**A Special Note (added on 17th June 2018): **This post is now a sticky post; it will remain, for some time, at the top of this blog.

I am likely to keep this particular post at the top of this blog, as a sticky post, for some time in the future (may be for a few months or so). So, even if posts at this blog normally appear in the reverse chronological order, any *newer* entries that I may post *after* this one would be found *below* this one.

[In particular, right now, I am going through a biography: “Schrodinger: Life and Thought” by Walter Moore [^]. I had bought this book way back in 2011, but had to keep it aside back then, and then, somehow, I came to forget all about it. The book surfaced during a recent move we made, and thus, I began reading it just this week. I may write a post or two about it in the near future (say within a couple of weeks or so) if something strikes me while I am at it.]

**A Yawningly Long Preamble:**

[Feel free to skip to the sections starting with the “Statement 1” below.]

As you know, I’ve been thinking about foundations of QM for a long, long time, a time running into decades by now.

I thought a lot about it, and then published a couple of papers during my PhD, using a new approach which I had developed. This approach was used for resolving the wave-particle duality, but only in the context of photons. However, I then got stuck when it came to extending and applying this same approach to electrons. So, I kept on browsing a lot of QM-related literature in general. Then, I ran, notably, into the Nobel laureate W. E. Lamb’s “anti-photon” paper [^], and also the related literature (use Google Scholar). I thought a lot about this paper—and also about QM. I began thinking about QM once again from the scratch, so to speak.

Eventually, I came to abandon my own PhD-time approach. At the same time, with some vague but new ideas already somewhere at the back of my mind, I once again started studying QM, once again with a fresh mind, but this time around much more systematically. …

… In the process, I came to develop a completely *new* understanding of QM!… It’s been at least months since I began talking about it [^]. … My confidence in this new understanding has only increased, since then.

Today’s post will be based on this new understanding. (I could call it a new theory, perhaps.)

My findings suggest a few conclusions which I think I should not hold back any longer. Hence this post.

I have been trying to locate the right words for formulating my conclusions—but without much satisfaction. Finally, I’ve decided to go ahead and post an entry here anyway, regardless of whether the output comes out as being well formulated or not.

In other words, don’t try to pin me down with the specific words I use here in this post! Instead, try to understand what I am trying to get at. In still other words: the particular words I use may change, but the intended meaning will, from now on, “always” remain the same—ummm…. more or less the same!

OK, so here are the statements I am making today. I think they are well defensible:

*Notation:*

QM: Quantum Mechanics, quantum mechanically, etc.

CM: Classical Mechanics

QC: Quantum Computer

QS: Quantum Supremacy ([^] and [^])

**Statement 1:** It is possible to explain all quantum mechanical phenomena on the basis of those principles which are already known (or have already been developed) in the context of *classical* mechanics.

*Informal Explanation 1.1*: Statement 1 holds true. It’s just that when it comes to explaining the QM phenomena (i.e., when it comes to supplying a *physical mechanism* for QM), even if the principles do remain the same, the way they are to be combined and applied is different. These differences basically arise because of a reason mentioned in the next Informal Explanation.

*Informal Explanation 1.2*: Yes, the tradition of 80+ years, involving an illustrious string of Nobel laureates and others, is, in a way, “wrong.” The QM *principles* are *not*, *fundamentally* speaking, very different from those encountered in the CM. It’s just that *some* of the objects that QM assumes and talks about are different (only *partly* different) from those assumed in the CM.

** Corollary 1 of Statement 1:** A

*quantum*computer could “in principle” be built as an “application layer” on top of the “OS platform” supplied by the

*classical*mechanics.

*Informal Explanation 1.C1.1*: Hierarchically speaking, QM remains the most fundamental or the “ground” layer. The aspects of the physical reality that CM refers to, therefore, indeed are at a layer lying on *top* of QM. This part does continue to remain the same.

However, what the Corollary 1 now says is that you can also completely explain the workings of QM in terms of a *virtual* QM machine that is built on top of the well-known principles of *CM*.

If someone builds a QC on such a basis (which would be a *virtual* QC on top of CM), then it would be just a classical mechanically functioning simulator—an *analog* simulator, I should add—that simulates the QM phenomena.

*Informal Explanation 1.C1.2*: The phrase “in principle” does not always translate into “easily.” In this case, it in factt is very easily possible that building a big enough a QC of this kind (i.e. the simulating QC) may very well turn out to be an enterprise that is too difficult to be practically feasible.

* Corollary 2 of Statement 1:* A classical system can be designed in such a way that it shows all the features of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (when the classical system is seen from an appropriately high-level viewpoint).

*Informal Explanation 1.C2.1:* There is nothing “inherently quantum-mechanical” about entanglement. The well-known principles of CM are enough to explain the phenomena of entanglement.

*Informal Explanation 1.C2.2:* We use our own terms. In particular, when we say “classical mechanics,” we do not mean these words in the same sense in which a casual reader of the QM literature, e.g. of Bell’s writings, may read them.

What we mean by “classical mechanics” is the same as what an engineer who has never studied QM proper means, when he says “classical mechanics” (i.e., the Newtonian mechanics + the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian reformulations including variational principles, as well as the more modern developments such as studies of nonlinear systems and the catastrophe theory).

**Statement 2:** It can be shown that even if the Corollary 1 above does hold true, the kind of quantum computer it refers to would be such that it will not be able to break a sufficiently high-end RSA encryption (such as what is used in practice today, at the high-end).

*Aside 2.1:* I wouldn’t have announced Statement 1 unless I was sure—absolutely goddamn sure, in fact—about the Statement 2. In fact, I must have waited for at least half a year just to make sure about this aspect, looking at these things from this PoV, then from that PoV, etc.

**Statement 3:** Inasmuch as the RSA-beating QC requires a *controlled* entanglement over *thousands* of qubits, it can be said, on the basis of the new understanding (the one which lies behind the Statement 1 above), that the goal of achieving even “just” the quantum supremacy seems highly improbable, at least in any foreseeable future, let alone achieving the goal of breaking the high-end RSA encryption currently in use. However, *proving* these points, esp. that the currently employed higher-end RSA cannot be broken, will require further development of the new theory, particularly a quantitative theory for the mechanism(s) involved in the quantum mechanical measurements.

*Informal Explanation 3.1:* A lot of funding has already gone into attempts to build a QC. Now, it seems that the US government, too, is considering throwing some funds at it.

The two obvious goal-posts for a proper QC are: (i) first gaining enough computational power to run past the capabilities of the classical digital computers, i.e., achieving the so-called “quantum supremacy,” and then, (ii) breaking the RSA encryption as is *currently* used in the real-world at the high-end.

The question of whether the QC-related researches will be able to achieve these two goals or not depends on the question of whether there are *natural* reasons/causes which might make it highly improbable (if not outright impossible) to achieve these two goals.

We have already mentioned that it can be shown that it will not be possible for a *classical* (analog) quantum simulator (of the kind we have in mind) to break the RSA encryption.

Thus, we have already made a conclusive statement about this combination of a QC and a goal-post:

- Combination 1: CM-based QC Simulator that is able to break the RSA encryption.

We have said that it can be *shown *(i.e. proved) that the above combination would be impossible to have. (The combination is that extreme.)

However, it still leaves open 3 more combinations of a QC and a goal-post:

- Combination 2: CM-based QC Simulator that exceeds the classical digital computer
- Combination 3: Proper QC (working directly off the QM platform) that exceeds the classical digital computer
- Combination 4: Proper QC (working directly off the QM platform) that is able to break the RSA encryption.

As of today, a conclusive statement cannot be made regarding the last three combinations, not even on the basis of my newest approach to the quantum phenomena, because the mathematical aspects which will help settle questions of this kind, have not yet been developed (by me).

Chances are good that such a theory could be developed, at least in somewhat partly-qualitative-and-partly-quantitative terms, or in terms of some *quantitative* models that are based on some good analogies, sometime in the future (say within a decade or so). It is only when such developments do occur that we will be able to conclusively state something one way or the other in respect of the last three combinations.

However, relying on my own judgment, I think that I can safely state this much right away: The remaining three combinations would be tough, very tough, to achieve. The last combination, in particular, is best left aside, because the combination is far too complex that it can pose any real threat, at least as of today. I can say this much confidently—based on my new approach. (If you have some other basis to feel confident one way or the other, kindly supply the *physical* mechanism for the same, please, not just “math.”)

So, as of today, the completely defensible statements are the Statement No. 1 and 2 (with all their corollaries), but not the Statement 3. However, a probabilistic judgment for the Statement 3 has also been given.

**A short (say, abstract-like) version:**

A physical mechanism to explain QM phenomena has been developed, at least in the bare essential terms. It may perhaps become possible to use such a knowledge to build an analog simulator of a quantum computer. Such a simulator would be a machine based only on the well-known principles of *classical* mechanics, and using the kind of physical objects that the *classical* mechanics studies.

However, it can also be easily shown that such a simulator will not be able to break the RSA encryption using algorithm such as Shor’s. The proof rests on an idealized abstraction of classical objects (just the way the ideal fluid is an abstraction of real fluids).

On the basis of the new understanding, it becomes clear that trying to break RSA encryption using a QC proper (i.e. a computer that’s not just a simulator, but is a QC proper that directly operates at the level of the QM platform itself) would be a goal that is next to impossible to achieve. In fact, even achieving just the “quantum supremacy” (i.e., beating the best classical digital computer) itself can be anticipated, on the basis of the new understanding, as a goal that would be very tough to achieve, if at all.

Researches that attempt to build a proper QC may be able to bring about some developments in various related areas such as condensed matter physics, cryogenics, electronics, etc. But it is very highly unlikely that they would succeed in achieving the goal of quantum supremacy itself, let alone the goal of breaking the RSA encryption as it is deployed at the high-end today.

**A Song I Like:**

(Hindi) “dilbar jaani, chali hawaa mastaanee…”

Music: Laxmikant Pyarelal

Singers: Kishore Kumar, Lata Mangeshkar

Lyrics: Anand Bakshi

PS: ~~Note that, as is usual at this blog, an iterative improvement of the draft is always a possibility.~~ Done.

**Revision History:**

- First posted on 2018.06.15, about 12:35 hrs IST.
- Considerably revised the contents on 2018.06.15, 18:41 hrs IST.
- Edited to make the contents better on 2018.06.16, 15:30 hrs IST. Now, am mostly done with this post except, may be, for a minor typo or so, here or there.
- Edited (notably, changed the order of the Combinations) on 2018.06.17, 23:50 hrs IST. Also corrected some typos and streamlined the content. Now, I am going to leave this post in the shape it is. If you find some inconsistency or so, simple! Just write a comment or shoot me an email.
- 2018.06.27 02:07 hrs IST. Changed the song section.