The first commercial quantum computer?

[Anonymous No.3156227]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110531/full/474018a.html

[Anonymous No.3156257]

>>3156227
/sci/ collectively fapped to this a few days ago... Try to keep up with everyone else.

[Anonymous No.3156255]

>>3156227

>Quantum computer

Fuck, now they'll be able to decrypt my porn.

[Anonymous No.3156274]

>>3156227
idk wtf a quantum computer does

i actually find it kind of intimidating

[Anonymous No.3156280]

At best they have an 8-qubit processor, at worst Lockheed Martin just bought a huge paper weight. Until evidence proves otherwise, I'll go with the latter.

[Anonymous No.3156281]

>>3156274
Yeah, me either...
What would the speed equivalent for this thing be in normal computers?

[Anonymous No.3156290]

>>3156281
Infinity.

[Anonymous No.3156294]

>Have really fast classical computers
>Have the ability not only through Moore's Law, but through finance as well, to put an inifinite number of these really fast classical computers together to make infinitely faster processing capabilities
>Disregard this paradigm completely and spend millions of dollars are computers that use subatomic particles instead of on/off switches because it sounds cool, despite the fact that it is not and most likely will never be necessary.

Makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.3156295]

>>3156294
>inifinite number of these really fast classical computers together to make infinitely faster processing capabiliti

Yes, because we have an infinite amount of energy, money, and materials. Brilliant, professor.

[Anonymous No.3156296]

>>3156294
>an inifinite number of these really fast classical computers

[Anonymous No.3156297]

>>3156295
Infinite amount? No.

More than enough? Yes.

[Anonymous No.3156303]

>>3156297

clearly you have no understanding of the implications behind quantum computing? 2048 bit encryption? decrypt that shit in a microsecond by flicking both switches.

or you could wire up EVERY SINGLE COMPUTER in existence and wait billions of years for it to be decoded..

fullretard.jpeg

[Anonymous No.3156307]

>>3156297
I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.3156312]

Would Quantum Computing have direct effects on the quality of AI?

[Anonymous No.3156314]

>>3156303
>in a microsecond
Explain how the hell you came to THAT conclusion, or stop pretending to know more than you do.

[Anonymous No.3156315]

Wait, hold on. They sold that thing, without the buyers actually knowing how or even if it works like it's supposed to? That's kind of odd.

[Anonymous No.3156327]

>>3156281

> implying quantum computers are faster than classical computers

[Anonymous No.3156328]

Here is why Quantum computers make absolutely no sense to me:

The qubit is described by a quantum state in a two-state quantum-mechanical system, which is formally equivalent to a two-dimensional vector space over the complex numbers. One example of a two-state quantum system is the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarisation and horizontal polarisation. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.

So, then...how is that ANY different from just making a classic computers 0 or 1 into 0-1 so both gateways on the processor are traversed? If a qubit can be on/off simultaneously, why not disregard the entire qubit concept altogether and make every processing decision in a classical computer simply try both the on path and the off path for every action? Same thing, no?

[Anonymous No.3156330]

>>3156281
It's not so much about the clock speed so much that a quantum computer can perform parallelizable tasks much more efficiently than your traditional computer, i.e. it can perform lots of calculations at the same time.

So it's suited for tasks like a brute force algorithm to find prime numbers (which can be applied to cracking the "gold standard" RSA encryption), but not suited for calculations that can't be parallelized (e.g. an iterative sequence/solver)

[Anonymous No.3156333]

>>3156328

It begins to make sense if you use quantum registers, meaning more than one Qubit.
Prepare a certain state, calculate on all Qubits at once, instantly get the result by measuring all the Qubits.

[Anonymous No.3156335]

So what OS does it run? Vista?

[Anonymous No.3156337]

We have some 4-Qubit computers at my university.

Pretty interesting, they can perform Shor's algorithm to calculate the prime divisors of 21 for example, but that's it.

[Anonymous No.3156339]

>>3156333
>Prepare a certain state,
Such as?

>calculate on all Qubits at once
Just as you would calculate on all 0's and 1's at once, though, if a classic computer was set that way, no?

>instantly get the result by measuring all the Qubits.
And what form of computation would be used to do the measuring? Wouldn't that bottleneck the process?

Sorry if my questions seems rudimentary, but I truly am baffled as to how this is seen as more efficient.

[Anonymous No.3156340]

>>3156335
AmigaOS

[Anonymous No.3156343]

>>3156312
Yes. You wouldn't believe how CPU hungry some AI algorithms are, especially in planning and computer vision.

QC, having potential for being fucking fast, may let us use more accurate or/and complex algorithms.

But they will not magically make AI humanlike.

[Anonymous No.3156346]

This has made me interested in learning about quantum computing, which would mean learning quantum mechanics, which would mean learning electromagnetism (for pedagogical reasons). Any tips on going about this?

My mathematics skills are fine, and I did a little bit of quantum mechanics last year at uni but I never really stuck to it.

[Anonymous No.3156347]

>>3156339
Not him, but

> Such as?

Depends on what you want to do. All up, all down, some up, some other down etc.

> Just as you would calculate on all 0's and 1's at once, though, if a classic computer was set that way, no?

No. A quantum register of, say, 10 Qubit can be in 2^10 states at once, so it can represent 2^10 different numbers for example at once. A classical register can only represent one of those numbers, or 2 5-digit numbers etc. The calculation can be done on all states at once. For 2^10 states, you'd need 2^10 classical computers to calculate on all Qubits at once.

> And what form of computation would be used to do the measuring?

Not sure how this is done physically, is unitary transformation a phrase you know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

[Anonymous No.3156351]

>>3156281
>What would the speed equivalent for this thing be in normal computers?

Supposedly if it had over a thousand qubits it would be about as powerful as a cell phone.

So, uh, this one is probably about as powerful as a TI-83.

So don't worry, your porn is safe. Actually, even if this were a true quantum supercomputer it wouldn't be able to crack AES-256 encryption since that's symmetrical. It could brute force it twice as fast as a classical computer, but that doesn't mean much when you're trying to break a 25+ character password in AES-256.

[Anonymous No.3156354]

Inb4 all encryption is rendered obsolete

[Anonymous No.3156356]

>>3156351
>>3156347

>Post founded on nothing that sounds fairly stable.

>Another post founded on nothing that osunds fairly stable that immediately contradicts the previous post.

Stay classy, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3156357]

>>3156351

> It could brute force it twice as fast as a classical computer

wut?

Using a quantum computer effectively halves your passphrase. It is much more efficient than just twice as fast.

[Anonymous No.3156361]

>>3156356

>Umesh Vazirani, a professor at UC Berkeley and one of the founders of quantum complexity theory, made the following criticism:
>"Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Mosca and I wrote on "The power of adiabatic quantum computing." That speed up unfortunately does not hold in the setting at hand, and therefore D-Wave's "quantum computer" even if it turns out to be a true quantum computer, and even if it can be scaled to thousands of qubits, would likely not be more powerful than a cell phone."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems

[Anonymous No.3156363]

>>3156356

I'm >>3156347

and this pic resembles my reaction to your post.

[Anonymous No.3156370]

>>3156363
>Your post says "its really fast"
>Next post says "it's really slow"
>Third post points out the contradictions.
>You post a "wat" picture in response to pointing out the contradiction.

I do not understand what is so "wat"-worthy.

[Anonymous No.3156371]

You guys still >implying quantum computers are faster than classical computers.

They are not.

They are just more efficient at certain problems, not faster.

[Anonymous No.3156376]

>>3156354
>-125 kelvin
Wait, what?

[Anonymous No.3156378]

>>3156370

Please wuote the section in which i stated a QC was "fast".

You won't find one, that is "wat"-worthy. QC's are not faster, they just work differently which makes them solve certain problems more efficient, but other problems a lot less efficient than a classical computer.

[Anonymous No.3156384]

>>3156376

Sure is troll-science pic.

[Anonymous No.3156385]

>>3156371
So, where is the future? Quantum accelerators for good old PC's, for solving some specific tasks, like CUDA is used now?

[Anonymous No.3156388]

>>3156385

Yep, that would be my guess.

[Anonymous No.3156429]

So D-Wave is the next best troll of the year?

Seems so.

[Anonymous No.3156432]

>>3156328
>>3156328
What I really don't get is the fact that modern computers can already simulate quatum computers.

Please explain why it would be such a breakthrough, guys.

[Anonymous No.3156436]

I bet that thing is just a compilation of a shitload of CUDA GPU's simulating a low-qubit quantum computer.

[Anonymous No.3156442]

>>3156432

Read thread, genius.

Simulation at what cost? How efficiently? All aspects?
no.

[Anonymous No.3156453]

>>3156429
Next best?

[Anonymous No.3156490]

>>3156442
It's OK bro, there are algorithms that are efficient at simulating all possible state machines. You don't need to actually *build* one - the simulation is more efficient than the original!

[Anonymous No.3156495]

>>3156490

That must be why we don't have a simulation running that brute-forces the shit out of crypto-systems.

[Anonymous No.3156498]

>>3156495
Well, you need to simulate the simulation, then simulate THAT simulation, etc. You get a speedup each time. The trouble is that the rotational velocidensity of the hard disk platters gets too high, and the they shake themselves apart. But there's active research in reinforcing the platters with diamond, the hardest metal known to man. The future looks bright for science!

[Anonymous No.3156508]

>>3156498

troll detected.

Dragonforce is the hardest metal, scumbag.

[Anonymous No.3156510]

derp

[Anonymous No.3156513]

>>3156508
>Dragonforce
>hardest metal
I bet you only know them from Guitar Hero anyway.

[Anonymous No.3156757]

>implying Dragonforce aren't shit sloppy guitarists who can't shred for shit.

Gimme some Racer X anyday. Fucking poser faggots...

[Anonymous No.3156770]

This thread is now about really shitty music.

[Anonymous No.3156775]

Hi, did I hear someone say "dubstep"?

[Anonymous No.3156789]

>>3156498
no, it ain't, there's some shit that was made by some people that was harder than diamonds and was made of carbon

fuck you dragonforce troll

[Anonymous No.3156794]

>>3156789
Hello, summerfriend.

[Anonymous No.3156854]

Have fun writing an OS and programs for that thing.

And modern 3D engines barely take use of 4 core processors, so let alone optimization for quantum computers.

/g/ent here, I'm extremely skeptical that thing does something productive.

[Anonymous No.3156878]

>>3156757

FUCK YEAH RACER X

also cacophony make dragonforce look like my chemical romance.

[Anonymous No.3156882]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlyYC3KRqfQ

this thread is now street lethal