs conditional rotations on a target Qubit depending on the state of a control Qubit. Let’s say Q0 is control and Q1 is target.
- C-Not(Q0, Q1) results in Q0=0, Q1 is unchanged.
- C-Not(Q0=1,Q1=?) then Q1 rotates by 180 degrees.
- C-Not(Q0=0+1,Q1=?) the final state is 00+11 which is a fully entangled two Qubit state

I need to do more research

- learn all the other transitions.
- how many atoms are required per Qubit?
- how may photons are required to implement a gate?

*J Mark Morris* : *San Diego : California : January 1, 2020 : v1*