/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10993777]

Will quantum computers ever exist?

> be me
> really want to study the math and theoretical comp sci behind quantum computing
> there's a prof in my uni who does that and willing to be my advisor

but I'd not like to enter the field if there's no hope it'll ever be implemented or used for engineering applications

wat do

[Anonymous No.10993792]

>>10993777
First of all, nice trips.

Secondly: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rumors-hint-that-google-has-accomplished-quantum-supremacy

[Anonymous No.10993799]

bro u should ask your professor

[Anonymous No.10993801]

>>10993777
>Will fusion reactors ever exist?
>Will railguns ever exist?

They already do, they're just too inefficient to replace conventional computers, at least for now. Based on the fact that you need extremely low temperatures for operation, I doubt that we will ever have quantum computers small enough to fit in our pockets... But I see great potential with supercomputers for scientific calculation etc.

[Anonymous No.10993803]

>>10993777
As someone that has tried.

I advise against attempting to develop a quantum ISA.

A full instruction set architecture for quantum processing is probably impossible to build from a human perspective.

You would use your entire career and accomplish almost nothing of substance. (That's a guess, based on my own experience.)

[Anonymous No.10993804]

>>10993799
sure, but i'd like a non biased opinion. Obviously he won't lie about that, but you're I think anyone who's working a particular field will generally be less critic of its usefulness.

>>10993792
I read that. But from https://www.ft.com/content/b9bb4e54-dbc1-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
'Some researchers have warned against overhyping the quantum supremacy, arguing that it does not suggest that quantum machines will quickly overtake traditional computers and bring a revolution in computing.'

[Anonymous No.10993808]

>>10993792
>"Quantum computers are not ‘supreme’ against classical computers because of a laboratory experiment designed to essentially (and almost certainly exclusively) implement one very specific quantum sampling procedure with no practical applications”

>>10993777
That being said, ask your professor. It's certainly coming.

[Anonymous No.10993809]

>>10993801
that's my question really. I know they exist, but the question is really: the quantum computing paradigm will ever replace the classical one?

[Anonymous No.10993818]

>>10993809
No.

Binary computers already killed tertiary once.

University of Moscow had a tertiary computer.

It outperformed the binary equivalents of the day, but thanks to cheap Chinese manufacturing of IC's, and DeMorgan, binary computation won out, and is likely to continue winning out for every day applications.

Why would I need quantum processing to make posts on 4chan?
(One of the most computationally exhaustive processes that I do regularly...)
It's cheaper to use some NANDs, x86-64 ISA, and a computer that can be made for pennies.

[Anonymous No.10993825]

>>10993818
Tell me more about this. I've always had the intuition that tertiary computers can be much more efficient than binary ones

[Anonymous No.10993826]

>>10993818
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer#cite_note-cmr-3

It appears this was a betamax situation.

My mistake:
"and it had notable advantages over the binary computers which eventually replaced it, such as lower electricity consumption and lower production cost."

Either way, what wins this war, wins this war.

[Anonymous No.10993835]

Ternary computing deals with three discrete states, but the ternary digits themselves can be defined in different ways, according to Connelly[citation needed]:

Unbalanced Trinary – {0,1,2}
Fractional Unbalanced Trinary – {0,1/2,1}
Balanced Trinary – {-1,0,1}
Trinary Coded Binary – {T,F,T}
Unknown-State Logic – {F,?,T}
Trinary Coded Binary – {T,F,T}


Connelly is probably not an idiot. This article needs to be cleaned up. Connelly obviously had nothing to do with this monstrosity.

I don't agree with the way this is displayed at all.

Unbalanced Trinary – {0,1,2}
Fractional Unbalanced Trinary – {0,1/2,1}

This is the same thing, but with different behavior at the instruction level.

Balanced Trinary – {-1,0,1}
Trinary Coded Binary – {T,F,T}
Same here. Same concept, only variations are at the instruction level.

Unknown-State Logic – {F,?,T}
Yay... Fuzzy state... completely useless, this is undefined computing. George Boole is rolling in his grave that we're still caught up on fuzzy states.

[Anonymous No.10993843]

>>10993818
Ok, you got a point about the 4chan posting. But I mean, will quantum computers help advance other science in a way that's never happened before? A huge leap in human knowledge

[Anonymous No.10993844]

>>10993825
Ever learned binary truth tables?

[Anonymous No.10993882]

>>10993809
You need to connect a classical computer to a quantum computer the see the result of the quantum calculation.
So quantum computers will not repleace classical computers,
quantum computers will only extend classical computers.

[Anonymous No.10993926]

>>10993882
Indeed. The question then would be: will quantum computers ever work in a way that will affect the rate of growth in human knowledge? Will the quantum computing paradigm drastically improve science?

[Anonymous No.10993936]

>>10993926
I wager this: "Not as much as it is pushed on us as doing so."

Quantum computing is the "Climate Change" of computer science.

What I mean by that is: You can accomplish very little of tangible results, but still get tremendous amounts of funding.

Thus, Quantum Computing won't stop getting plugged, like it's new internet.

It's not that great.

It allows for very specific things to become easier, it's a niche product, and we will probably develop something better than things like D-Wave, in the near term.

If you want to stay in academics, in computer science, or computational mathematics...

Quantum is awesome!

If you don't want to stay working in/for universities for the rest of forever, I'd advise you to pick something more practical.

[Anonymous No.10994166]

>>10993844
Of course. I studied karnaugh's tables

[Anonymous No.10994210]

>>10993844
Let me develop. I figured out that if x+y=cst, then x^y is maxed for x=e. But the closest entire number is 3. So if I'm correct (correct me if I'm wrong), efficience is maxed with ternary, not binary. That's why I'm interested. But, yeah, I studied industrial data processing.

[Anonymous No.10994719]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10994746]

>>10993777
Quantum computers are useful for one thing: Developing the theory of QM further. If our current understanding of QM is flawed, but the math dictates that Quantum Computing is possible, then quantum computers are the perfect place to test out alternative theories *cough* bohmian mechanics *cough*.

[Anonymous No.10994754]

>>10994210
Most efficient base is e but that doesn't help us too much

[Anonymous No.10994772]

>>10994746
The surest sign that we don't live in a simulation is that we can find no evidence for a method of stable creation of virtual matter.

[Anonymous No.10994815]

>>10994746
Can you expand?

[Anonymous No.10994837]

>>10994815
You don't actually believe that "many worlds" and "superposition" crap that scientists throw at you, do you? You know a theory is flawed when just extrapolating it to a more general case results in a complete overhaul of its interpretation (i.e. what field theory did to QM).

Idiots will try to argue "muh locality" at the same time string theorists are devising an extra 6 dimensions just to explain what we already have.

[Anonymous No.10994962]

>>10993936
my goal would be study the math behind it and lay the foundations for a future application, but I'd not be so interested if the applications would never come.

>>10994837
Fine, but I still don't get your point. You mean QM is flawed? At what level?

[Anonymous No.10994999]

Well my point bringing up truth tables, just gets at, when you begin to consider additional states, you have to overhaul the instructions.
The software piece of QC dictates what they attempt to build at the hardware level.
With binary that was pretty easy, but with an infinite state option changes happen. Just cranking it up to tertiary becomes murky.
AND
1,1=1
1,0=0
0,1=0
0,0=0

Tertiary?

AND
1,1=1
1,0=0
0,1=0
0,0=0
2,1=?
0,2=0
2,0=0
2,2=? 1? why not 2?

etc...

That's why Connelly has his tidbit in the tertiary computing article on wikipedia.
However, that's a heavy handed simplification of issues that begin to arise, while looking at the instructions.

The more hardware mathematicians, logicians, and classical computer engineering nerds on sci will probably join this discussion to explain in some terms how the instructions can be generalized or pre-determined with raw mathematics, but when you conceptualize the practical ISA and behavior on the board...
The exact same questions come back up.

You have to choose what these inputs and outputs end up meaning, relative to the instructions you're executing.

Once you add full QM fuzzy states to the mix, even simple NOT, AND, OR, become monstrous jekyll and hydes of their previous selves.

In theory, you can DeMorgan these back down, to binary terms, but that looks like a novel by that point, more than a simple operation.

There have been peer reviewed papers that state this DeMorgan breakdown remains possible no matter what, but then there have ALSO been published papers that refute the claim.
Good luck making a judgment when quantum computing is at this stage. I don't believe consensus has a solid answer at this point, just a "most likely" situation.

[Anonymous No.10995011]

>>10994999

I haven't dug to the root of this, as it was extremely time consuming.

However, my point might be flip flopped.

It might be that the instructions have to be defined relative to the input/output options.

[Anonymous No.10995014]

>>10994999
>>10995011
If any of my assertions in my posts about multi-state logic are wrong, please join the discussion and provide references where possible.

This is a field that I have spent countless hours reading, practicing, and thinking on. I will read self published work, online articles, published books, and good /sci/ posts, in addition to relevant journals.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.10995062]

>>10994962
According to QM, a phenomena known as "proton decay" should be possible in the current state of the universe. Other than that, it's not flawed in it's predictions, but its inherent limitations as an explanatory model >>10994999 in its current "you can't know nuffin" state it gives fuzzy logic unsuited for computation. If a quantum computer with well-defined operations is impossible to do, then how does it physically compute the universe in the first place?

We're a significant ways off from quantum computing, even if bohmian mechanics is correct, it's computationally expensive. Our current statistical explanation may be sufficient for observation, but it's bad for cases where actual subatomic precision is neccessary.

[Anonymous No.10995159]

>>10995062
Did you see the news about the Quantum Supremacy achieved by Google? Some people downloaded the paper before it was deleted, so it's easily found online. What do you think of that?

[Anonymous No.10995164]

>>10995062
A frame snapshot?

Are you implying the idea that any particular quantum state is directly linked to the current superposition of all waves, particles, and particle-waves in existence, at that particular moment in the Universe?

I know that's an idea, but does it hold water?

[Anonymous No.10995189]

>>10995159
They used time travel and their QM device to retroactively pull the publication before it went up.

LOL

[Anonymous No.10995191]

>>10993777
Can't we just encode these many states as different voltage levels? High voltage, 1v is 1, 2v is 2, all the way to having a base128 machine, isnt that essentially the benefit of a quantum computer
I dunno

[Anonymous No.10995216]

>>10995191
The tertiary computing article addresses that very broadly.

It's more feasible to use fractional voltages in your example, but what you end up with, in that case, is a more complicated binary computer.

Your end results are not fully "fuzzed"
They are finite.

It can approximate QM to a point, but you have to have either near infinite voltage, near infinite ratios of voltage, or a perfect analog to digital conversion.

Since none of those are feasible beyond the extent of typical precision, and all of these designs can be broken down to DeMorganized structures, because the finite nature we can practically accomplish, will only allow for a finite set of states...

This isn't really a reasonable approach at this time.

It has been considered.

You can accomplish the same computation as your setup, with a typical binary system running the same computation, but at a faster rate of current.

[Anonymous No.10995280]

>>10995159
>>>Do you have a copy of the paper?

[Anonymous No.10995291]

>>10995280
Yes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/QuantumComputing/comments/d7qbf0/google_quantum_supremacy_paper/

never thought someday I'd have to link some reddit post here, but it seems you guys forgot how to google

[Anonymous No.10995307]

>>10993809
quantum computers will allow us to solve problems that classical computers cannot. This will not replace the usage and practicality of classical computers, but instead you will see progress made in specific fields that are at the limits of what classical computation can accomplish. Fields such as weather and computational modeling.

[Anonymous No.10995336]

>>10993777
If you're worried about engineering application, then you shouldn't go in. You'll end disappointed one way or another if you care about relevance in the world as any kind of researcher

[Anonymous No.10995339]

>>10995336
I'd generally agree with you, but I think this is a completely different matter. One thing is to do pure mathematics which is a priori not connected with real applications. Other thing is to do the mathematics of QC, which is directly a priori connected and oriented towards reality. It'd be like doing Theoretical Physics and not caring at all if your theory will ever match reality.

[Anonymous No.10995340]

>>10993801
Trapped Ion based qc don't need low temp, just uhv and lasers

[Anonymous No.10995341]

>>10995307
I unjustifiably expect to see ridiculous advances in chemical medicine, materials , and anything graph traversal related (directions from your gps)

[Anonymous No.10995344]

>>10993803
>be professor in quantum computing institute
>bask in adoration, swim in prestige
>bitches and grants throwing themselces at you left and right
>accomplish nothing of substance
That's a risk I'm willing to take.

[Anonymous No.10995371]

>>10995344
based

[Anonymous No.10995396]

>>10995341
why 'unjustifiably'? I agree on the graph traversal related part.

[Anonymous No.10995403]

>>10995344
>bitches and grants throwing themselces at you left and right

Wow, science media really does a great job with the propaganda.

Good luck, whoever you are.
If you become the next Kevin Gold, let me know, mate.

[Anonymous No.10995643]

>>10995403
who the fuck is Kevin Gold dude

[Anonymous No.10996236]

bump

[Anonymous No.10996312]

>>10994837
Bohmian mechanics is wrong, retard.

[Anonymous No.10996320]

>>10996312
Why? Isn't it just a interpretation?

[Anonymous No.10996325]

>>10995062
Where are you getting this notion that the universe has to be "physically computed" in the first place?

[Anonymous No.10996328]

>>10996320
Because the universe is local

[Anonymous No.10996346]

>>10996328
Nice religious dogma you've formed around your assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10996350]

>>10996328
Right, but it's always been thought to be deterministic too. It's just a matter of which postulate violation gets you less uncomfortable

[Anonymous No.10996352]

>>10996346
That's not "religious dogma" retard, there is no evidence of nonlocality anywhere in the universe.
The "religious dogma" is saying the universe is not local in order to cling to strict determinism.
>>10996350
Yea but determinism doesn't hold up to any evidence (not in classical mechanics, relativity, or QM) so it's wrong, whereas locality is observed in every system and has never been violated.

[Anonymous No.10996361]

>>10996352
>there is no evidence of nonlocality anywhere in the universe.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>The "religious dogma" is saying the universe is not local
Nobody in this thread has said so. It's just your mental illness putting words into other people's mouths.

[Anonymous No.10996366]

>>10996361
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In this case, it is.
>Nobody in this thread has said so. It's just your mental illness putting words into other people's mouths.
This anon right here >>10996346 is clearly implying that the universe is nonlocal, stop being a pseudo intellectual with bad argument tactics. It's not going to work here.

[Anonymous No.10996376]

What does
>the universe is local
mean?

[Anonymous No.10996386]

>>10996366
>This anon right here is clearly implying that the universe is nonlocal
>IMPLYING
There it goes again. Your damaged brain putting words into other people's mouths. How about next time you read what the post actually says and not what you think it says? There was no claim about the physical world made in the post you quoted. None whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.10996538]

>>10996376

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

[Anonymous No.10996594]

>>10993804
That's because both types of computer will still serve their own purpose. Just study quantum computing anon, it'll be great!

[Anonymous No.10996612]

>>10993801
oh come on. people said the same about regular computers a few decades ago. first computer ecer wouldn't fit in your whole room, now computer fit in your pocket.
same will happen with quantum computers. science will find a way to make it work and companys will find a way to make it profitable. just give it 100years and we will have quantum mobilephones.

[Anonymous No.10996671]

>>10996538
So, when one reads that article, one would come to the conclusion that our universe is nonlocal. Proven by Bell Test experiments.
What are these guys arguing about?

[Anonymous No.10996901]

>>10996594
I'd be very happy studying it if I knew if it'll have a purpose to serve, the question is I don't know the answer

>>10996612
I understand your point, but the thing here is that it's much more subtle: maybe it's physically impossible for that to happen

[Anonymous No.10997067]

>>10996671
No, it doe not prove the universe is non local, it proves reality is not deterministic.
On order for there to be hidden variables that make QM deterministic, they must be nonlocal, and since nonlocality is wrong, QM aren't deterministic.

[Anonymous No.10997092]

>>10997067
>and since nonlocality is wrong

please PROVIDE US THE REASON you're saying this

[Anonymous No.10997126]

>>10997067
No it does not, it only shows that there is more complicated shit out there.

[Anonymous No.10997172]

>>10997067
I have no idea what you mean. QM is deterministic up to the point where you "measure" something.
The nonlocal part is in entanglement. Did you even read that article?

[Anonymous No.10997365]

>>10997172
what do you mean? Either something is deterministic or it isn't

[Anonymous No.10997409]

>>10997172
>QM is deterministic
bro just sum up infinite paths lol

[Anonymous No.10997432]

>>10997409
why does that imply it's non-deterministic?

[Anonymous No.10997450]

>>10997432
>Pick a number
>I pick them ALL
>OK tell me
>I will with 1/N probability

[Anonymous No.10997732]

>>10997450
>a number
>them all

pick one

[Anonymous No.10997779]

>>10997732
>babby's first quantum phenomenon
since I've picked them all before you even asked, then I'm forced to tell you one each time you ask with probability of 1/N. Wow so randumb.

[Anonymous No.10997810]

>>10993777
>Will quantum computers ever exist?
No, see >>10986588 and attached thread.

I've proven the unitary nature of consciousness, the modular function that is the mind, and shown within myself that opening/closing the mind has a real meaning, metaphysically. What I offer to you now, instead of quantum computing, is the ability to "elevate" your consciousness while your mind is open. The higher the "elevation" the further any intent you create travels. Magic is then a sliding gradient of openness, and you can always safely shove your mind back inside itself to keep the nightmares away.

[Anonymous No.10998309]

>>10997810
Is /sci/ full of schizos these days or are you the same guy again and again?

[Anonymous No.10998319]

>>10998309
yes

[Anonymous No.10998460]

>tfw a thread on something I just happened to be researching for months and I finally get to see how retarded most of /sci/ is

>>10993803
>I advise against attempting to develop a quantum ISA.
This already exists. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03355

>>10993809
>that's my question really. I know they exist, but the question is really: the quantum computing paradigm will ever replace the classical one?
No, they'll be used with classical computers.

>>10993818
>Binary computers already killed tertiary once.
Not even wrong. The quantum equivalent of a tertiary computer would be a quantum computer, but with qubits replaced by qutrits.

>>10993825
>Tell me more about this. I've always had the intuition that tertiary computers can be much more efficient than binary ones
You'll be excited to see qutrits being used in quantum computer optimization trade offs. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10481

[Anonymous No.10998481]

>>10993801
>I doubt that we will ever have quantum computers small enough to fit in our pockets
t. vacuum tubist

in the far future computers will be extremely light and efficient, using photons and polarization to compute

[Anonymous No.10998513]

>>10996325
The universe abides by set rules, it's a formal axiomatic system, a particle made up of 10 protons orbited by 10 other protons cannot exist. The fact is that what cannot exist in the universe says significantly more about it than what does exist. For instance, QM somehow dictates that creation of an elephant simultaneously with an elephant made out of antimatter should be possible for a non-zero length of time, obviously this is completely absurd, but at the same time, there's really no way to know.

This doesn't mean to say we live in a simulation, that's probably even more absurd than the elephant thing.

[Anonymous No.10998600]

>>10993818
>shitposting is your most computationally exhaustive practice
That's not a good thing.

[Anonymous No.10998643]

>>10994999
>>10995011
Seems like it depends what you want to do with the information. If you want to add

10221 +
00102

Then you'd have to implement the ternary equivalent of a full/half adder. So something that implements:

C (carry) =
0 if (0,0) (0,1) (1,1) or (0,2)
1 if (1,2) or (2,2)

and

S (sum) =
0 if (0,0) (1,2)
1 if (0,1) (2,2)
2 if (0,2) (1,1)

Which then depends on the implementation electrically. But the concept isn't hard.

[Anonymous No.10998732]

>>10998513
>the second law of thermodynamics doesn't exist
>CPT doesn't exist
>Decoherence doesn't exist
>tfw you'll never have an antimatter elephant

[Anonymous No.10999177]

>>10998460
So you've been researching the topic and is clearly more educated about it than everyone else here. Mind to explain what you know about it, ie your research?

[Anonymous No.10999297]

>>10999177
It's niche enough I'm afraid someone would recognize me if I was specific. Basically, it's research into optimizing quantum programs so that they use less operations to achieve the same thing. This is a big deal because the state of the art hardware in quantum computing is unreliable. Trying to optimize quantum computers is like code bumming on a computer with relays instead of transistors. If the program isn't small enough, then you'll get a hardware error before your program is done running.

[Anonymous No.10999647]

>>10999297
Interesting. So it's high level stuff, design of algorithms instead of hardware design?
How optimistic are you about the future of the field and its industrial usage?

[Anonymous No.11000824]

>>10999297
what kind of optimization techniques did you use?

[Anonymous No.11000935]

>>10993809
No, not for everyday use unless somebody invents a quantum processor which can somehow operate in a normal interference and heat filled environment. Right now they can only run inside of faraday cages at cryogenic temperatures because ambient static and heat and even brownian motion can interfere with the processor's ability to run.

[Anonymous No.11000952]

>>10993792
>Secondly: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rumors-hint-that-google-has-accomplished-quantum-supremacy
>google
fake and gay

[Anonymous No.11000958]

>>10993777
I don't get this. Is this saying that Quantum can somehow be in between off and on?

[Anonymous No.11000960]

>>10993777
>Will quantum computers ever exist?
OF COURSE THEY WILL!! Just sign this grant check and I'll get right on it.

[Anonymous No.11000966]

>>10993818
>4chan

[Anonymous No.11000983]

>>11000958
only when you're not looking i.e. before measurement or decoherence or "collapse of the wavefunction"

when you measure tho, you get a definite on/off state with some probability, as defined by the wavefunction's amplitudes

[Anonymous No.11001319]

>>11000935
So, the field of quantum computing isn't a dead end? It'll someday be used someway

[Anonymous No.11001568]

[1/2]
>>10999647
>Interesting. So it's high level stuff, design of algorithms instead of hardware design?
Yes. To be clear, I'm working on classical algorithms to optimize quantum algorithms. I actually have a very poor understanding of the math behind most quantum algorithms. Specialization is a pain.

>How optimistic are you about the future of the field and its industrial usage?
Pretty optimistic. My government is generously supporting research and others are as well. Industry is well prepared to monetize the hardware. Every company planning to charge for cloud access has a downloadable software kit that can be connected to a simulator, cloud service, or local hardware. These companies are working their asses off to finish the hardware so they can connect the wires together and start charging for access. D-Wave has already done this, but their computer isn't a digital quantum computer so it's not that big of a deal.

Industrial usage is limited to whether a problem is the kind that a quantum computer can solve. Currently, the fastest known integer factoring algorithm is quantum so governments and militaries will fund quantum if only to crack encrypted files. The only thing stopping the money is if someone finds a faster classical integer factoring algorithm or disocvers quantum computers don't actually work at scale.

>>11000824
;^)

>>11000958
Yes, but when you measure the qubit it collapses into an on or off position. Digital quantum computers work by setting up a register of qubits. If you tried to measure the qubits without doing anything else, you'd get random junk. It would be the same as measuring a register of bits filled with garbage. It turns out poking the qubits in a certain way will drive the probability of measuring a certain value up. It's possible to poke the qubits in a way that maps to certain calculations, like factoring a very large number. If you do that and then measure the qubits, there's a high chance you'll get a solution.

[Anonymous No.11001577]

[2/2]
>>11001568

>>11000958
Some problems are not probabilistic, they guarantee you'll get the right answer. Instead of driving the probability of the right answer up through repeated actions, you immediately get the answer. Look at Deutch's problem for an example.

[Anonymous No.11001610]

>>10993777
>will quantum computers ever exist
It's still an if, but it's not a huge if. The largest step forward is figuring out how to make one, because the value of quantum computing happens with the quantum interactions that can't be observed (since observing them makes them stop being quantum). One of the biggest things that >>10993803 missed is that giving a quantum processor instructions is actually a way of observing it. You have to figure out how to keep things in a superposition without observing them. That's not an impossibility, it's just fucking hard and outside of our current capability.

The quantum "computers" that IBM and Google just made function by basically creating a situation where the quantum "action" isn't observed - only the output is observed. The problem with that is that the "computers" aren't really computers - what they do is reduce the probability of wrong outputs given a singular, specific way to combine numbers. It's basically a probability calculator that has an outrageous error rate that you can't correct, because trying to create an in-process error correction would make the whole thing stop working.

[Anonymous No.11001935]

>>10999297
>>11001568
So, VQE optimization? Ansatz circuit depth reduction? Measurement reduction? Or are you one of those nutters who actually cares about the classical outer loop?
These aren't real questions, don't feel like you have to answer them or anything. But I'd guess that narrows down your identity to at least 100 or so people, so I wouldn't worry too much.
>>11001610
Bro just encode your logical qubits onto a lattice and measure stabilizers. This is quantum error correction 101, all you need is 10^-6 error thresholds and 10^6 qubits kek
>inb4 muh perfect T gate factories

[Anonymous No.11001942]

>>11001935
>10^-6 error thresholds and 10^6 qubits
I am not familiar with the hardware capabilities. Are these realistic within the next 20 years or do we need to pray for some breakthrough architecture/process?

[Anonymous No.11001969]

>>10996612

The thing is certain things are just physically impossible, as in you reach a point where the laws of thermodynamics are being violated. That may be the case for a "micro" quantum computer. The issue is quantum computers require an absurd amount of energy to keep cool since without chilling temperatures decoherence kicks in and causes them to malfunction. This is a base property of quantum physics that cannot be avoided. Having that kind of energy in the pocket of an average person, even if it could be miraculously done somehow without exploding ( spoilers: It's definitely going to explode. ) is likely a bad idea.

What's far more feasible would be getting just the quantum processor and input/output systems down to the size of a computer tower which handles the cooling, then connecting the
I/O to a second computer tower which would be just like our current computers. This way we could use quantum computing as a separate but interconnected component of standard computer models. So you would have tower A holding the quantum bits fitted with all necessary cooling features separated from tower B which holds the gpu/cpu/etc ( similar to modern computers ) in order to prevent any thermal contamination. Then one cable ( likely would have to be it's own proprietary design ) goes between the two to allow communication.

TL;DR future of PCs could be you have "two computers" with calculations that are better performed with a quantum computer sent to an external quantum processing unit / QPU.

[Anonymous No.11001971]

>>11001610
>That's not an impossibility
lel ok

[Anonymous No.11002770]

>>11001935
>So, VQE optimization? Ansatz circuit depth reduction? Measurement reduction? Or are you one of those nutters who actually cares about the classical outer loop?
:^)

>These aren't real questions, don't feel like you have to answer them or anything.
Thank you. I hope you hear about my work in the future. Have a Maho.

[Anonymous No.11003460]

>>11001942
20 years is a fairly long time, so I'll put it like this. If we aren't at least at the point where we can actually test fault tolerance on a real device in 20 years, I will personally move on from the field. At our current rate, I don't think it's impossible, but I can see some major experimental roadblocks that prevent us from hitting, say, 1k qubits with reasonable coherence times.
>>11001969
This is already what superconducting devices do. But also it should be pointed out that JJ qubits are not all there is. Trapped ions and optical qubits (CV and DV) are being developed at the same rate, and there are other options too, like Rydberg atoms and diamond NV centers.
For instance, while low temps are required for ion traps, they don't need to push to any extreme limit - they're more concerned with vacuum quality and magnetic shielding. And the optical people are just trying to push their squeezing dBs up, as far as I can tell.
>>11002770
Damn, look at dem eyebrows.

[Anonymous No.11003540]

>>11002770
>Those big, cute, bushy eyebrows.
>That oversized-to-the-point-of-poofyness scientific snuggle gown.
Hey girl, im a physics major. You wanna learn how to make friction?

[Anonymous No.11004181]

>>11003460
>>11003540

[Anonymous No.11004732]

>make quantum computer
>get 0 speedup
>turns out most problems are memory i/o bound

quantum computing is the work of the nsa to break everyone's encryption and nothing more

[Anonymous No.11005044]

>>11004732
>turns out most problems are memory i/o bound
Just like keep it all in RAM, senpai.

[Anonymous No.11005124]

>>10993801
you dont need one in your pocket... you need access to a big one with a decentralized blockchain via your neuralink-like interface.

[Anonymous No.11005126]

>>10993809
they dont have to replace each other... classical computing allows you to process stuff sequentially and quantum parallels it in a way

[Anonymous No.11005134]

>>11004732
quantum processing allows faster db lookup and kills your memory bound problem

[Anonymous No.11005140]

>>11001969
the laws of thermodynamics become impossible. not human ingenuity.

BrEaK tHe SiMuLaTor

[Anonymous No.11005984]

>>10993777
yes
chad goggle said they achieved quantum supremasy

i trust goggle

[Anonymous No.11007004]

>>11005984
(unironically) how can you not trust a corporation which dares to choose the slogan: "Don't be evil"? That's the epitome of self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.11007223]

https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/05/quantum-computing-doomsayers-are-mostly.html?m=1

Quantum computing doomsayers are mostly anti-quantum zealots

[Anonymous No.11007242]

>>11004181
maho more like my hoe knaw'm sayin nyuuuuukkkakakakakakakaa!!????

[Anonymous No.11008036]

>>11007004
They ditched that slogan many years ago.

[Anonymous No.11008039]

>>11001577
>Some problems are not probabilistic, they guarantee you'll get the right answer. Instead of driving the probability of the right answer up through repeated actions, you immediately get the answer.
So basically magic. You want something, you get it.

[Anonymous No.11009175]

>>11007242
Based

[Anonymous No.11010434]

>>11003460
did you read Google's Quantum Supremacy paper, anon?

[Anonymous No.11011260]

>>11008039
No. Not like magic.

[Anonymous No.11011372]

>>11010434
Not really. I skimmed it but mostly talked with more knowledgeable people in my department about it. Why? They definitely don't have fault tolerance and the circuits they generated have fairly shallow depth. Demonstrating quantum supremacy is a milestone for sure, if they've indeed done it (cross entropy looks like a meme to me but I'm no expert), but for me personally, error correction and coherence times to allow for at least O(n^3) circuit depths are more pressing issues on my mind.

[Anonymous No.11011372,1]

The great evil is sophons treating people like trash.