/sci/ - Science & Math

they dont work

never.

>>2002026

Oh really, why not? For both.

>>2002026

They don't work never? I know you're a 12 year old aspie, but dude, learn some ENGRISH.

>>2002048

>he doesnt realize i said 'they dont work' for op's first question and never for his second

>he says im an aspie

>>2002018
2060

>>2002061
Dude, that's the year Newton said the world would end.

A quantum computer determines every state a system existed in just based off physical laws, a start state and an end state.

It is a little more complicated to set a qubit than it is to set a bit.

>>2002018
>consumer use

A couple of peers of mine are working on them, asked them about it before. Ranges vary from 2030-2060.

quantum computer can't work for random users, it only works for maths calculus in order to reduce time of calculus.
Quantum computer dont give the result but a LC of the answer (for instance primality test pass from exponential to linear).

Furthermore we can't control external facts everywhere, just an electric machine working in the room make the result false.

Sorry for my en, not english native.

bump

>>2002204
What about this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;329/5998/1477 or http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/studio/ep-81

They're saying 5-10 years.

bump.

Quantum computation represents a paradigm shift for science.

> Generally just discuss how quantum computers work
Expensive, small, and impractical. Otherwise they're marvelous.

>>2005689
> It has the word "quantum" in it so it has to be good
try homeopathy and vitamins

>>2005698
You are automatically identified as shit tier. Quantum computation is a demonstrated phenomena at this point and is one of the stronger contenders for a testable unified theory. As of September of this year, we've demonstrated silicon-based photonic chips that exhibit quantum computational behavior.

Above and beyond that, the greatest degree of progress that is happening right now in the field of theoretical physics is happening in the field of theoretical quantum computing. Holographic principle implies a universe of information. A universe of information implies a computable universe.

If Hogan's experiment works, we're going to have a positive on the computable universe hypothesis. Chances are, you and I are quantum computers running in a quantum computer.

Enjoy,
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-hologr
aphic-universe/

>>2005748
I enjoy science as much as the next faggot, probably more, but you sound like you're looking for a religion.

>>2005748
Your image is errily appropriate to your post.

I assume quantum computers should be great for artificial intelligence, since they add a factor of unpredictability.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, though, so even though I don't suck cocks, you can disregard that.

>>2002209
> primality test
> exponential
nigger what are you doing?

>>2005772
not that poster

You are wrong, that is science. Pretty fucking cool and very meaningful science!

what benefits do quantum computers have over normal computers? will they be able to be smaller/faster or some shit?

>>2005914
for some problems, computation time will be reduced considerably

>>2005914
They will destroy current cryptography systems. Destroy as in render them ineffective. The NSA is shitting bricks about quantum computers.

>>2005985
not all bro, not all

>>2002018
Not all but most, anything that relies on the complexity of factoring large numbers

>>2005748

I love how you touch on simulism there.

>>2005748
This cant be real though

>>2005779
At this time, my primary research is into the way in which a complete quantum logic effects and is effected by theories of computing, artificial intelligence, choice, and physics.

I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not.

Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control.

As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.

She stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.

>>2005748
>>2007562
shit just got real

>>2007596
>never seen the Matrix trilogy
it's not that impressive

>>2007596
While it may not have occurred to you, a hypothesis has been posed that the map of the world can contain itself. The expressive power of two quantum Turing machines is strictly equal. It becomes possible to directly simulate and decide reality itself by physical programming derived from the logical system. The relevance of quantum computation becomes in mind a question of whether or not you want to know how to hack reality and rewrite it.

>>2007635

The first one was amazing. It felt that the philosophy blended seamlessly with the action. The idea that freeing your mind and disbanding established "truths" giving a person power had me cumming buckets.

Or course the sequels flew way below the mark and I think the main reason I was so unsatisfied was because it seems that the action parts and the philosophy parts didn't have the whole cohesiveness of the first movie. Sure, it's talking about free will, but what does that have anything to do with Neo kicking a hundred Smths' asses.

>>2007596
While it may not have occurred to you, a hypothesis has been posed that the map of the world can contain itself. The expressive power of two quantum Turing machines is strictly equal. It becomes possible to directly simulate and decide reality itself by physical programming derived from the logical system. The relevance of quantum computation becomes in my mind a question of whether or not you want to know how to hack reality and rewrite it.

>>2005748
holy shit

at least 15 years.


that is the best possible scenario.
people keep forgetting the hierarchy of what it takes to create a quantum computer:


1) a fundamental material system that can achieve the physics necessary

2) a theoretical/general/abstract framework for describing the logic

3) a FUNCTIONAL method for interpreting signals from chunks of semiconductors or superconductors..

4) software (Bios, kernel, etc) that can utilize this new technology


1 and 2 are the only current areas of research.


I will give you a comparison...

the semiconductor integrated circuit was "invented" in the 1950s....


But semiconductor computers did even BEGIN to appear until 20 years later... and even then they were just research projects with the DOD and universities...


it wasnt until ANOTHER 10 years later (1980s) that semiconductor based personal computers made a debut...
it takes sooo much engineering and development to get a BRAND FUCKING NEW logic performing IC technology to the consumer....


it is the same thing when people talk about "eventual" usage of "room temp" superconductors (which dont exist currently) in a computer...


before they make it to your desktop.... a bunch of engineers and physicists have to figure out HOW TO USE THEM!!!
at the end of the day, everything about an IC DEPENDS on the very fundamental nature of a semiconductor...


band gaps comparable to kT and manipulation of the band gap with bias voltage...


if you cant make your device out of semiconductors...


then it will be a LONG time before it hits the shelves..

>>2007705
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0201/0201082.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5976
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group>>2007705
Room temperature, silicon-based quantum photonic chip. http://datacenterjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3909:new-photonic-
chip-to-lead-to-quantum-computer&catid=25&Itemid=100126

Ten years, tops. Already in circulation for top level government programs and in the industry. Particularly the security industry.

>>2005779
In current AI research, AI can be reduced to a problem of searching a probabilistic problem space for a solution to a problem in a measurement space sequentially. Quantum computation, due to superposition and entanglement, can perform such searches with exponential speed up.

Additionally, my research indicates that a new class of problems becomes possible to compute using a quantum computer. Part of if not the entire set of the undecidable propositions might be decided by choice with a quantum computer indicating a break with the Church-Turing Thesis.

Without this choice, the universe can be described by an adjective that is implied by the picture.

>>2007676
Only Carl Sagan can sparkle and still look cool.

>>2007729

literally everything you posted is full of bullshit, speculation by people who dont know (like physics undergraduates with dreams of sci-fi and hopes of FTL travel, and journalists who have been fed a stream of bullshit by starving physicists in need of funding money)

check the article you posted about the "Room temperature, silicon-based quantum photonic chip."apparently you, in a frantic attempt to find evidence to contradict my post, didnt even read the article you posted.

here is the last paragraph:

>Claims of “we’re almost there” or “we’ve made a big step forward” with regard to new technologies are easy to make (granted, however, the steps along the way may still require tremendous effort). But until the actual goal technology is developed, and thus shown to be possible, these claims should always be regarded with some skepticism. (How often have we heard, for example, that a cure for a certain disease is 5 or 10 years away, only to be disappointed?) Is quantum computing part of man’s destiny? It may be, or it may not be. Quantum theory, while useful, suffers from numerous philosophical dilemmas, which quantum physicists are often loath to own. Nevertheless, quantum computing may become a reality—or it may not.


here is a quote from the same topic from the Daily Mail:

>It is widely believed that a quantum computer will not become a reality for at least another 25 years,' says Professor Jeremy O’Brien, Director of the Centre for Quantum Photonics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1312936/Scientists-develop-new-photonic-chip-pave-way
-quantum-computers-future.html

>>2007885

>philosophical dilemmas

also

>Dailymail

it is much more likely that this technology will see itself used as hardware based, on-the-fly encryption and signal analysis long before it is used to manufacture logic performing ICs...


realistically, I expect a fundamental shift from silicon before a shift to a brand new technology.


remember, technologies like this CANNOT be made using the existing silicon fabrication techniques that are used to make our existing chips.

these things require the most expensive and time consuming methods for creation (epitaxially growth using chemical, molecular beam, or some other form of deposition).

such methods ARE NOT used by Intel and IBM to mass produce semiconductors.

if it CANT be made with lithography, then it cannot be made commercially in huge numbers.


to switch from this method of production requires BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

you basically need to completely rebuild every single fabrication facility from the ground up (These facilities, each, cost about $500 million)
this is one of the reasons why semiconductor companies are selling chips with more cores on each die.

It is a way of squeezing every last bit out of conventional silicon.

>>2007885
>It is widely believed that a quantum computer will not become a reality for at least another 25 years,' says Professor Jeremy O’Brien, Director of the Centre for Quantum Photonics. "However, we believe, using our new technique, a quantum computer could, in less than ten years, be performing calculations that are outside the capabilities of conventional computers."
fix'd that for you. Quoting out of context.

OK /sci/ explain to a layman how quantum computers speed things up more than downloading more RAM does.

>>2007951
Each operation eliminates a log scale of the answers

>>2007901


>philosophical dilemma

came from:

http://datacenterjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3909:new-photonic-
chip-to-lead-to-quantum-computer&catid=25&Itemid=100126


>dailymail


>journalists are journalists, no matter who they work for.

>they dont know shit about science and will believe anything you tell them.
you can tell this is true by reading any of the articles that covered this event.


you find that they ALL seem to fundamentally misunderstand a certain point:

they all mention that this photonic quantum chip can be used to do calculations that are not possible normally.


again, this is because the researchers fed them a pack of bullshit. They told them fantastical tales of "what the future will look like" when really what is going on is a professor needs funding to help pay for his graduate student and his research.


they dont understand that what the researchers were ACTUALLY saying is:

quantum chips have the POTENTIAL to perform orders of magnitude more computations PER SIZE OF CHIP than conventional semiconductor chips.


they mention how these chips can be used to "simulate superconductivity"


any computer can simulate superconductivity. the point that the researchers were making, when they were being interviewed by this mundane sheep of a journalist...

was that the POTENTIAL of quantum computers is greater than that of normal chips.


everyone knows this. it is one of the "promises" of quantum computing that has been described and categorized for years.


it is the same as the "promises" of nanotechnology:

robots in our blood curing disease, microscopic machines, etc.


none of it exists in reality, but it is a promise!

>>2007933


>It is widely believed....


>However, we believe


good god you are a sheep.

>>2007966
Classical computers can not effectively simulate quantum systems. This is a long standing and well known result of attempting to apply classical computation to quantum problems. It was noted by Feynman that it would be possible to simulate a quantum system using a quantum simulator.

He was not the first and he was not the last. Konrad Zuse, Edward Fredkin, Vlatko Vedral, Gerard 't Hooft, Seth Lloyd, David Deutsch, Paola Zizzi, Stephen Wolfram, Juergen Schmidhuber, and Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft have all discussed how and what works. They have all come to the conclusion that classical computing does not suffice to simulate quantum systems any more than classical physics suffice to describe or explain quantum phenomena.

>>2008028

You said Gerard 't Hooft twice.

>>2007972
If you want to have an argument with me about how I should go along with what's most widely believed, I'll show you long periods of time when ignorance and prejudice ran rampant in the society.

Karl Popper says we should favor the least likely theory because it will be easiest to refute if it's false and the hardest if it's not.

What O'Brien says about quantum processor development agrees with my analyze of the research. Your argument precludes the development of things like the Analytical Engine in the 1800s or the rapid advancement and adoption of cellphones.

Call me a sheep, but I follow where the data leads. The data says we get quantum computers in under ten years.

>>2007966
Classical computers can not effectively simulate quantum systems. This is a long standing and well known result of attempting to apply classical computation to quantum problems. It was noted by Feynman that it would be possible to simulate a quantum system using a quantum simulator.

He was not the first and he was not the last. Konrad Zuse, Edward Fredkin, Vlatko Vedral, Seth Lloyd, David Deutsch, Paola Zizzi, Stephen Wolfram, Juergen Schmidhuber, and Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft have all discussed how and what works. They have all come to the conclusion that classical computing does not suffice to simulate quantum systems any more than classical physics suffice to describe or explain quantum phenomena.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2267

>>2008107

>rapid advancement and adoption of cell phones

it took at least 15 years before cell phones reached as little as $300 for a new phone. (mid-late 1990s)

essentially identical brick phones from the early 1980s were sold, brand new, in 1995.


if you were smart, you would have used the example of the PERSONAL COMPUTER which was more widey adopted and more quickly developed by AT LEAST an order of magnitude than cell phones (at least 100x as many PCs sold in 1990 than cell phones)

>>2008122


it ultimately depends on our ability to form numerical approximations that can suppress errors for many many iterations.


currently the most advanced quantum mechanical computational algorithms...

the ones the produce the most accurate results and are most widespread...

are not even based on Ab-Initio models. They are purely numerical and have no basis in reality.

DFT is the best example, but there are others.


We can simulate whatever you want, with whatever degree of accuracy you want.


You can use UHF and RHF, which are TRUE ab-initio models, but they scale like N^7 in cpu time. DFT scales like N^4


The exact same mathematics and algorithms that are currently used to calculate quantum mechanical simulations would be used on a quantum chip.

the ultimate source of the logic does not affect the algorithm.

yes. some changes are made to parts of the code to exploit whatever computation advantage you can get.


in current examples, you see people optimizing their code for parrallelization and GPU computing. But it has no effect on the core of the code.


the core of the code is developed on chalk boards without any thought as to its ultimate application in a specific type of computational environment (cloud, faster interconnect supercomputer, GPU based workstation, etc)

Can anyone draw a quick diagram of what the logic path would be?

You can imagine a binary circuit like a straight line with a switch in the middle. If it's touching, it's a 1, and the current continues on. If it's not, it's a 0, and the circuit is broken.

Also, everyone here should know that Schrödinger didn't really believe a cat could be dead and alive. He proposed the experiment to show that the belief of superposition was absurd. The state of decaying radioactive material could trigger a poisonous gas and kill the cat... or not. There are no alternatives, it's a binary outcome, and he wanted to show that.

> I post
> Everyone leaves
:'(

foreveralone.jpg

>>2008221
Your argument is only valid if we accept equivalence of classical computing capabilities and quantum computing capabilities. At this point in my research, I have good reason to believe that the Church-Turing Thesis does not generally hold in the appropriate quantum logic.
It's obvious that while you maybe versed in the problems of computer science that you are not versed in the problems of quantum mechanics and it's logical formation. The short of it is that a Boolean algebra can not account for the behavior of a quantum mechanical system. Not even in principle.

The problem stems from randomness in classical computing vs randomness in quantum computing. Essentially, no classical computer has a truly infinite tape therefore, no classical computer is in fact a Turing machine but an approximation to it. This is suggested by renormalization in quantum mechanics and the stronger Church-Turing-Deutsch principle. Most current computers are in capable of generating random systems and are finite. They are deterministic linear-bound machines at best.

On top of that, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle which characterize boolean algebras and classically computable systems have been empirically falsified in quantum mechanics by the demonstration of probability amplitudes, entanglement, and superposition. This suggests that a quantum computer would be non-deterministic and have access to oracle and/or choice capabilities. Furthermore, it suggests that proof by contradiction does not hold in the appropriate quantum logic; therefore, we can not take Godel or Turing's results as proven in a quantum logic.

Don't get me wrong. Their results are proven IN a consistent system sufficiently powerful enough to express Turing-complete languages.

>>2008309
Google shor's algorithm
cluster computing
put them together
voila

>>2008230
Can anyone draw a quick diagram of what the logic path would be?
The superposition of all possible paths with probability amplitudes representing the frequency with which the quantum computer is in a given state at a given time.

Fun fact: Collapse of quantum superposition doesn't not imply information travels faster than light. Nonlocality follows Special Relativity. They hold no real major benefits over ordinary computing.

>>2008656
Fun fact: You are a tool

That isn't the badass part about QC

>>2008658
Let me reiterate:

Conventional computer's are restricted to the speed of electrons and Moor's Law. It would be convenient if we could use the collapse of entangled particles to bypass the speed of light and really start increasing processing speeds, but since Von Neumann said that nonlocality follows Special Relativity, there are really no benefits.

>>2008673

Since I lurk /sci/, and happen to not be very intelligent, I'll just use laymans terms; it can process more numbers. At least, if I understand what it is, correctly. Excuse me if I don't.

>>2008673
You do measurements on the whole system of entangled bits with one operation

It is exponentially faster than a normal computer which has to do every operation per bit

There is no faster than light communication
ANYWHERE

>>2008693
But there's a limit of information you can extract from the entangled particles as well. See: Copenhagen Interpretation.

>>2008699

Look up a quantum search algorithm and then repeat that quantum computing has no advantages. Or Shor's algorithm. A quantum computer can perform some operations faster than a classical computer can. Arguing that this is not true would require you to present an algorithm for a classical computer that substantially improves factoring, as an example, than any present classical algorithm.

>>2008711
You've got it all wrong. The only real benefits is if you factor in decoherence, and the idea of canceling paths leading to incorrect solutions in p != np calculations.

Also, a quote from an article written by a EE guy from MIT pretty much sums it up:

"Quantum computers would be exceptionally fast
at a few specific tasks, but it appears that for most
problems they would outclass today’s computers
only modestly. This realization may lead to a new
fundamental physical principle."

>>2008735
And a little addition: Dechorence and the fact that you can only extract a limited amount of information from entangled pairs is why we don't have a quantum computer that can do said algorithms above.

They're specialized for a very set of strict math that ordinary computing can do, on a slower basis.

Quantum cryptography, however, shows lots of promise since you are causing a collapse of a photon in an indefinite state just by trying to measure it.

>>2008751
ignoring the fact that we cannot achieve high orders of entanglement at this moment

>>2008673
You assume that the speed up is due to FTL communication. It is not. The speed up is due to the fact that the computer computes the superposition of the quantum bits in one time step.

The best description I heard was that it's like going into a library to ask for a book. The librarian goes off to search for the book and returns after examining a number of books in a likely area.

In a quantum computer, it's the same scenario except the librarian makes as many copies of itself as there are possible ways to search for the requested book given the available information.

This reduces the relative complexity of any algorithm that exploits the quantum parallelization speed up. Factoring problems, search, sort, and merge algorithms, and DFTs benefiting the most. DFTs become Quantum Fourier Transformations generalizing the notion of a DFT.

That's just what we've come up with using Boolean logic and traditional mathematical approaches.

>>2008751
Once again, I reiterate. What you say about their equality of expressibility would be acceptable except that we can show that a Boolean algebra or a binary logic is insufficient for describing quantum systems let alone qubits.

Paola Zizzi established in her Ph.D. Thesis that quantum systems and quantum bits can only be completely described in a contradiction tolerant non-structural unary logic. One of the immediate consequences of adopting this logic is that proof by contradiction is generally invalid. A sizable number of computability theorems go out the window if non-contradiction is not assumed or not held as valid.

The amount of information communicated per bit is effectively 0 for a pure-state qubit following the Von Neumann entropy interpretation of information. 1 bit is communicated for a maximally mixed-state qubit following the Shannon entropy interpretation of information.

This is all without speaking about the measurement problem and it's solution.