/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12051713]

Can we stop pretending the quantum computing meme will pay off now?

[Anonymous No.12051714]

Why do you hate quantum computing?

[Anonymous No.12051732]

>>12051714
It's a pretty retarded and overhyped speculation field that only gets the recognition it does because normalfags are in love with "quantum" as a vague prefix for "futuristic." It's not far removed from the Deepak Chopra quantum new age scam shit.

[Anonymous No.12051752]

>>12051732
>It's a pretty retarded and overhyped speculation field
industry overhypes it in statements to get shareholder attention.
>t only gets the recognition it does because normalfags are in love with "quantum" as a vague prefix for "futuristic." It's not far removed from the Deepak Chopra quantum new age scam shit.
Except quantum computing has already paid out with the theory of quantum information channels and quantum hamiltonian complexity, both for physics and for CS. The field is full of actually interesting problems past "dae quantum computing devices"
Learn about what youre criticizing lmao

[Anonymous No.12051795]

>>12051752
He's tired of all the retard popsci shit around it. The problem is if it wasn't quantum whatever, it would be some other stupid shit. The solution is really to just stop reading normalfag articles.

[Anonymous No.12051941]

>>12051795
That I get, but he's also decrying the field as being a speculation field, which is largely untrue if you look at the current research aims and subsequent results.

[Anonymous No.12051952]

>>12051752
>quantum hamiltonian complexity
not important for physics
>quantum information
not real, pseudoscience in every sense of the word

[Anonymous No.12051959]

>>12051952
>pseudoscience
what makes you think you're more correct about this than the many people working with these systems every day?

[Anonymous No.12051967]

>>12051959
Talking with actual physicists that I am friends with and having an iq >140

[Anonymous No.12051980]

>>12051967
can't come to your own conclusion so you have to rely on someone else? what are the qualifications of these "actual physicists"? astronomy undergrads don't count.
also
>mentioning iq
you didn't need to make the bait this obvious

[Anonymous No.12052001]

>>12051941
I agree.

[Anonymous No.12052018]

>>12051980
Here’s a simple argument for you: information isn’t physical, entropy is not information it’s a physical parameter and doesn’t rely on information, computation is an uninteresting metaphor for the behavior of a very small class of physical processes, complexity is a meaningless vaguery for emergent structure in nature and math, physics is a reductionist mechanistic materialist theory, therefore nothing from information theory, complexity theory, or computer science is broad enough, general enough, physical, or pertinent to physics. So, we do not listen to or take into consideration the ideas of these people because in spite of the labeling of physical experiments as being confirmations of “quantum information” there is no such thing as information in the world, and any and all quantum physical phenomena lack informational content in the real sense of having it as a property. Therefore, we can conclude comfortably that since these fields feed off the existence of actual established natural sciences but do not themselves generate new accurate physical theory, they are at best parasitical auxiliary subjects and at worst psuedoscience. Again, entropy the idiotic crux for all modern pseudoscientific information theory gnats assuming the physical reality of information does not require an information theoretic formulation nor does it suggest information is physical. Information theory provided nor predictive power for physics and no extra structure that is necessary. This is literally evident in the mathematics of statistical mechanics.

Kill yourself brainlet pseud faggot nigger

[Anonymous No.12052043]

>>12052018
I see, you need to make up for the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about by being incredibly edgy and obfuscating your point.
Your "simple argument" is wrong starting from the first few words. There's no way to argue against you since you don't even have a fundamental argument.

We already employ quantum information to do things like spectroscopy. I work with these systems every day (when my lab is open). You aren't going to win this one by appealing to your own definitions of things.
I hope you stop listening to your "actual physicist friends." I could introduce you to a few people who made it past introductory QM.

[Anonymous No.12052044]

>>12052018
>information isn’t physical
Stopped reading your schizo rant there.
No, I'm not reading your reply to this post either.

[Anonymous No.12052049]

>>12051952
>not important for physics
Wrong
>not real, pseudoscience in every sense of the word
Wrong

[Anonymous No.12052050]

>>12052043
>i use it to do lab work
No you don’t as information carriers are physical objects, states are physical events, and you absolutely under bo circumstances are manipulating information to change physical states. I guarantee you don’t understand statistical mechanics very well. Most experimentalists don’t know enough math to understand the formalism.
>>12052044
>schizo
I would think a psychotic and unphysical view of the world where one misinterprets Boltzmann and Gibbs is something physicists wouldn’t appreciate.

You can read this if you’re curious. This is essentially the view of my friend but given in full detail by an academic:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.2414.pdf

[Anonymous No.12052056]

>>12052049
I am correct information theory isn’t important for physical theory. It’s pseudoscience because the central object of study isn’t real physically and doesn’t yield accurate testable predictions about the world. Information theory pseuds relabel physical phenomena as informational and then claim they’ve made discoveries on behalf of physicists. This isn’t science it’s fraud and cargo culting science.

[Anonymous No.12052061]

>>12052056
"physical theory" isn't important for understanding the totality of reality

[Anonymous No.12052065]

>>12052050
you're projecting. if you want to use your own definition of "information" then go for it, but it doesn't mean that we can't use these systems to store information.
>I guarantee you don’t understand statistical mechanics very well.
what are your qualifications again?
>cherry picking arxiv papers from literal nobodies
you belong in a race & IQ thread

[Anonymous No.12052095]

>>12052018
Based and quantum pseudiscience pilled.

[Anonymous No.12052406]

>>12051952
>not important for physics
it's literally classification for locally gapped hamiltonians. It's incredibly relevant for condensed matter physics
>quantum information
>pseud
it's just a quantization of classical information and it's largely useful. what part is 'pseud?'

[Anonymous No.12052510]

>>12051752
>Except quantum computing has already paid out
I'll have the London Broil, medium rare please.
>I had this conversation talking with a pal at … a nice restaurant near one of America’s great centers of learning. Our waiter was amazed and shared with us the fact that he had done a Ph.D. thesis on the subject of quantum computing. My pal was convinced by this that my skepticism is justified; in fact he accused me of arranging this. I didn’t, but am motivated to write to prevent future Ivy League Ph.D. level talent having to make a living by bringing a couple of finance nerds their steaks.
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/

[Anonymous No.12052532]

>>12052510
>https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/
Ah, this link up again. I've always been pretty skeptical of his claim, especially since he doesn't bring up what the waiter did, how old the waiter was, etc etc..
It's easy to say monikers and gotchas, and much harder to refute something like MIP* = RE

[Anonymous No.12052533]

>>12051752
>Except quantum computing has already paid out with the theory of quantum information channels and quantum hamiltonian complexity, both for physics and for CS.
Only if by "paid out" you mean "paid out metaphorically and not in terms of actual money."

[Anonymous No.12052543]

>>12052533
Paid out in that there have been numerous theoretical advances that have implications for both physics and CS. The MIP* = RE paper is a good example of this - it knocked out two conjectures with a single results, no physical quantum devices needed.

[Anonymous No.12052557]

>>12052543
That's not a quantum computing accomplishment. It's an accomplishment in proving what the computational complexity of a class of quantum computing problems is.

[Anonymous No.12052568]

Why shouldn't we at least try. Those who try at times succeed. Those who do not always fail.

[Anonymous No.12052570]

>>12051713
hiccups happen, doesn't mean it's the nail in the coffin.

>>12051732
i can respect this but that's not a good reason to say the tech itself is bunk.

[Anonymous No.12052599]

>>12052568
Because time and resources would be better spent on actual computation.

[Anonymous No.12052612]

>>12052599
>We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things
What happened to American optimism. LHC could have been in the US if not for this newfound defeatism. And it is continuing to make important discoveries.

[Anonymous No.12052616]

>>12052557
> It's an accomplishment in proving what the computational complexity of a class of quantum computing problems is.\
Quantum computing is the catch all name for this field, especially since this is quantum complexity theory, and especially so because this was funded by quantum computing funding money

[Anonymous No.12052619]

>>12052612
I'm optimistic about actual computing.

[Anonymous No.12052623]

>>12052619
And I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Anonymous No.12052624]

>>12052623
Quantum computing is neither walking nor chewing. It's a dead end that excites people who like hearing the word "quantum."

[Anonymous No.12052632]

>>12052624
Whatever. This is not how anything ever got invented. People sitting around naysaying others who are actually trying to make new things happen.

[Anonymous No.12052643]

>>12052632
If you don't have naysaying you end up with retards wasting their lives on bullshit like perpetual motion machines. Not everything is worth continued investment.

[Anonymous No.12052777]

>>12052018
>I have neither studied physics nor information theory: The Post
>>12052557
>>That's not a quantum computing accomplishment
>proceeds to describe how it's an accomplishment in a topic encompassed by quantum computing
the absolute state of this board, jesus christ

[Anonymous No.12052778]

>OP is too retarded to know we have already achieved quantum supremacy
What a cuck.

[Anonymous No.12052808]

>>12052777
The closest that anon gets to talking about information is >>12052050 when he cites https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.2414.pdf but even this is a pessimism piece more than an actual argument

[Anonymous No.12052831]

>>12052778
Enjoy your useless and extremely contrived toy problem solvers.

[Anonymous No.12052836]

>>12052777
Nobody used quantum computing to prove what complexity MIP* has.

[Anonymous No.12052846]

>>12052836
...are you stupid? Quantum complexity theory is part of quantum computing.
Largely, computing research is about
1) applying the use of computers and algorithms to developing results and experiments
2) applying the theory of computer science to understand nature
The former is well known, but the latter is something that only started showing up after the 90s when people started understanding that computation and constructibility can be applied to scientific theory. MIP* = RE is the results of quantum information and complexity

[Anonymous No.12052850]

>>12052846
That's great but it still isn't a quantum computing accomplishment.

[Anonymous No.12052852]

>>12051732
>It's not far removed from the Deepak Chopra quantum new age scam shit.
Based retard

[Anonymous No.12052853]

>>12052846
>quantum computing has practical results if you redefine work involving no quantum computation as quantum computation

[Anonymous No.12052864]

>>12052852
That's exactly what it is. It wouldn't be in the news at all if the general public wasn't tricked into thinking "quantum" means "magic."

[Anonymous No.12052868]

>>12052850
>>12052853
Yes, it is. Almost all the big quantum computation work has been on the side of theory, like the quantum verification algorithm from a few years back.

[Anonymous No.12052876]

>>12051952
>not important for physics
>pseudoscience
kys