/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15801366]

quantum computing insider here, AMA. I'll try to get to as many of your questions as I can

[Anonymous No.15801375]

>>15801366
Has anything important happened recently and is something going to in the near future?

[Anonymous No.15801376]

>>15801366
does quantum supremacy confirm copenhagen?

[Anonymous No.15801392]

>>15801366
Topological quantum computing -- based or cringe?

[Anonymous No.15801398]

>>15801375
i mean the most recent hubbub was the IBM zero noise extrapolation paper claiming advantage that was classically simulated separately by a bunch of groups separately (on laptops lmao). can't speak on hardware developments. I'd keep an eye on error correction over the next few years and see if they have any different schemes, seems like newer error correction codes are coming out all the time
>>15801376
i don't necessarily think so, just that our quantum model led to an efficient computation, not that our model is 100% sure to be reality. even then, it's really debatable whether we've reached advantage yet.
>>15801392
math behind it is based, physical implementation is cringe. remember in elementary school when the girls would play cat's cradle? Who knew they were TQC experts all along

[Anonymous No.15801399]

>>15801366
can it run DOOM?

[Anonymous No.15801403]

>>15801398
the particular is the cause but your judgement is the syllogism
and the invader explaining it
no directions?

[Anonymous No.15801409]

>>15801399
no and it never will. doom clones are dope though, I used to play mega-man 8-bit death match and SRB2
>>15801403
what exactly don't you like about that answer? I think what I said is the exact opposite of a syllogism, that quantum advantage doesn't necessarily confirm copenhagen

[Anonymous No.15801411]

>>15801398
What's so cringe about the physical implementation of TQC?

[Anonymous No.15801413]

>>15801409
>>15801376 me
>>15801403 not me

[Anonymous No.15801415]

>>15801409
>no and it never will

[Anonymous No.15801416]

Is it gay if I let my gf peg me

[Anonymous No.15801417]

>>15801416
does your gf have a cock?

[Anonymous No.15801418]

>>15801411
check out the Kouwenhoven controversy
>>15801416
i don't think so bro you're good

[Anonymous No.15801419]

>>15801409
why is the contemporary considered substantial, or is it the accident? that's what i don't like about the answer

[Anonymous No.15801427]

>>15801419
is this ESL or google translate? can you post any of your blogs so I can learn more about your writing style?

[Anonymous No.15801484]

>>15801427
i'm trying to apply the T/V distinction to english

[Anonymous No.15801489]

>>15801366
fake and gay

[Anonymous No.15801521]

>>15801366
how do i learn to program quantum computers

[Anonymous No.15801545]

>>15801366
what is preventing us from just simulating quantum stuff with sumthin like random()%2

[Anonymous No.15801570]

>>15801399
It is.

[Anonymous No.15801579]

>>15801366
Two questions:

Are quantum simulators/analog quantum computers contributing to the field?

Will there be a lot of jobs in it in 5 years like its proponents say there will be?

[Anonymous No.15801799]

>>15801521
read nielsen and chuang, play around with some of the qiskit simulators, then start reading papers about algorithms
>>15801545
the exponential growth of the hilbert space. with n qubits there are 2^n floating point values you need to keep track of to simulate the distribution of a state
>>15801579
(1) can't speak to analog QC but we use simulators all of the time, very useful for testing out ideas. of course for the stuff we really want to do we need the legit quantum hardware for it (2) i would not count on there being more jobs in 5 years. some quantum startups have already started layoffs and pivoting to generic AI, tech space had a rough year, etc. I'd bet that by 5-10 years we see a lot of the startups go away and talent consolidated in a few places like gov't and big tech.

[Anonymous No.15801801]

>>15801799
>schizophasia and glossolalia

[Anonymous No.15801902]

>>15801366
Do you have any papers that show the ergodic behavior of quantum systems like https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07722 . Or insight into why

[Anonymous No.15801926]

>>15801366
You can make quantum entagnlement, that when I flip one, another spins too, but can it be also inverse funcion?

How does those waves propagates in there? You read some furrier transforms or what?

Also... How big is your cooling compressor in kW

[Anonymous No.15801937]

>>15801366
How does this work? What operating system does it use? How much power does it take? Can it play minecraft?

[Anonymous No.15802047]

>>15801376
Copenhagen isn't even an interpretation, there's nothing to confirm.

[Anonymous No.15802067]

>>15801366
if aliens have computers. what would they be like?

[Anonymous No.15802069]

>>15801366
what's the biggest number QC can factor right now and when do you think will QC be able to factor 1 billion?

[Anonymous No.15802101]

What would ChatGPT look like if we had quantum computers?

[Anonymous No.15802105]

>>15802101
It could finally say the N-word.

[Anonymous No.15802126]

>>15801579
I'm developing powerhouse to distill CO2 from air and converting it back to gasoline powered by tidal energy or whatever, are you interested in any cool cooling?

Get best HP gain compressor for Shelby Mustang GT, if it has 6gon compressor rotator it's correct. Make it out of wolfram and run it by gasoline. I recommend you building room, that is from airtight material, can be even plastics, and make vaccuum chamber in between that. Few layers. Also if you feed few of those compressors in ARRAY, I recommend you using helium, not Hydrogen. Hydrogen fires are invisible and there's danger of dissapearing.

[Anonymous No.15802305]

>>15802101
>What would ChatGPT look like
they would clearly refresh the UI on their webpage to reflect that.

[Anonymous No.15802324]

When will the hype bubble pop? It's pretty obvious nothing practical will be achieved until several decades in the future.

[Anonymous No.15802337]

>>15801366
was it worth the speed increase in calculating the prime factors of eleven?

[Anonymous No.15802676]

>>15801902
this stuff looks pretty interesting. I have looked into quantum walks before; check out quantum carpets and anderson localization
>>15801926
can't answer how big the cooling compressor is. for the first question if I'm understanding correctly just put an x gate on the second qubit
>>15801937
doesn't really have an OS in the traditional sense; a classical computer sends instructions to the quantum components and those would just be in the form of scripts in whatever language. never going to play minecraft
>>15802067
probably look like cruelty squad
>>15802069
people claim to factor big numbers all the time with QC, but their methods are either super specific to the number they're trying to factor, or use a whole lot of classical processing. the biggest number factored by Shor? might be 21, not sure though

[Anonymous No.15802683]

>>15802101
it would basically be the same except they would tell you they're using QC and charge you more money
>>15802324
that won't stop investors from propping up the system. you already can see signs of market contraction but honestly i'm not sure. I think by 2030 it won't be so prominent and there will be a few other meme technologies that people will fixate on over QC
>>15802337
there isn't even a speed increase in calculating prime factors of small numbers. there will be though for large numbers. only time will tell if this has all been worth it, wouldn't be surprised if it's not

[Anonymous No.15802964]

>>15801366
How close until i can walk into blackrock and make alladin run the travelling salesman to find thr longest barter chains?

[Anonymous No.15802976]

>>15802964
if you look at actual industrial optimization use cases you find that classical optimizers do plenty well enough already and any benefit you'd get from a grover speedup would not only have to overcome massive error correction overhead but also financially probably not be worth it given all of the effort once you get there

[Anonymous No.15802983]

[Anonymous No.15802998]

>>15801366
What are the killer apps of quantum computers?
ML models and like materials science stuff? Perhaps this is hard to answer because we dont really have QC yet so we dont know. But it seems to me that the effort being put into QC is large enough that people have ideas about where this will go.

[Anonymous No.15803017]

>>15802983

[Anonymous No.15803018]

[Anonymous No.15803020]

[Anonymous No.15803024]

[Anonymous No.15803026]

>>15802976
>>15802976
Blackrock market makes i believe 14 trillion in assets this is about macro economic scale price finding not profit maximizing singular industrial supply chains

Since the gold shock humanity has easily consumed 8 generations worth of natural resources in a single one, there is nothing efficient about managing markets with prices, let alone ones without a hard money standard

Just everyon post what they wantvand what they got on a website

And run an algorithm that finds 1/4 of a cow for 7.2 bushels of wheat for 3 hours of johns software services.

[Anonymous No.15803029]

>>15803017
>>15803018
>>15803020
>>15803024

[Anonymous No.15803036]

>>15801799
when >>15801579 asks about "quantum simulators", they're not talking about classical simulations of quantum algorithms. its kind of confusing nomenclature. by "quantum simulators/analog quantum computers", they're asking about non gate-based models of quantum computation. quantum simulators, roughly speaking, is using some controllable quantum system to directly emulate some other quantum system you might care to know about. i believe they mainly show promise for simulating 1d and 2d systems, which can be of interest in condensed matter physics problems, such as in some super conductivity models. but they currently struggle with the emulation of 3d systems, such as those seen in quantum chemistry.

[Anonymous No.15803220]

>>15801366
Can you please explain how a quantum computer calculates in terms that a person with subnormal intelligence could understand?

[Anonymous No.15803275]

>>15802983
>>15803017
>>15803018
>>15803020
>>15803024
Damn, this sent me down a rabbit hole. Thanks anon
>>15802998
It’s a balance. People with money really want optimization, ML, massive diffEQ solvers, some secure cryptographic communication, and I don’t think at the end of the day QC will materially help with any of those. Most academic sources seem excited about the prospect of simulating quantum systems, Hamiltonian dynamics, and just “seeing what happens”. They’re not as enthused about some of the more outlandish claims from industry. Be very careful listening to people who have a financial incentive to hype shit up
>>15803036
Okay that makes more sense. Yeah I’ve seen people build analog/optical computers and do some cool things with them, but there have always been serious questions about scaling
>>15803220
Imagine you’re trying to solve a problem and there is a bin with a bunch of balls representing all possible answers to your problem. Close your eyes. The quantum computer shakes the balls around. Pick a ball out of the bin. If the quantum computer did a good job you probably have the right answer (that’s just probabilistic computing, the quantum part is the magic bin shaking step)

[Anonymous No.15803311]

>>15803275
Thank you anon. That does seem like magic.

[Anonymous No.15803314]

>>15802676
>never going to play minecraft
Sounds like a complete waste of money.

[Anonymous No.15803611]

>>15801366
How far along are we, at creating a fully scalable quantum ISA?

Last time I checked, no one was even seriously trying to make a fully scalable quantum ISA and most quantum architectures were just bastardized off-shoots of conventional logic.

[Anonymous No.15803629]

>>15801366
It won't work, or not the way it's implied to), because particles don't exist.
You have a wave function (let's say an image on an electron microscope, or the pattern of the double slit experiment) and a threshold (when the phosphor blinks). Then there is quantum noise. When the noise+ the wavefunction > threshold, the phosphor blinks. This looks like a particle, but there is none.

[Anonymous No.15803756]

>>15803275
and where is the time shortening magic coming from?

[Anonymous No.15803780]

>>15803314
Minecraft beyond the alpha is a waste
>>15803611
We use cirq (google) mostly to benchmark our algorithms and we can create massive circuit objects with it. The issue isn’t scalability, the issue is that every group has their own language and method of implementing certain operations that aren’t always compatible. we have to base our work off of something, but difficult to say which languages are in it for the long haul
>>15803629
I’m not a physicist so I can’t speak to this, but I’m always amused by the arguments that quantum mechanics isn’t real and the kooky people that make those claims, check out “ItsBS” on YouTube. I also used to be into pilot wave theory. It does bother me from time to time that my work hinges on these bizarre physical models to be accurate, but the math is interesting enough that I don’t care. Also we’ve observed enough things on small quibit experiments that satisfy me
>>15803756
You can do certain basic operations on a quantum state that you can’t do on a classical vector. Example, if you have a quantum/classical object size 2^n, a classical Fourier transform takes O(n2^n) operations but a quantum FT takes O(n^2) hadamard/cnot gates. That forms the basis of shor’s factoring algorithm

[Anonymous No.15803840]

>>15803780
No it gets rid of the problem entirely. Only the quantum mechanics is real, particles are an illusion.