81–90 of 109 posts
I wonder if quantum computing is just a mirage that results from looking too much at the time complexity of quantum algorithms versus the cost in qubits, which are still wildly expensive. Maybe qubits will just never scale to the number of qubits needed to meaningfully outperform classical computers.
Or something else.
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-comput...
If you are able of imagining the future, and capable of logical coherent thoughts, the statement "the need for quantum computers remains small" is just... damn narrow-minded and perhaps just plain stupid. If you can shave off a factor n in O(n^3) then O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y it will change the world. If you don't see the obviousness in this, then why are you working with computers? Before you hate on me, did you even googl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That reads like Wolfram is generally pretty ignorant of the current state of quantum measurements. We can do continuous measurements now that barely perturb the system (Google “quantum non demolition” and “weak measurement”). Also while measurements are difficult to explain in QM (incompatible with Schrodinger equation) our theory of them is quite rich and complete now. This just seems rambling and imprecise from Wol…
Neat. I have no trouble believing Stephen Wolfram could be out of touch with the current state of QM given he's been busy with his physics project and what not. And he's a terrible speaker. That podcast was the longest in Mindscape history due to that. I think part of his view is also partially based on the Wolfram Project multiway causal graph framework and its implications on the measurement problem. It's an intere…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drug molecules are much too large for near term QC, let alone the interaction of two of them in a solvent. We're talking thousands of qubits and circuits millions of operations deep.
How do you possibly know the details of a future implementation?
It's true that there could be neat quantum computing shortcuts that maintain calculation accuracy and that aren't doable on classical computers... but then we could also imagine that some neat Quantum Chemistry trick might make classical computers much better too. (We actually have a bunch of these already but they are approximative: DFT, machine learning, pseudo potentials etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to justify?
because Qbits are just random numbers. They want to make u believe that Qbits represent a range of values, which is true in theory, but in reality it's just a plain old single random number. So all QC calculation are basically random + random * random - random = ... random ofc. I think google it's only QC application was a program that generates some random hash. Other than that, QC hasnt done anything else, nor do i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you believe a quantum computer can actually solve that problem? The whole point of the article is that quantum computers are not and can never be general-purpose computers. And something with as many inputs as "simulate the human body" seems like the exact opposite of what you can encode in qubits, evolve as a state vector, and usefully read out.
The point is that for these sort of simulations you don't want a general purpose computer. Ideally you have a "equivalent" of the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian that you can manipulate/design and read effects out from. Now to simulate the human body probably requires a prohibitively large number of qubits, however for many very useful things you don't need that.
However, any way you look at it, "[quantum] simulating the human body" is complete batshit science wingnut nonsense (though I tried to be diplomatic about it above). There isn't even any way to measure the input state there! It's ill-defined, it's subject to measurement uncertainty, it's just plain chaotic. As an actual former scientist, it would help my blood pressure if science wingnuts who do not understand the first thing about what they're talking about could please stay quiet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to justify?
because Qbits are just random numbers. They want to make u believe that Qbits represent a range of values, which is true in theory, but in reality it's just a plain old single random number. So all QC calculation are basically random + random * random - random = ... random ofc. I think google it's only QC application was a program that generates some random hash. Other than that, QC hasnt done anything else, nor do i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat. I have no trouble believing Stephen Wolfram could be out of touch with the current state of QM given he's been busy with his physics project and what not. And he's a terrible speaker. That podcast was the longest in Mindscape history due to that. I think part of his view is also partially based on the Wolfram Project multiway causal graph framework and its implications on the measurement problem. It's an intere…
Yeah. Frankly I don't know much at all about Wolfram's work, other than that Mathematica is the best maths software in the world. As far as I have gathered, his work is so strange and different that it has very little contact with most physicists. I work in quantum measurement and non-linear quantum optics and no one discusses him, either on the experimental or theoretical side. He seems to be a smart maverick with a…
My gut reaction to his mention of a rulial space is to be reminded of the Calabi-Yao manifold situation in string theory. If the space is even close to similar in size to that parameter space, that would be a theoretical nightmare.