And i’m glad studying your article. However should remark on some normal things, The site style is perfect, the articles is in point of fact excellent : D. Just right job, cheers

Feynman’s Path Integral fomulation of Quantum Mechanics is mathematically identical to the Schrödinger (and Heisenberg) pictures of Quantum Mechanics. And QED is pretty clearly understood with path integrals – it’s how Feynman worked out how to do the calculations.

So I assume you’re just talking about some engineering restriction (at low energy) rather than a fundamental problem – otherwise I don’t understand your argument.

Nature strictly requires that (low energy) QM/QIT computational devices be constructed out of the electron, nucleon, and photon fields of QED field theory. This restrictions ensures that the QED dynamics of electrons, nucleons, and photons can be computationally simulated (to any required precision) using the (scalably error-corrected) logic gates of QM/QIT. But this does not imply — by any simple logical or physical argument — that (scalably error-corrected) QM/QIT logic gates can be experimentally simulated using the QED dynamics of electron, nucleon, and photon fields.

Common-sense conclusion  (QED ⊂ QM/QIT) ≢ (QM/QIT ⊂ QED) 

Lots of really big engineering advancements were the result of scoffing at the conventional wisdom and plowing through difficult challenges until eventually succeeding, but in all cases the conventional wisdom being scoffed at was engineering practice, and there was a clear underlying theory as to why the new approach was a good one.

Couldn’t have said it better! Of course, if I said it, I’d be “scoffed at” myself a self-serving, out-of-touch, ivory-tower fantasist, but I hope the creator of BitTorrent will have slightly more credibility on this question.

It’s important to understand that QED could, theoretically, be formulated in a Schrodinger picture as evolution of a (finite) state vector via some Hamiltonian. The fact that we don’t know how to construct the Hamiltonian to get the correct time evolution doesn’t mean it don’t exist.

QED doesn’t disobey the fundamental postulates of QM

What is the range of problems that can be solved via Boson Sampling?

Isn’t academic “scoffing” at D-Wave’s technological demonstrations far more prevalent than the reverse? Whence this marked asymmetry?

The practice of “scoffing” generically contributes little to academic discourse (as it seems to me) … and so one hopes that D-Wave largely or wholly refrains from this practice.