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

Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

vancouversun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#31

Post by Devilboy »

adrianhoward wrote: post #9
Volpe wrote: post #3

So does this mean Shor's Algorithm is going to kick in for real and ruin all our securityz?

So does this mean Shor's Algorithm is going to kick in for real and ruin all our securityz? Nope. First, as I understand it, the D-Wave stuff isn't a system that can run Shor's. Second, Shor's only ruins security for a certain class of crypto algorithm. There are already algorithms that exist today that a proof against it (e.g the McEliece cryptosystem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem ). Third, if y…

This is not correct anymore, according to D-Wave they do have a factoring algorithm now.

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#32

Post by adrianhoward »

daeken wrote: post #26
forTheRecord wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shors algorithm also breaks elliptic-curve cryptography.

Oh, wow, I've never seen the variant that breaks ECC; that's really quite awesome. Time to read some papers!

Nielsen, Michael A.; Chuang, Isaac L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. p. 202 is what you want ;)

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#33

Post by nawitus »

Dewie wrote: post #22
adrianhoward wrote: post #12

"Quantum computers operate at speeds unattainable by even today’s most powerful supercomputers, operations that are so fast, they can process millions of calculations in a fraction of the months, even years, traditional computers take" God damn I hate bullshit lines like this used about QCs. The whole article is gives the usual misleading impression of QCs being generically faster than normal computers. They're not.…

So will we ever see quantum computers as consumer products, or are their uses too specialized for that?

If we will, they will be bundled with a classical CPU, which does most of the work. However, it's more likely that quantum computing will used through the internet.

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#34

Post by adrianhoward »

Devilboy wrote: post #31
adrianhoward wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does this mean Shor's Algorithm is going to kick in for real and ruin all our securityz? Nope. First, as I understand it, the D-Wave stuff isn't a system that can run Shor's. Second, Shor's only ruins security for a certain class of crypto algorithm. There are already algorithms that exist today that a proof against it (e.g the McEliece cryptosystem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem ). Third, if y…

This is not correct anymore, according to D-Wave they do have a factoring algorithm now.

Interesting. Do you have some pointers to that?

I thought both the D-Wave 1 & 2 both had specialist quantum chips that couldn't run Shor's.

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#35

Post by adrianhoward »

papaf wrote: post #27
Xcelerate wrote: post #6

D-Wave's advancements are very interesting to me for a few reasons. The first is that initially many people suspected D-Wave was a scam, because the most successful research efforts in quantum computing used just a few qubits, and D-Wave claimed a massive improvement (something like 128 or 256). Scott Aaronson ( http://www.scottaaronson.com ) was perhaps the most vocal critic. Over the years, the criticism has soften…

Out of interest, when the chemically accurate simulations are made are there any surprises? Or do the estimations that are normally used good enough for most purposes?

Out of interest, when the chemically accurate simulations are made are there any surprises? Or do the estimations that are normally used good enough for most purposes?

Well - it's more that there are entire classes of things that we can't simulate in any reasonable amount of time that (in theory) QCs should be very good at.

Protein folding for example. Finding the lowest energy state that protein's fold into is really, really hard and slow. QCs can theoretically do it very, very quickly. This opens up whole areas of experimentation and validation that are closed to us at the moment because the feedback cycle on solutions is so darn slow and/or inaccurate.

Protein folding errors are at the heart of diseases like Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and Parkinsons. QCs capable of simulating the chemistry involved would be a huge help in attacking those problems.

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#36

Post by JulianMorrison »

ok_craig wrote: post #17
adrianhoward wrote: post #12

"Quantum computers operate at speeds unattainable by even today’s most powerful supercomputers, operations that are so fast, they can process millions of calculations in a fraction of the months, even years, traditional computers take" God damn I hate bullshit lines like this used about QCs. The whole article is gives the usual misleading impression of QCs being generically faster than normal computers. They're not.…

Are there any sources you know of that discuss what kinds of problems can be solved faster with quantum computing? I'm curious about them.

D-Wave's machines are very different from "regular" quantum computers, and the sort of problems they solve faster than conventional computers are travelling salesman problems and those closely related, eg: "how can I lay out this printed circuit board so the traces don't cross and are as short as possible?"

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#37

Post by Devilboy »

adrianhoward wrote: post #34
Devilboy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct anymore, according to D-Wave they do have a factoring algorithm now.

Interesting. Do you have some pointers to that? I thought both the D-Wave 1 & 2 both had specialist quantum chips that couldn't run Shor's.

https://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/learning-to-program-t...

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#38

Post by arianvanp »

So I am in my final year of high school now, and I'm not studying physics next year. The only thing about 'quantum physics' that we had was emission-spectra, and light-interference. Quantum Physics sounds _Really_ interesting though, so I would love if anyone could point me in the right direction with where and how I start learning this stuff. Thanks:D

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#39

Post by asparagui »

arianvanp wrote: post #38

So I am in my final year of high school now, and I'm not studying physics next year. The only thing about 'quantum physics' that we had was emission-spectra, and light-interference. Quantum Physics sounds _Really_ interesting though, so I would love if anyone could point me in the right direction with where and how I start learning this stuff. Thanks:D

a) Learn this pair of amazon keywords: "dover physics" and "dover math".

b) Buy this book to get going: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Simple-Matrix-Physic...

c) Then buy this one to scare professors: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Classical-Quantum-Physics-...

Re: Lockheed Martin pays $10M for D-Wave's Quantum Computer

#40

Post by adrianhoward »

Devilboy wrote: post #37
adrianhoward wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Do you have some pointers to that? I thought both the D-Wave 1 & 2 both had specialist quantum chips that couldn't run Shor's.

https://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/learning-to-program-t...

Hmmm... can't find anything else on that apart from the mention in that blog post. Is there more detail anywhere?

They also implicitly state that it's not Shor's which is (to the best of my knowledge) the most effective integer factorisation algorithm for general purpose QCs currently know.

They also say that they "have a factoring algorithm". They don't say that it's actually implemented on running hardware.

I also notice the complete lack of clarification on the followup question that poked on the explicit "executed it on real hardware" question ;-)

Post reply on HN