[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 13 KB, 584x329, news467513a_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1883521

Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:07:28 2010 No.1883521 [Reply] [Original]

Kiss your ones and zeros good-bye. Maybe. The new edition of Nature is announcing big news in the slog toward quantum computing, e.g. the holy grail of computing, that thing that will make this box on my desk right now look like an abacus in the not-too-distant future.

Very recently, two teams of researchers successfully entangled three sets of qubits, the quantum systems that may eventually replace classical computing’s “bits.” And when qubits become entangled with each other, they’re in what’s known as a superposition of states, which is like being two things at once.

The upshot of that is that quantum computers can run their calculations all at the same time, instead of one at a time, as with classical computers. Which, as you can imagine, kicks things way the eff up as far as speed and capabilities.

Three bits is the lucky number of sorts for quantum computing because of something known as error correction. That is, quantum systems tend to lose bits of information, and having a third qubit in place means you can use that extra qubit to check for mistakes. (Doing anything to a quantum system, including “checking it,” causes it to collapse.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:09:28 2010 No.1883527 >That is, quantum systems tend to lose bits of information Not nice.

>>

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue Oct 12 05:09:28 2010 No.1883525
File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1266759467578.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>The upshot of that is that quantum computers can run their calculations all at the same time, instead of one at a time, as with classical computers.
I know someone could explain quantum mechanics to me, but this still sounds retarded.

>>	снайпер Tue Oct 12 05:10:28 2010 No.1883531 As far as I understand it, quantum computing is only going to speed up calculations involved in encryption and decryption.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:12:28 2010 No.1883532 File: 218 KB, 1003x1217, Cribsheet #15.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I only saw the thumbnail, but I think this is the relevant one.

>>

Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:13:28 2010 No.1883535

lol

We had a physics department colloquium on quantum qubits.

The answer to the question "when will we have a quantum computer" depends on who's asking - 10 years if its a funding agent, 25 if its a scientist.

They have several problems

Coherence time (the length of time that the prepared quantum state can actively be used to calculate stuff). Ideally they need a long enough coherence time to do millions of operations in one excitation, currently they manage to do tens.

ALso, connecting together qubits, everyone and their dog can make qubits (take a regular microwave resonator, put a josephson junction in the inductor), making them work together is another question.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:13:28 2010 No.1883536 I predict some massive technology wars coming up. Quantum computing vs Graphene-based computing and several different upcoming memory systems against each other. We are going to live in interesting times.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:16:28 2010 No.1883541 >>1883536 http://www.physorg.com/news119632225.html I know what you mean, though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:18:28 2010 No.1883544 >>1883521 Excellent, call me back once they have one that works at room temperature.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:21:28 2010 No.1883547 >>1883541 Quantum computing>graphene graphene's just a lot more feasible in the short term. Quantum computers are pretty far from integration into products, graphene is less far.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:26:28 2010 No.1883558 The article was about using graphene for quantum.

>>

Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:30:28 2010 No.1883569

meanwhile non binary systems and parallel computing techniques based on existing and accessible technologies/established materials science are being ignored. I have a carbon based computer with me right now that puts the world's top ten super computers to shame.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:34:28 2010 No.1883573 File: 14 KB, 479x360, 1265408204944.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1883569 >I have a carbon based computer with me right now that puts the world's top ten super computers to shame. wat?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:35:28 2010 No.1883575 >>1883569 What's the billionth prime? No Googlan.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:38:28 2010 No.1883582 >>1883573 The human brain, dumbshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:38:28 2010 No.1883584 >>1883573 the brain you nigger >>1883575 mhe that's simply a matter of neural configuration and operating speed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:39:28 2010 No.1883586 >>1883582 >lol so edgy and different xD i speak in riddles lol so hip

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:41:28 2010 No.1883594 >>1883586 I wasn't the person to say >>I have a carbon based computer with me right now that puts the world's top ten super computers to shame. You just went full on retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:42:28 2010 No.1883597 File: 5 KB, 126x120, 1273363164897.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1883594

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:43:28 2010 No.1883598 >>1883586 that was me not him and don't get mad because you didn't understand something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:44:28 2010 No.1883602 File: 13 KB, 375x295, fucking stupid.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1883597

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:44:28 2010 No.1883603 File: 121 KB, 378x512, trolled_hard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1883598

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:46:28 2010 No.1883608 Why do I feel like this thread has 3 people in it throwing a steaming pile of shit back and forth?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 05:52:28 2010 No.1883619 what will we be able to do once they work it out?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 06:16:28 2010 No.1883644 >>1883619 Crack RSA in a matter of hours Its why the NSA is a big secret funder of quantum computing research.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 12:52:28 2010 No.1884296 >>1883644 >Implying they don't already have vast underground floors full of quantum clusters

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 13:00:28 2010 No.1884320 File: 44 KB, 219x207, 1284024907945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Windows Quantum has stopped responding. >Checking for solutions. Windows Quantum has collapsed. >Restarting Quantum.

>>

Anonymous Tue Oct 12 13:03:28 2010 No.1884334

I think it was IBM that recently demonstrated they could use single iron atoms as bits for memory. The refresh rate was considerably faster than current DRAM but cheap memory could be on the horizon.

I can't wait until all the C++ fags die off because garbage collection will be more efficient when you have gigs and gigs of ram.

>>

Anonymous Tue Oct 12 13:11:28 2010 No.1884361

>>1883527
Classical computers also lose information. It's just a matter of having appropriate correction codes to minimize/correct the impact.

>>1883531
It will speed up everything. Network routing algorithms? Database searches? Collision detection in your favourite video game? Check, check, and check.

>>1883644
RSA won't even matter by that point. The algorithms needed for security in a quantum world are already designed and ready to go. Also, there are commercial quantum cryptosystems deployed in real world applications right now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 13:14:28 2010 No.1884371 > cheap memory could be on the horizon. Clearly, you were not around in the days when a megabyte of storage ran around $1000. My jaw drops every time I see a 16 GB USB key being advertised for $20.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 12 13:21:28 2010 No.1884385 >>1884371 I'm 32. Been around a while. But I am mainly referring to RAM, as slower means of storing data far exceed normal use right now.