Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The quantum computing bubble

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–144 of 144 posts

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#141

Post by fsh »

krastanov wrote: post #140
fsh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not aware of a single telecom application that uses any of these technologies. Could you give some examples?

The nonlinear optics is what enables optical signal modulators. For modulation of classical optical signals it is not necessary to have a "strong nonlinearity at the single photon level". However, that is being developed for quantum computing applications and as a side effect it makes today's optical modulators much better.

Telecom signal modulators are almost exclusively based on the Kerr effect or acousto-optics. Both effects have been known for at least 100 years and have nothing to do with nonlinear optics. The development of modern modulators was always driven by telecom and then applied to scientific experiments, not the other way round.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#142

Post by krastanov »

fsh wrote: post #141
krastanov wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nonlinear optics is what enables optical signal modulators. For modulation of classical optical signals it is not necessary to have a "strong nonlinearity at the single photon level". However, that is being developed for quantum computing applications and as a side effect it makes today's optical modulators much better.

Telecom signal modulators are almost exclusively based on the Kerr effect or acousto-optics. Both effects have been known for at least 100 years and have nothing to do with nonlinear optics. The development of modern modulators was always driven by telecom and then applied to scientific experiments, not the other way round.

There might be some semantic misunderstanding here. "Kerr effect" is "nonlinear optics" in my book - it works both at the low GHz frequency of electro-optics and at the high THz frequencies of pure optics. I agree with the rest of your statement (and it does not seem to be in conflict with the initial comparison: vacuum tubes were being developed for 50 years due to the needs of the radio industry before they became viable for computation).

And the direction symbiotic improvements is not necessary as clear: there are academic groups solely focused on quantum optical effects, whose research then gets reused by the telecom industry and vice versa. These quantum research groups would be dead in the water if it was not for the fab capabilities initially developed by telecom folks, but they have certainly surpassed them by far now (in one-off "hero" devices).

P.S. Same with acousto-optic devices. What you would find in a quantum computing lab is far more impressive than what is being deployed today. Even if the quantum computing field is a bust, the tech they developed would improve telecom state of the art by orders of magnitude.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#143

Post by denton-scratch »

lumost wrote: post #122
denton-scratch wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason exponential speedups are required is due to the extreme cost of quantum computing R&D and extremely limited quantum computers that come out of it. Hmmm. I'm no mathematician; but I thought the value of an "exponential speedup" is if you are trying to solve a problem with "exponential complexity". I don't know if "exponential compexity" is a thing; I'm pretty sure "exponential speedup" isn't. Is it correc…

In an informal setting, specifying an exponential speed up is equivalent to specifying a "linear time solution to a problem for which the best known classical algorithm has exponential complexity". My point was that we have immense amounts of classical compute available. QC systems will not be economically viable unless they deliver gains which are >10x classical computers.

OK, thanks.

I'm one of those pedants that cringes when anyone uses "exponential" to mean "very fast". In a technical forum like this, I expect people to use a word like that fairly precisely; I'm cool with the version "a linear-time solution to a problem with exponential-time complexity for classical algorithms".

I'm also OK with your claim about the economic viability of QC; I'm not OK with the implication that there is anything exponential about a 10x performance gain.

Post reply on HN