On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:26:38 PM UTC, John Heath wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 1:32:26 PM UTC-5, ben wrote:   
   >  .....   
      
   > There are times when one is too close to a problem to solve it. Good   
   > time to  step back for a broader picture.   
   > ....   
   >  If entanglement is true then it follows that we should   
   > have quantum computers. Do we have quantum computers? I   
   > have a rule of thumb formula to answer this question   
   > with (N + W + M)^3 .   
   >   
   >  N  average Number of letters in words , scale 1 to 10   
   >   
   >  W  White lab coat with formulas in the background , scale 1 to 10   
   >  M  does he want Money , scale 1 to 10   
   > N=2 + W=2 + M=2 = 6^3 216 good stuff should take notes   
   > N=5 + W=5 + M=5 = 15^3 3375 maybe   
   > N=8 + W=8 + M=8 = 24^3 13824 red flag , extreme caution   
   >   
   > Presentations I have seen on the new qubit quantum   
   > computers are in the N=8 , W=8 and M=8 range.   
      
   I agree with the sentiments but I am just an amateur. I have a vixra   
   paper on the matters I have raised above at   
   http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0327   
   for which I would guess N=1, W=2, M=0.   
      
   > Time to reconsider. It can not be Bell as the thinking is   
   > clear with little room to argue.   
      
   Not so sure about that.  Real experiments seem to have broken   
   inequalities but there are loopholes continually being raised.  A 2015   
   experiment had results based on only 245 pairs of particles.   
      
   > In any event a   
   > functioning quantum computer is not in our near future   
   > according to the NWM scale. Maybe a second look at   
   > the finer details of how a Bell test is done is   
   > in order.   
      
   I have a draft paper looking at the CHSH statistic used in real   
   experiments and seeing how sensitive the statistic is to experimental   
   error.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)