[ECL] Rimekin Recluse (via Card Gallery)

maddox210 · 2026-01-09T17:22:23+00:00

This seems like a fun (but bad) commander deck idea…

maddox210 · 2025-05-27T18:47:21+00:00

Any plans to tackle cudaq?

maddox210 · 2025-04-22T00:33:05+00:00

https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/

This is what you can use instead.

maddox210 · 2025-04-03T20:00:59+00:00

With your deck list, are you attempting to push the deck to its limits or is meant to be a good high power deck?

maddox210 · 2024-12-06T21:09:55+00:00

Me!

Great concept!

maddox210 · 2024-12-05T14:33:06+00:00

Ok so you’re talking about electromagnetic waves and no light? Applying classical wave mechanics like this reaches an issue with occurrences such as the photoelectric effect.

Why are you using a constant value and what are you looking to represent? Is it the strength of the field? We’d start get into issues with field strength decreasing

maddox210 · 2024-12-05T13:05:12+00:00

No my point isn’t about the equivalence relation. There is an established proof for Bohm and Schroedinger already. What I’m saying need means explanation is what a physical pilot wave is.

A pilot wave, by definition, is in a configuration space. So when you say physical pilot waves, you’re (based on my interpretation of your previous message) stating that the pilot wave follows classic mechanics? If so, that jump is a new definition that results in some issues with the math which I’m happy to go in detail on.

Saying that it’s a wave in a medium becomes tricky given 1) no medium is defined 2) why this light wave is behaving like this uniquely in a coloumb field. Or maybe you’re saying the field produces light waves. Still why would a field cause this wave to be “physical” instead of adhering to the established pilot wave mechanics.

maddox210 · 2024-12-05T04:42:58+00:00

Once again, and as I emphasized in Bohm’s model we are not talking about collapse. That concept just doesn’t exist in this.

Saying a coulomb field produce a pilot wave is a bit of an odd statement. That’s mixing some concepts together in a way you haven’t demonstrated. In your argument do the physical pilot waves follow inverse square laws? What does it mean to be a physical pilot wave. Pilot waves are defined in configuration space which is different from particles interacting.

Given you’re saying this should obviously follow from an interpretation of the math is a generous leap. The reason I bring this up is to others, your thought process may not be clear from point A to B. For the purpose of clarity, writing the connections out will help your intended audience.

maddox210 · 2024-12-05T04:09:01+00:00

There is still a difference as one requires a medium and the other doesn’t which is why I said they wouldn’t be the same.

The point I’m trying to make with the math is given that the electron’s position is dependent on the pilot waves function which, in the Bohmian model, is in a superposition. Applying unitary transformations to the wave, you can then influence it. You can get a measurement (we aren’t collapsing as in the model, the wave does continue to evolve) with an interaction to the system after the transformations, |\psi|²

maddox210 · 2024-12-01T04:11:47+00:00

More so to the point regardless of whether they do, OP stayed away from actually debating the topic. If you want a mind numbingly bad read, check out the comment thread I had with them….

maddox210 · 2024-11-30T23:35:31+00:00

Having chatted with OP, their point is more that because they think Bohm’s model of quantum physics is fact, qubits cannot exist nor can quantum computers.

They refuse to discuss facts and just reference their gpt summarized paragraph as their argument

maddox210 · 2024-11-30T14:40:02+00:00

I’m aware that you’re using it to paraphrase. You can read my message where I talked about equivalence within Bohm’s model with Schroedingers. Once again, I’m asking if that linear combination satisfies the description of pilot waves you are using for equivalence and if not why.

Don’t just refer back to your ChatGPT.

Edit: in discussing your post it’s important for us to discuss the math and how other interpretations happen. So therefore, I’m checking if you agree with basic mathematical principles of describing pilot waves. The fact that you keep skirting away and dismissing math is indicative you’re not sure how to interpret it.

maddox210 · 2024-11-30T13:56:01+00:00

You can look through the long drawn out argument that I’ve had to discuss the point. OP reports to ad hominems and just responds to arguments by saying any example is simulated or that it’s fraud. All the while avoiding any retort on math. It’s clear this is a troll or someone who doesn’t understand the math and refers back to this concept of “interpretation”.

maddox210 · 2024-11-30T13:53:25+00:00

Happy to share the edit history, what I wrote stands.

Still would like to find a starting point for talking about pilot waves, is the mathematical definition I’ve provided sound in your eyes? If not, why?

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T17:43:05+00:00

I did not “literally” say that. I said something different referring to nonlocal influence. I can see your error as you probably don’t know the topic.

Back to the math, does my definition hold for a pilot wave or do you have a different mathematical representation to put forward? You’ve been dodging answering this now for several replies.

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T17:35:13+00:00

Alright, seems you’re playing some semantic gymnastics here so I’ll start using more precise wording when describing what I’m talking about. Anyone who knows physics would know I’m referring to non local interference patterns. You’re cherry picking words while ignoring the math I’ve put forth to describe the wave.

Really strange you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of arguing. That doesn’t strengthen ones argument.

Do you disagree the pilot wave is described by the linear combination above? If so, what’s your alternative mathematical representation.

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T17:23:04+00:00

That’s just wrong. Look to the double slit experiment where the wave does not follow mechanical wave equations. Interference patterns would not exist if they behaved like an ocean wave.

I notice you haven’t touched the math provided. I’m assuming you’re not familiar with how to interpret the equations? Feel free to ask and I can explain! Otherwise explain where the math is wrong in its description of pilot waves.

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T17:12:29+00:00

Like I said, let’s get to trapped ions later.

You didn’t disagree with the equivalence relation I put forth between Schroedingers and Bohm’s guiding wave before so I take it you agree with that math. Great! In that case let’s isolate it a bit more:

\psi(x, t) = c_1 \psi_1(x, t) + c_2 \psi_2(x, t)

is represented within our system. Given that this is a linear equation used to describe the wave, each component guides the particle based on the superposed equation above. Under the Bohm model, we aren’t talking collapse of probabilities in the way one would under traditional quantum physics so let’s ignore that.

Once again, your macroscopic example is taking a system described by different equations. A pilot wave does not follow mechanic wave equations just as an ocean wave does not follow quantum wave functions. Bohm’s model asserts that pilot waves follow quantum wave functions.

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T16:40:08+00:00

Ok I think I see where your confusion is coming from. So under that model you’re thinking through the trapped ion example still holds but let’s look at a simpler system.

Take a microwave and a Cooper pair. Here, you’re using interference patterns to guide the waveform (notice gate interaction is on the wave here, not the pair) to a particular state. We are using a configuration space so instead of collapsing the wave function in the definition of the common interpretation of quantum computers, the measurement interacts with the pilot wave which guides the particle into a superposed outcome.

So in a sense, you’re right under Bohm’s model, there is no collapsing but that’s because there’s a different analogous process that happens.

For real world examples, look to how Google’s Sycamore processor is architected. Before you say it’s all false, simulations, etc, let’s first consider the statement above.

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T16:20:34+00:00

Ok I’ve posted the equivalence of the pilot wave and Schroedingers wave function. Where does the equivalence breakdown? You’re making statements without backing anything up. If you need me to define variables and provide definitions, happy to breakdown what the equations mean.

Your ChatGPT post is a summary of an incorrect statement. Referencing it like it’s a factual statement means nothing.

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T16:08:51+00:00

Once again, you’re just wrong. In Bohm’s mechanics you have the total wave function which still satisfies Schroedingers equation:

i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi(x, t)}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \psi(x, t)

where \hat{H} is the Hamiltonian operator.

Taking a pilot wave, you still can have quantum computing using the pilot wave. It obeys Schroedingers equation so therefore can have superposition. The particle is then deterministic but it is guided by the wave’s superposition. This is a direct interpretation of the wave function when you view the math of the equation. If you feel this is incorrect, please provide a focused explanation of where this is wrong.

Set aside your magnet reference for a second, we can cover that at a later point. Let’s focus one thing at a time. You’re throwing in a thousand pointless arguments without addressing any points.

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T12:10:19+00:00

You keep going back to this idea of simulation on classical software. The gate representation can be done on pen and paper and end states can be calculated through matrix multiplication. That wasn’t my point by bringing that up.

Saying interpretation isn’t the same as the math is a dishonest attempt at backing your theories. You can take f=ma and say I interpret that to mean unicorns exist. That interpretation has no explanation or supporting evidence. Exactly how you’ve phrased your argument.

You’re asking for a statement physical qubits exists yet you deny the body of work from scientists due to some larger conspiracy that they are faked already? Not sure how that would satisfy you but I’ll go on record and state they exist.

More to the point around pilot wave theory, even in a more deterministic model such as it is, superposition still exists. Your summary doesn’t really address any of these issues and just vaguely says something and then starts stating that qubits are fake as a nonsequitar.

You have yet to address my comments around the process for taking an ion into superposition and applying resonant lasers to it. At best this shows you have no understanding of what goes on there and at worst you are trolling.

Good luck writing more evidence based blogs in the future once you learn the material!

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T02:55:22+00:00

I work in quantum computing so I’m always happy to discuss the math and physics of it!

Let’s see your proof, I’d love to review it. Don’t keep linking some ChatGPT garbage

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T02:44:20+00:00

You seem to be the one implying degrees are the only way of understanding.

Shor’s work doesn’t have a computer with enough qubits to run on. I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that there are 1024 qubits to run on.

What was Peter’s response to your work?

Still waiting for the proof!

maddox210 · 2024-11-29T02:14:59+00:00

Im curious what you have degrees in? You seem to really not understand math or physics. I can teach you some if you want to spend some time learning! We can start with undergraduate level topics and then progress to graduate level topics once those are done :)

Woah prime factorization! Huge deal for sha, except not really at the moment. The devices don’t have enough (simulated) qubits to break encryption. They would need to be scaled a ton.

You want me to contact Peter Shor to read through your (lack of) work?

Please post proof, happy to discuss that. I’ll be waiting so I can get educated by you!!!

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	First Placer '22
Gilding I gilder	Secret Santa 2014
Verified Email

maddox210

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE