Today I read in New Scientist of a recent paper by Tim Palmer on “Rational Quantum Mechanics” or RaQM, based on the concept that Hilbert Space, in which quantum events occur, is discretised. This leads to the same predicted outcomes from all experiments carried out to date, but does not require (allegedly) quantum “spookiness”, such as action at a distance.

If the theory is correct, it would put a limit on what can be done with quantum computers, such that it should be testable within a few years.

The abstract, and a link to the full paper, can be found at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02877

and a lengthy discussion of the work at:
https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/rational-quantum-mechanics-raqm

Here’s the abstract:

“Rational Quantum Mechanics: Testing Quantum Theory with Quantum Computers

Tim Palmer

Motivated in part by John Wheeler’s assertion that the continuum nature of Hilbert Space conceals the `it-from-bit’ information-theoretic character of the quantum wavefunction, a theory of quantum physics (Rational Quantum Mechanics – RaQM) is proposed based on a specific discretisation of complex Hilbert Space. The Schrödinger equation is not modified in RaQM, even during measurement. However, the bases in which the quantum state is defined must satisfy certain rational-number constraints. These constraints lead to the notion of finite qubit information capacity Nmax: for any N>Nmax qubit state, there is insufficient information in the N qubits (linearly growing in N) to allocate even one bit to each of all 2N+1−2 continuum degrees of freedom (exponentially growing in N) associated with quantum mechanics/theory (QM, where Nmax=∞). It is proposed that the discretisation of Hilbert Space in RaQM is due to gravity, hence QM is the (singular) continuum limit of RaQM at G=0. On this basis, it is estimated that Nmax lies between about 200 and 400 for current qubit technologies, and will never exceed 1,000. Whilst QM and RaQM are experimentally indistinguishable for small numbers of qubits, RaQM predicts that the exponential advantage of quantum algorithms which, like Shor’s, require bases with maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement, will have saturated at 1,000 perfect qubits. Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer won’t either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 years.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I read in New Scientist of a recent paper by Tim Palmer on “Rational Quantum Mechanics” or RaQM, based on the concept that Hilbert Space, in which quantum events occur, is discretised. This leads to the same predicted outcomes from all experiments carried out to date, but does not require (allegedly) quantum “spookiness”, such as action at a distance.

If the theory is correct, it would put a limit on what can be done with quantum computers, such that it should be testable within a few years.

The abstract, and a link to the full paper, can be found at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02877

and a lengthy discussion of the work at:
https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/rational-quantum-mechanics-raqm

Here’s the abstract:

“Rational Quantum Mechanics: Testing Quantum Theory with Quantum Computers

Tim Palmer

Motivated in part by John Wheeler’s assertion that the continuum nature of Hilbert Space conceals the `it-from-bit’ information-theoretic character of the quantum wavefunction, a theory of quantum physics (Rational Quantum Mechanics – RaQM) is proposed based on a specific discretisation of complex Hilbert Space. The Schrödinger equation is not modified in RaQM, even during measurement. However, the bases in which the quantum state is defined must satisfy certain rational-number constraints. These constraints lead to the notion of finite qubit information capacity Nmax: for any N>Nmax qubit state, there is insufficient information in the N qubits (linearly growing in N) to allocate even one bit to each of all 2N+1−2 continuum degrees of freedom (exponentially growing in N) associated with quantum mechanics/theory (QM, where Nmax=∞). It is proposed that the discretisation of Hilbert Space in RaQM is due to gravity, hence QM is the (singular) continuum limit of RaQM at G=0. On this basis, it is estimated that Nmax lies between about 200 and 400 for current qubit technologies, and will never exceed 1,000. Whilst QM and RaQM are experimentally indistinguishable for small numbers of qubits, RaQM predicts that the exponential advantage of quantum algorithms which, like Shor’s, require bases with maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement, will have saturated at 1,000 perfect qubits. Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer won’t either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 years.”

Let’s hope he’s right, and that this inspires someone to explain it in English.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I read in New Scientist of a recent paper by Tim Palmer on “Rational Quantum Mechanics” or RaQM, based on the concept that Hilbert Space, in which quantum events occur, is discretised. This leads to the same predicted outcomes from all experiments carried out to date, but does not require (allegedly) quantum “spookiness”, such as action at a distance.

If the theory is correct, it would put a limit on what can be done with quantum computers, such that it should be testable within a few years.

The abstract, and a link to the full paper, can be found at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02877

and a lengthy discussion of the work at:
https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/rational-quantum-mechanics-raqm

Here’s the abstract:

“Rational Quantum Mechanics: Testing Quantum Theory with Quantum Computers

Tim Palmer

Motivated in part by John Wheeler’s assertion that the continuum nature of Hilbert Space conceals the `it-from-bit’ information-theoretic character of the quantum wavefunction, a theory of quantum physics (Rational Quantum Mechanics – RaQM) is proposed based on a specific discretisation of complex Hilbert Space. The Schrödinger equation is not modified in RaQM, even during measurement. However, the bases in which the quantum state is defined must satisfy certain rational-number constraints. These constraints lead to the notion of finite qubit information capacity Nmax: for any N>Nmax qubit state, there is insufficient information in the N qubits (linearly growing in N) to allocate even one bit to each of all 2N+1−2 continuum degrees of freedom (exponentially growing in N) associated with quantum mechanics/theory (QM, where Nmax=∞). It is proposed that the discretisation of Hilbert Space in RaQM is due to gravity, hence QM is the (singular) continuum limit of RaQM at G=0. On this basis, it is estimated that Nmax lies between about 200 and 400 for current qubit technologies, and will never exceed 1,000. Whilst QM and RaQM are experimentally indistinguishable for small numbers of qubits, RaQM predicts that the exponential advantage of quantum algorithms which, like Shor’s, require bases with maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement, will have saturated at 1,000 perfect qubits. Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer won’t either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 years.”

Let’s hope he’s right, and that this inspires someone to explain it in English.

Preferably without mentioning cats that are dead and alive at the same time.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Today I read in New Scientist of a recent paper by Tim Palmer on “Rational Quantum Mechanics” or RaQM, based on the concept that Hilbert Space, in which quantum events occur, is discretised. This leads to the same predicted outcomes from all experiments carried out to date, but does not require (allegedly) quantum “spookiness”, such as action at a distance.

If the theory is correct, it would put a limit on what can be done with quantum computers, such that it should be testable within a few years.

The abstract, and a link to the full paper, can be found at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02877

and a lengthy discussion of the work at:
https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/rational-quantum-mechanics-raqm

Here’s the abstract:

“Rational Quantum Mechanics: Testing Quantum Theory with Quantum Computers

Tim Palmer

Motivated in part by John Wheeler’s assertion that the continuum nature of Hilbert Space conceals the `it-from-bit’ information-theoretic character of the quantum wavefunction, a theory of quantum physics (Rational Quantum Mechanics – RaQM) is proposed based on a specific discretisation of complex Hilbert Space. The Schrödinger equation is not modified in RaQM, even during measurement. However, the bases in which the quantum state is defined must satisfy certain rational-number constraints. These constraints lead to the notion of finite qubit information capacity Nmax: for any N>Nmax qubit state, there is insufficient information in the N qubits (linearly growing in N) to allocate even one bit to each of all 2N+1−2 continuum degrees of freedom (exponentially growing in N) associated with quantum mechanics/theory (QM, where Nmax=∞). It is proposed that the discretisation of Hilbert Space in RaQM is due to gravity, hence QM is the (singular) continuum limit of RaQM at G=0. On this basis, it is estimated that Nmax lies between about 200 and 400 for current qubit technologies, and will never exceed 1,000. Whilst QM and RaQM are experimentally indistinguishable for small numbers of qubits, RaQM predicts that the exponential advantage of quantum algorithms which, like Shor’s, require bases with maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement, will have saturated at 1,000 perfect qubits. Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer won’t either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 years.”

Let’s hope he’s right, and that this inspires someone to explain it in English.

Preferably without mentioning cats that are dead and alive at the same time.

yeah but what is populist disframing of SCIENCE if not for shitty analogies and parables

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Let’s hope he’s right, and that this inspires someone to explain it in English.

Preferably without mentioning cats that are dead and alive at the same time.

yeah but what is populist disframing of SCIENCE if not for shitty analogies and parables

I’ll have a guess at converting it to english

Converting continuous analogue data to discrete digital packets of information, will always lose accuracy, so it tends to take an average, but Im not sure about putting a limit on it.
So they’re using mathematics and physics to find that limit?

Motivated in part by John Wheeler’s assertion that the continuum nature of Hilbert Space conceals the `it-from-bit’ information-theoretic character of the quantum wavefunction, a theory of quantum physics (Rational Quantum Mechanics – RaQM) is proposed based on a specific discretisation of complex Hilbert Space. The Schrödinger equation is not modified in RaQM, even during measurement. However, the bases in which the quantum state is defined must satisfy certain rational-number constraints. These constraints lead to the notion of finite qubit information capacity Nmax: for any N>Nmax qubit state, there is insufficient information in the N qubits (linearly growing in N) to allocate even one bit to each of all 2N+1−2 continuum degrees of freedom (exponentially growing in N) associated with quantum mechanics/theory (QM, where Nmax=∞). It is proposed that the discretisation of Hilbert Space in RaQM is due to gravity, hence QM is the (singular) continuum limit of RaQM at G=0. On this basis, it is estimated that Nmax lies between about 200 and 400 for current qubit technologies, and will never exceed 1,000. Whilst QM and RaQM are experimentally indistinguishable for small numbers of qubits, RaQM predicts that the exponential advantage of quantum algorithms which, like Shor’s, require bases with maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement, will have saturated at 1,000 perfect qubits. Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer won’t either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 years.

”

Cymek said:

Motivated in part by John Wheeler’s assertion that the continuum nature of Hilbert Space conceals the `it-from-bit’ information-theoretic character of the quantum wavefunction, a theory of quantum physics (Rational Quantum Mechanics – RaQM) is proposed based on a specific discretisation of complex Hilbert Space. The Schrödinger equation is not modified in RaQM, even during measurement. However, the bases in which the quantum state is defined must satisfy certain rational-number constraints. These constraints lead to the notion of finite qubit information capacity Nmax: for any N>Nmax qubit state, there is insufficient information in the N qubits (linearly growing in N) to allocate even one bit to each of all 2N+1−2 continuum degrees of freedom (exponentially growing in N) associated with quantum mechanics/theory (QM, where Nmax=∞). It is proposed that the discretisation of Hilbert Space in RaQM is due to gravity, hence QM is the (singular) continuum limit of RaQM at G=0. On this basis, it is estimated that Nmax lies between about 200 and 400 for current qubit technologies, and will never exceed 1,000. Whilst QM and RaQM are experimentally indistinguishable for small numbers of qubits, RaQM predicts that the exponential advantage of quantum algorithms which, like Shor’s, require bases with maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement, will have saturated at 1,000 perfect qubits. Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer won’t either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 years.

”

I want to see all the workings. It doubts suspicious.

Quantumness is difficult to understand.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Motivated in part by John Wheeler’s assertion that the continuum nature of Hilbert Space conceals the `it-from-bit’ information-theoretic character of the quantum wavefunction, a theory of quantum physics (Rational Quantum Mechanics – RaQM) is proposed based on a specific discretisation of complex Hilbert Space. The Schrödinger equation is not modified in RaQM, even during measurement. However, the bases in which the quantum state is defined must satisfy certain rational-number constraints. These constraints lead to the notion of finite qubit information capacity Nmax: for any N>Nmax qubit state, there is insufficient information in the N qubits (linearly growing in N) to allocate even one bit to each of all 2N+1−2 continuum degrees of freedom (exponentially growing in N) associated with quantum mechanics/theory (QM, where Nmax=∞). It is proposed that the discretisation of Hilbert Space in RaQM is due to gravity, hence QM is the (singular) continuum limit of RaQM at G=0. On this basis, it is estimated that Nmax lies between about 200 and 400 for current qubit technologies, and will never exceed 1,000. Whilst QM and RaQM are experimentally indistinguishable for small numbers of qubits, RaQM predicts that the exponential advantage of quantum algorithms which, like Shor’s, require bases with maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement, will have saturated at 1,000 perfect qubits. Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer won’t either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 years.

”

I want to see all the workings. It doubts suspicious.

I wonder if our universe was a simulation is the reason certain physics problems don’t have a solution.
The programmers omitted the reality at its deepest level as it either couldn’t be simulated or if it was it would allow outside control of the program

Tau.Neutrino said:

Quantumness is difficult to understand.

agreed, nobody knows how to count in integers

Preferably without mentioning cats that are dead and alive at the same time.

—

But that’s the best bit.

Ian said:

Preferably without mentioning cats that are dead and alive at the same time.

—

But that’s the best bit.

The best bit was seeing Stephen Hawking reach for his gun.