This is the guy that back in the year 2000 together with David DiVincenzo formulated some criteria for qubits for quantum computing. These criteria are, as far as I know, not specific to qubits based on electron spin, but all electron spin qubit people know these criteria. Daniel is strongly interested in qubits based on electron spin, for David I do not know. What I find interesting is that how can you work for half a century on electron spin and never realize there is something wrong with the official version of bipolar magnetism that has to serve as the spin of the electron or as I often say it: It’s magnetic properties. All this garbage like anti-aligned spins in electron pairs or, also very crazy, in chemistry a non-bonding pair like in molecular oxygen has it’s electron spins aligned. All these garbage ‘results’ are only there if you view electrons as tiny bipolar magnets. If on the other hand you simply say: The magnetic properties on an electron are the same as the electric properties in the sense that is it permanent and monopole.

I want to remark that these two people are not selected because of their individual properties like belief in bipolar magnetism, but I let them stand for the entire quantum computing crowd out there. The weirdo’s that think you can explain the result of the famous Stern-Gerlach experiment via electrons that by chance either align their closed magnetic field or anti-align themselves. No my dear crowd: Bipolar magnets large and small do not anti-align themselves because that is a spontaneous rise in potential energy. And nature does not do that; there is a long long list of energy problems related to bipolar electron magnetism buy hey: Try to explain that to the quantum computing crowd in general and those working on qubits based on electron spin in particular.

The video itself contains no new information, anyway not for me. The interviewer is as so often a person from outside physics and as such he has no clue what the quantum computing crowd means with concepts like entanglement. The video is about half an hour long, it is more a social snapshot of how it goes into the world of quantum computing and contains almost nothing worthwhile knowing. So don’t blame me if you think you are wasting your time watching it. There are three intro pictures and of course I also have one of those very famous Figure 1 images included. That makes my hobby work look very professional: Oh he has a Figure 1 in it, wow that really must be something!

Here’s the famous Figure 1 of this post: It is about the fine splitting en atomic spectra due to the monopole magnetic permanent charge each and every electron has. If electron spin was a vector as the quantum crowd always claim, how come these spectral lines are that sharp?

And finally the video itself:

That was it for this post, thanks for your attention and may be meet you again in a future post.