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

Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 237 posts

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#121

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

marricks wrote: post #10

> He said: “This is a very nice demonstration of quantum advantage. While a great achievement academically, the algorithm used does not really have real world practical applications, though. > “We really must get to utility quantum computing – an era where quantum computers with many thousand qubits actually begin to deliver value to society in a way that classical computers never will be able to.” This seems to be t…

Quantum computing feels like nucleair fusion. Been hearing about how its going to change the world since I was kid.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#122

Post by fnordpiglet »

pooloo wrote: post #73
dataflow wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't know, with any precision, the amount of force you used, the rate the stick broke at, how much mass remains in the two pieces and how much was lost to splintering, etc. But I can measure those with a ruler and a scale. Both before and after the breakage. Takes a few seconds, and I'd need to do that before punching those numbers into the simulator anyway. And I can be precise with where I apply the force, e…

You really just answered this yourself: > Assume a computer would need several minutes to simulate everything that would've happened in the stick. I clearly got the output faster than a computer (and with more precision), so does this imply I'm doing anything particularly fascinating? You assert that you have output faster than a computer with more precision. However, you do not have any empirical data, just observab…

I don’t think you guys are tackling this right. You can observe the stick breaking to absurd precision, even using an electron tunneling microscope, and produce immense amounts of data about the sticks state at every point in the breaking and afterwards faster than a computer can simulate breaking the stick. The key is the stick breaking and it’s observation at any level of detail happens in parallel with all aspects of the system coherently acting in real time simultaneously in a way with perfect effects and transmission of information between all quantum parts of the system at the speed of light. The computer on the other hand is operating in a binary encoding Turing machine forced to rely on imperfect relatively serial (compared to the parallelism of reality) with encodings that and algorithmic mathematical models that produce encodings that are similar to what reality produces naturally. The issue is the layers of abstraction, nor the measurement and detail of the system. All the measurable information about the stick and it’s breaking is available and measurable with no impact on the time it takes to break the stick.

Here’s perhaps a more clear example. The universe influences itself at a distance with all bodies acting on all other bodies at once. This is a classical nbody problem where n->inf. We can measure quite easily these effects without perturbing the system, which would not be able to progress a single iteration in the entire span of the universe if simulated by a computer.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#123

Post by marcosdumay »

dataflow wrote: post #7

Dumb question: Say I have a wooden stick and I break it in half in less than a second. Assume a computer would need several minutes to simulate everything that would've happened in the stick. I clearly got the output faster than a computer (and with more precision), so does this imply I'm doing anything particularly fascinating? I assume the same scenario is possible to concoct for a quantum computer. I assume it wou…

> so does this imply I'm doing anything particularly fascinating

If you mean "useful", then I'd like to point our that breaking rods is a common task in many labs all over the world exactly because it can calculate some things better than any non-rod computer we have.

If you literally meant "fascinating", then you'd have to ask yourself. For a lot of people, it is.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#124

Post by fnordpiglet »

dataflow wrote: post #7

Dumb question: Say I have a wooden stick and I break it in half in less than a second. Assume a computer would need several minutes to simulate everything that would've happened in the stick. I clearly got the output faster than a computer (and with more precision), so does this imply I'm doing anything particularly fascinating? I assume the same scenario is possible to concoct for a quantum computer. I assume it wou…

The key is things are interesting if they’re interesting to someone. The fact you can break a stick and observe in detail in real time at a minute level better than a computer is very interesting to many people. Botanists, biologists, material scientists, architects, industrial engineers, etc. It’s just not interesting to you.

Likewise even contrived quantum experiments like this aren’t interesting to many people. They’re not practical. But they’re profoundly interested to people interested in quantum computing. They’re milestones on a roadmap. There will and are things computer computers won’t do better than classical computers and there are things in reality neither will simulate, and those things are interesting to someone. In fact I think this is a crucial part of basic science- EVERYTHING is interesting. Even the lack of something interesting is certainly interesting to a psychologist :-)

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#126

Post by fnordpiglet »

marricks wrote: post #10

> He said: “This is a very nice demonstration of quantum advantage. While a great achievement academically, the algorithm used does not really have real world practical applications, though. > “We really must get to utility quantum computing – an era where quantum computers with many thousand qubits actually begin to deliver value to society in a way that classical computers never will be able to.” This seems to be t…

It’s a milestone on a roadmap. Science like this doesn’t happen in eureka moments - it’s a methodical slog through our ignorance where we latch in wins bit by bit over decades. Quantum computing, AI, fusion, curing cancer, ending aging, they’re pinnacle achievements at the extended play of Civilization.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#127

Post by laxd »

tedivm wrote: post #22
marricks wrote: post #10

> He said: “This is a very nice demonstration of quantum advantage. While a great achievement academically, the algorithm used does not really have real world practical applications, though. > “We really must get to utility quantum computing – an era where quantum computers with many thousand qubits actually begin to deliver value to society in a way that classical computers never will be able to.” This seems to be t…

I don't think it's that the concepts are contrived (although the test cases certainly are), it's just that our quantum computers are really early in their development and can't do the more complicated things yet. It's like if we had calculators that took an hour to do each arithmetic operation- the fact that people wouldn't use it doesn't mean arithmetic is contrived, just that it isn't as powerful as better alternat…

> ... quantum computers are really early in their development and can't do the more complicated things yet. It's like if we had calculators that took an hour to do each arithmetic operation ...

Reminds me of the story George Stibitz tells after developing one of the first devices that could be called a computer. Management at Bell Labs was not impressed that he had built a "20000 dollar calculator".

https://youtu.be/qundvme1Tik?t=259

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#128

Post by kouru225 »

squarefoot wrote: post #113

I know nothing about quantum computing, but when I read "does X instantly when rivals need 47 years", I immediately think about it being abused for brute forcing passwords and encryption keys. Would it be possible?

Government institutions have already been instructed to start using quantum computer safe encryption algorithms. Internationally, governments have been storing tons of encrypted data that they can’t currently decrypt because they expect to be able to decrypt it soon using quantum computers.

There are already quantum computer safe encryption algorithms that have been released to the public. I don’t know exactly how they work, but one of them was about reverse engineering a path through multi-dimensional space.

Expect SHA256 to disappear soon and be replaced.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#129

Post by ithkuil »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #57
wholinator2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these capabilities of which you speak? Or have i missed the sarcasm

In many other worlds gp got tremendous karma for their post. That's how quantum mental abilities work.

Do you mean; Use a quantum random number generator and emit random words. Changes are that in some world the comment is insightful?

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#130

Post by hedora »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #121
marricks wrote: post #10

> He said: “This is a very nice demonstration of quantum advantage. While a great achievement academically, the algorithm used does not really have real world practical applications, though. > “We really must get to utility quantum computing – an era where quantum computers with many thousand qubits actually begin to deliver value to society in a way that classical computers never will be able to.” This seems to be t…

Quantum computing feels like nucleair fusion. Been hearing about how its going to change the world since I was kid.

Well, in fairness, I could say the same about solar, improved batteries, etc.
Post reply on HN