<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<doi_batch version="4.4.2" xmlns="http://www.crossref.org/schema/4.4.2" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:jats="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.crossref.org/schema/4.4.2 http://www.crossref.org/schema/deposit/crossref4.4.2.xsd">
<head>
<doi_batch_id>-5171ffc0182b6af927f-7027</doi_batch_id>
<timestamp>20220904184813020</timestamp>
<depositor>
  <depositor_name>hyperscienceij@gmail.com:rcrl</depositor_name> 
  <email_address>hyperscienceij@gmail.com</email_address>
</depositor>
<registrant>WEB-FORM</registrant> 
</head>
<body>
<journal>
<journal_metadata>   <full_title>Hyperscience International Journals</full_title>   <abbrev_title>HIJ</abbrev_title>   <issn media_type='electronic'>28213300</issn> </journal_metadata> <journal_issue>  <publication_date media_type='online'>     <month>09</month>     <year>2022</year>   </publication_date>   <journal_volume>     <volume>2</volume>   </journal_volume>   <issue>3</issue> </journal_issue><!-- ============== --> <journal_article publication_type='full_text'>   <titles>     <title>Foundations of Quantum Computing: I-Demystifying ‎‎Quantum Paradoxes</title>   </titles>   <contributors>      <organization sequence='first' contributor_role='author'>Federal Reserve Bank Of New York, USA</organization>    <person_name sequence='first' contributor_role='author'>      <given_name>M.</given_name>      <surname>Syrkin ‎</surname>      <ORCID>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1510-1851</ORCID>    </person_name>  </contributors>    <jats:abstract xml:lang='en'>         <jats:p>Speedy developments in Quantum Technologies mandate that fundamentals of Quantum Computing are well explained and ‎understood. Meanwhile, paradigms of so-called quantum non-locality, wave function (WF) “collapse”, “Schrödinger cat” and ‎some other historically popular misconceptions continue to feed mysteries around quantum phenomena. Arguing that above ‎misinterpretations stem from classically minded and experimentally unverifiable perceptions, recasting Principle of ‎Superposition (PS) and key experimental details into classical notions. Revisiting main components of general quantum ‎measurement protocols (analyzers and detectors), and explaining paradoxes of WF collapse and Schrödinger cat. Reminding ‎that quantum measurements routinely reveal correlations dictated by conservation laws in each individual realization of the ‎quantum ensemble, manifesting “correlation-by-initial conditions” in contrast to traditional “correlation-by-interactions”. We ‎reiterate: Quantum Mechanics (QM) is not a dynamical theory in the same sense the Classical Mechanics (CM) is – it is a ‎statistical phenomenology, as established in 1926 by Born’s postulate. That is, while QM rests on conservation laws in each ‎individual outcome, it does not indicate how exactly a specific outcome is selected. This selection remains fundamentally ‎random and represents true randomness of QM, the latter being a statistical paradigm with a WF standing for a complex-‎valued distribution function. Finally, PS is the backbone of a quantum measurement process: PS can be conveniently viewed ‎as a composition of partial distributions into the total distribution – similar to classical probability mixtures – and is ‎effectuated experimentally by the analyzer part of a measuring device. ‎</jats:p>     </jats:abstract>  <publication_date media_type='online'>     <month>09</month>     <year>2022</year>   </publication_date>   <pages>     <first_page>76</first_page>     <last_page>82</last_page>   </pages>   <doi_data>     <doi>10.55672/hij2022pp76-82‎</doi>     <resource>https://hscience.org/index.php/hij/article/view/50</resource>   </doi_data> </journal_article>
</journal>
</body>
</doi_batch>
