"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
“Apple is already dead.”
Nathan Myhrvold, former Microsoft CTO, 1997
The need for quantum computers remains small
101–109 of 109 posts
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#102"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got tired of speaking on behalf of a vague memory of Stephen Wolfram speaking that I just looked up the transcript. 6 SW: Yeah, I think… I think it’s not going to be true[that QC gives a speedup], that’s my guess. I think what’s going to happen is, if you take short algorithm for factoring, which is primarily a quantum Fourier transform, that Fourier transform is done beautifully quickly because there are all these…
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…
This is the typical stephen wolfram thing where he read feynman's proposal for quantum computing and thought about it by himself since then, and then, I would guess, figured that the experimentalists haven't had much to contribute.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#104He sort of glosses by the need to upgrade from current cryptographic algorithms. But I wonder if in 20-30 years, we'll look back on the bad timing of having designed blockchains before post-quantum cryptography was on solid footing. Even if there are few problems where quantum computers have a clear advantage, it seems at least unfortunate that a lot of people spent a lot of time and resources building up "value" exp…
I consider the odds of having quantum computers able to break discrete log within 3 decades to be rather minute. The challenges involved seem way larger than for something like making nuclear fusion commercially viable. I also have a very hard time believing that 1) physical reality supports computing with a superposition of 2^{256} states each with an accurate amplitude of magnitude 2^{-128}, and 2) that we can engi…
Care to shed more light on your intuitions?
I get that the engineering challenges are hard (or we'd have figured it out by now). And everyone seems pretty bad at predicting how long it will take for us to build something fundamentally new.
But from the physical impossibility side, what would have to be true/what would we learn if we discovered that physical reality _doesn't_ support quantum computation with a large number of qubits and sufficient accuracy?
I did do a course which included some quantum computation material and the professor highlighted that it wasn't actually demonstrated whether nature would be so "extravagant" ... but I haven't heard anyone describe what the universe would need to be like to both support the quantum phenomena that we've already studied and demonstrated, but to disallow some larger/more complex arrangements of what seem to be the same principles.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There’s many criticisms to be made about quantum computing but you don’t understand quantum mechanics at all.
really? How come reality keeps agreeing with me then? Where are these amazing quantum mechanics applications? U really believe in super position?? really? How long have they been working on QC? 50 years now? it never seems to work or be ready.. i wonder why.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think you should take a class or two on quantum mechanics before making assertions like these.
[deleted]
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s many criticisms to be made about quantum computing but you don’t understand quantum mechanics at all.
really? How come reality keeps agreeing with me then? Where are these amazing quantum mechanics applications? U really believe in super position?? really? How long have they been working on QC? 50 years now? it never seems to work or be ready.. i wonder why.
I have no idea why you think reality agrees with you. I “believe” in superposition, entanglement, and the like because I’ve tested it myself in a lab with a six qubit quantum computer I built.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which leads onto computational medicine. The advent of SPICE [1] meant that with the right models electrical engineers could simulate complex electrical systems, do sensitivity analysis and make integrated circuits that had a high probability of working. Imagine a (quantum) simulator that can rapidly simulate all or part of the human body. The effects of medicines could be rapidly simulated, or the simulation could g…
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.
Because at the lowest level quantum mechanics is at work. My feeling is that a full simulation will be a hybrid system. The lowest "microscopic" levels will be done on a quantum computer, but the higher "macroscopic" levels, where decoherence kicks in, will be done on a classical computer. Maybe the future of quantum computers is as co-processors to classical computers?
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
really? How come reality keeps agreeing with me then? Where are these amazing quantum mechanics applications? U really believe in super position?? really? How long have they been working on QC? 50 years now? it never seems to work or be ready.. i wonder why.
I have no idea why you think reality agrees with you. I “believe” in superposition, entanglement, and the like because I’ve tested it myself in a lab with a six qubit quantum computer I built.
My point is that your quantum computer isnt able to do anything. It's junk, spewing out random data.