When did you realize quantum computing is more absurd than the flying automobile?

[Anonymous No.11209690]

>quantum mechanics is still not well known since discovery in 1920
> MUH QUANTUM COMPUTER IN 30 YEARS TOPS
>

[Anonymous No.11209702]

>>11209690
But what about Google achieving quantum supremacy?

[Anonymous No.11209704]

plenty of things were discovered thousands of years ago that are still not well known

[Anonymous No.11209736]

>>11209704
>plenty of things were discovered thousands of years ago that are still not well known
oh yeah bro the pyramids of egypt, therefore quantum computing is legit and not a sausage fest of retards

[Anonymous No.11209746]

>>11209736
I mean thousands of years ago they realized that the planets were actually planets and many other conclusions and it took thousands of years of development of technology to understand it better.

[Anonymous No.11209768]

>>11209690
>>quantum mechanics is still not well known since discovery in 1920
You meant to say:
>I don't understand it, that means it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.11209775]

>>11209768
So explain it to him then otherwise why should op believe it?

[Anonymous No.11209780]

all quantum computing means is that a new universe will be created depending on whether you browsed 4chan or masturbated to furry porn

[Anonymous No.11209784]

>When did you realize quantum computing is more absurd than the flying automobile?

I'm not convinced that quantum is fake, but I've never heard any explanation that makes sense. Why would whether something is a particle or a wave depend on whether it's been observed or not?

[Anonymous No.11209799]

Can't you all just realize that we all as a whole are just a small sliver and she is but a greater piece.

[Anonymous No.11209819]

>>11209784
You need a solid understanding of quantum mechanics and some basic computer science to understand why QM allows for novel computational algorithms that cannot be simulated by classical computing.
>quantum mechanics is still not well known
This is a good way of showing to us you've never studied QM in depth and just follow whatever new-age conspiracy you like best regardless of evidence.

Anyway, this is a decent pop-sci explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrbJYsep45E
Don't mistake it for the much more complex and rigorous real thing however.

[Anonymous No.11209823]

>>11209784
Unironically the best explanation

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3

[Anonymous No.11209828]

>>11209819
I am not even going to watch those, you quoted something I didn't say, and this girl is not animated, unless being ethnically Japanese counts as being animated.

[Anonymous No.11209830]

>>11209819
I am not even going to watch that, you quoted something I didn't say, and this girl is not animated, unless being ethnically Japanese counts as being animated.

[Anonymous No.11209837]

>>11209784
>Why would whether something is a particle or a wave depend on whether it's been observed or not?
>False premise again
Jesus fucking Christ, if you don't understand anything about a subject, don't shitpost about it. "Observation" in science means "to interact and interfere with the system in order to extract information". You literally cannot observe anything at all without exchanging something with it.
"Particles" and "waves" are models that we, humans, invented based on analogies to macroscopic phenomena because that's what our senses can detect unaided. The entities that constitute matter and carry energy aren't particles or waves. At all. In some instances, however, their behaviour will approximate that of a macroscopic particle (billiard ball) or that of a wave (outward dissipation, refraction, constructive and destructive interference). In their energetic, full-of-potential state, the energy carrying entities can do many things, all of which are mathematically valid and physically possible. They have many potential futures they could follow. In order to extract information from them, you must interact with them (as is true of everything in Nature, you can't sense things without interacting with them and altering their future lightcone). When you do, you disturb their full-of-potential equilibrium state and they are forced to follow a narrower path with less possible future exits. This is called "collapsing the wavefunction" because you are forcing a highly chaotic and rich mathematical description to become a dull constant or uninteresting function with trivial results.

[Anonymous No.11209848]

>>11209819
Here’s an actual rigorous algorithm for a quantum computer. The goal of the algo is complicated, but just know that given an input of length n, a classical computer can execute it with ~2^n steps, while this quantum algo takes 2^(n/2) steps, which is way better

>>11209830
Yeah I was replying to you at first, then swapped to the OP but left the post number in by mistake. Also don’t pretend that you’re not a weeb just because this time your posting fake 3D girls pretending to be a real 2D waifu

[Anonymous No.11209855]

>>11209690
Is quantum computing a meme name, like AI?

[Anonymous No.11209857]

>>11209784
>something is a particle or a wave
Thats not a debate. Its a wave, all the time. Particle is only when energy is quantized in classical terms.

[Anonymous No.11209859]

>>11209837
>if you don't understand anything about a subject, don't shitpost about it

Stopped reading there. If you're going to criticize people for trying to learn by asking questions, you don't belong in a place devoted to study.

>>11209848
Touche, here's a real one, then.

[Anonymous No.11209862]

>>11209784
>>11209830
>>11209859
Why are you spamming porn, incel?

[Anonymous No.11209871]

>>11209862
Why are not better able to control yourself, coomer?

[Anonymous No.11209874]

>>11209871
Nice projection, but you still haven't answered the question. What do you get out of spamming porn, how is it related to science?

[Anonymous No.11209877]

>>11209702

nothing but hype

[Anonymous No.11209878]

>>11209855
Quantum supremacy is a meme name because it suggests something more grand than what it is, while the actual field of quantum information is really cool. It’s interdisciplinary by the nature of the subject - optics and engineering groups are working on implementation, while physics and CS theorists are working on solving theoretical problems and some implementation problems, such as addressing the noise models (I believe there’s a lot of interaction between these two groups when it comes to quantum complexity and adS/CFT but that’s more avi wigderson’s claim in https://www.math.ias.edu/files/Book-online-Aug0619.pdf#page263 than mine)

[Anonymous No.11209879]

>>11209874
The only question to answer is the one I asked, because that's the one that's actually on topic, which I'll repeat

>Why would whether something is a particle or a wave depend on whether it's been observed or not?

[Anonymous No.11209880]

>incel
Maybe you are the one who is projecting?

[Anonymous No.11209886]

>>11209879
Your question was answered by >>11209837

[Anonymous No.11209887]

>>11209859
Not him, but people have told you that you haven’t done any prerequisite study or experiments to really understand “what” to criticize except on the basis of “uhhh sounds magic.” It will all sound magic until you encounter decoherence, at which point it’s up to you to navigate. But if you haven’t read through griffiths and solve problems testing the canonical ideas of QM, nobody here is obligated to really take your questions at serious attempts at learning.
It’s like somebody questioning a hard combinatorics result just because they haven’t done enough problems to see generating functions or understand something basic like labeling. People here are responding like this because it’s clear you haven’t done your homework and want some neat, fast justification from anons instead of doing the work yourself

[Anonymous No.11209891]

>>11209775
>>11209768
>>11209784
To be fair, you have to have an extremely high IQ to understand Quantum Mechanics. The ontology is extremely subtle, and without a serious grasp of wave mechanics most of the math will go over the typical student's head. There's also the choice of interpretation, which is implicitly woven into most supposedly unbiased presentations of the subject — most undergraduate textbooks lean heavily towards the Copenhagen interpretation, for instance. The physicists understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the mathematical simplicity hidden behind the physics, to realize it's not just elegant — it says something profound about the UNIVERSE. As a consequence people who don't understand Quantum Mechanics truly ARE idiots — of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the subtleties of wave collapse, which in some interpretations is considered a phantom born from our ignorance of the universal wavefuncion. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as the genius of J. J. Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics" unfolds itself on the pages opened in front of them.

And yes, by the way, I DO have a Schrödinger Equation tattoo. And no, you cannot see it, it's for the ladies' eyes only — and even then they have to demonstrate that their IQ is within 5 points of mine (preferably below) beforehand.

[Anonymous No.11209893]

>>11209879
Do you know what "observe" means? Hint: it doesn't mean a human has seen it.

An object is wavelike when it has definite momentum, ambiguous location. An object is particlelike when it has definite location, ambiguous momentum. You can derive from diffraction experiments that
[eqn]2\Delta p\Delta x\geq\hbar[/eqn]
which is called Heisenberg uncertainty. This basically means the product the standard deviation of possible momentum and location is greater than a constant. A wavelike object would have dx dominant, and a particlelike would have dp dominant.

>>11209862
>incel
Are you projecting?

[Anonymous No.11209911]

>>11209887
>but people have told you that you haven’t done any prerequisite study or experiments to really understand “what” to criticize except on the basis of “uhhh sounds magic.”
Dumbest response yet.

I've asked a very simple question twice now. I should be able to get an equally simple answer.

>>11209893
So who else is seeing it?

[Anonymous No.11209928]

everyone please stop posting to the retard posting anime titties. they are not actually asking questions, they're trying to waste your time.

[Anonymous No.11209932]

>>11209911
I JUST answered your question, weeabnigger. Enjoy your final (You)

[Anonymous No.11209937]

>>11209911
Stop spamming cartoon porn you fucking retard. If you want attention just use a trip so I can filter you out.

[Anonymous No.11209955]

>>11209932
Not going to read something prefaced with toxicity. You can retype it in a more respectful way if you want me to read it.

/sci/'s problems are very severe if images of drawn women trigger you.

[Anonymous No.11209980]

>>11209911
Simple questions don’t have simple answers. Particle/wave duality was a conclusion researchers came to after examining a lot of conflicting viewpoints. Again, nobody here is obligated to answer until you do your homework and see why for yourself.
>dumbest response yet
Nah, it has to be second to the muh anime tiddies shitposting you’re doing

[Anonymous No.11210027]

>>11209891

This is what a quaboo sounds like, folks.

Quantum is great, and I really enjoy the subtleties of theory. But don't jizz your pants over it.

[Anonymous No.11210063]

>>11209823
Thank you. This really cut through the bullshit misconceptions I had

[Anonymous No.11210126]

>>11209837
Good explanation, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.11210151]

>>11209690
we do have flying cars though
as it turns out, they're fucking terrible and a safety hazard because stupid cunts wont ever stop being stupid cunts

[Anonymous No.11210168]

>>11209877
t. ibm

[Anonymous No.11210280]

Google's supremacy result is certainly a milestone in the field, but the broader QC excitement is largely hype. The big lie is that these noisy, intermediate-scale quantum devices will be useful soon.

>nobody has implemented even a single fault-tolerant, logical qubit

>current physical realization (transmon qubit) suffers from major scalability issues

>actual near-term algorithms are shit


If you think we're at the brink of a revolution you're going to be sorely disappointed.

[Anonymous No.11210328]

>>11209690
I know how zero and one work with a cpu. the crap that they said about what they are trying to do with a quantum cpu is total b.s. and 100% insane.

you cannot use Schrodinger's equation you make a cpu. the computer is either on or off not both.

[Anonymous No.11210916]

>>11210328
t. fundamentally doesn’t understand what a quantum computer is
I think google is full of shit, but don’t be a brainlet software dev/EE student. Quantum computation doesn’t have a classical analogue

[Anonymous No.11210925]

>>11209702
>generating random numbers is quantum supremacy