111–120 of 325 posts
I can avoid thinking that as a species, QC is a bad investment. I think we’re trying just too early, like Charles Babbage. Great idea but the world doesn’t have the tech required. I think that if they are honest with themselves, most researchers know they won’t see the day QC are a practical reality, but everyone is trying to become the “father of QC”.
> IBM Quantum System Two is designed to work with IBM's future 433-qubit and 1,121 qubit processors. what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer?
Tangential question, what are the areas of technology where we can expect to see substantial progress or breakthroughs within 2030, i.e. what are the most exciting areas to follow and look forward to? Here's my list: - Nuclear fusion (Helion, ZAP, TAE, Tokamak Energy, CFS, Wendelstein). - Self-driving cars. - New types of nuclear fission reactors. - Spaceflight (SpaceX Starship). - Supersonic airplanes (Boom). - Soli…
- VR/AR (photonic override, more specifically)
- Fundamental physics (unlocked by tech)
Tangential question, what are the areas of technology where we can expect to see substantial progress or breakthroughs within 2030, i.e. what are the most exciting areas to follow and look forward to? Here's my list: - Nuclear fusion (Helion, ZAP, TAE, Tokamak Energy, CFS, Wendelstein). - Self-driving cars. - New types of nuclear fission reactors. - Spaceflight (SpaceX Starship). - Supersonic airplanes (Boom). - Soli…
Sadly I'd also qualify most of these as things that consumers are overly excited about but will never reach their expected potential (at least in our lifetimes) due to technological limits. Same as flying cars, 3D TVs, 3D printing, household robots, holograms, AR glasses.
Where does this sit on the "applicably breaking secure classical cryptography" spectrum?
Many years away. A good guestimate is that you need 1M physical qubits factor numbers fast. Also, there is classical public-key cryptography (i.e. encryption algorithms that run efficiently on today's classical computers) that is not susceptible to quantum computers. And symmetric cryptography has never been susceptible to quantum computers.
Neat!
Quantum Computers sitting in their cryogenic chambers are such works of art, stacks of giant brass plates and hundreds of heat pipes (or coolant pipes? liquid helium I suppose) twisted and coiling throughout the structure hanging like some steampunk chandelier (why do they hang from above anyway?) EDIT: changed to a few direct links to pics: [0][1][2] The esoteric design reminds me of the Connection Machine blog post…
Can’t wait to install Windows on this!
I can avoid thinking that as a species, QC is a bad investment. I think we’re trying just too early, like Charles Babbage. Great idea but the world doesn’t have the tech required. I think that if they are honest with themselves, most researchers know they won’t see the day QC are a practical reality, but everyone is trying to become the “father of QC”.
> The best way to predict the future is to create it
Babbage designed a computer that had essentially no impact, because it could not be built, and by the time the tech was around we had better ways to build computers.
As a global effort, it may be wiser to shift focus to other things more achievable, and try QC again in 2100 (IDK, just some random future time).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's claim was widely criticized for being an unimportant and uninteresting benchmark, making the quantum s*premacy claim nonsense. Later research proposes that an exascale-level supercomputer could simulate it in "dozens of seconds". https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.03011
This is a funny comparison. "Here is this device with 50 components. It can be simulated by a device with 1000000000000 components, so we should not really be impressed."
Computational advantages aren't the only types advantages we should care about.
For me, the name 'Eagle' reminds me of the book "Soul of a New Machine" by Tracy Kidder. That book is about the design and bring-up of another new (at the time) computer system, the Data General MV/8000, which was also code-named Eagle. I wish IBM great success with their work. edit: Clarified that the MV/8000 project was also code-named Eagle.
Haven’t read that yet but I read “House” by him recently and it was quite good
A scene from the former that I remember. The principle architect of the machine (Tom West) is talking with Edson DeCastro (CEO of Data General) and is asking for a new oscilloscope to help with the bring-up of the machine.
DeCastro tells West, essentially, he's not authorizing a new, expensive scope. West, flabbergasted, asks why. DeCastro lowers his head, peering over the top of his glasses at West, and says "Because scopes cost money, and engineering overtime is free."
I'm telling this from memory and some of the details are wrong. I guess I should go get a Kindle copy of the book and re-read it. :-)