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

Willow, Our Quantum Chip

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 557 posts

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#381

Post by hshshshshsh »

fwip wrote: post #291
hshshshshsh wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you verify hypothesis? What is the process to do that?

You use the hypotheses to make predictions and design experiments. Then you carry those out and see if they support the hypothesis. Or is this one of those rhetorical questions?

Okay. I have a hypothesis that the rain is controlled by a god called Ringo. If you pray to Ringo and he listens to your prayer it will rain in next 24 hours. If he doesn't listen it won't rain. You can also test this experimentally by praying and observing the outcomes.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#382

Post by Vecr »

movpasd wrote: post #305
wasabi991011 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also really taken aback by this quote. I have no idea who put it there, but I can assure you the actual paper contains no such nonsense. I would have thought whoever writes the google tech blogs is more competent than bottom tier science journalists. But in this case I think it is more reasonable to assume malice, as the post is authored by the Google Quantum AI Lead, and makes more sense as hype-boosting buzzw…

There are compelling arguments to believe in the many-worlds interpretation. No sign of a Heisenberg cut has been observed so far, even as experiments involving entanglement of larger and larger molecules are performed, which makes objective-collapse theories hard to consider seriously. Bohmian theories are nice, but require awkward adjustments to reconcile them with relativity. But more importantly, they are philoso…

That's right, I agree that Multiple Worlds isn't any less correct/falsifiable than quantum mechanics as a whole.

I've never heard about quantum logic before. The "Bayesian" part makes sense because of how it treats the statistics, but the logic? Is that what quantum computer scientists do with their quantum circuits, or is it an actual interpretation?

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#383

Post by spookie »

whimsicalism wrote: post #48
wasabi991011 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the "shut up and calculate" view is the most common among actual quantum computing researchers. Unsure about those working on quantum foundations, but I think the absence of consensus is enough to claim any view as absolutely not the view.

i don’t really view “shut up and calculate” or very restrained copenhagenism as a real view at all. i think if you were to ask people to make a real metaphysical speculation, majority might be partial to everett - especially if they felt confident the results were anonymous

Seeing to believe is indeed a view, as they would have to view it in order to believe!

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#385

Post by Uptrenda »

'It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch.'

Wait... what? Google said this and not some fringe crackpot?

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#386

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

FredPret wrote: post #378
JKCalhoun wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something tells me that by the end of the century only the one-time pads will still be holding their secrets.

Even for that to work you need a good random number generator

That's pretty trivial. xor a video camera with AES and no one is decrypting that ever.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#387

Post by paxys »

xnx wrote: post #98

Is anyone else even close to Google in this space? (e.g. on the "System Metrics" the blog defines)

Give it a few more years and a smaller, more focused company will come in and launch a successful product based on their research.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#388

Post by tiborsaas »

codeulike wrote: post #60

They opened the API for it and I'm sending requests but the response always comes back 300ms before I send the request, is there a way of handling that with try{} predestined{} blocks? Or do I need to use the Bootstrap Paradox library?

Try setting up a beam-splitter router and report back with the interference pattern. If you don't see a wave pattern it might be because someone is spying on you.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#389

Post by cahaya »

xnx wrote: post #98

Is anyone else even close to Google in this space? (e.g. on the "System Metrics" the blog defines)

I'm wondering how this Google announcement will have an impact on their future revenue, and how easily competitors can replicate this breakthrough?

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#390

Post by sizzle »

bawolff wrote: post #328
sizzle wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long until this can derive a private key from its public key in the cryptocurrency space? Is this an existential threat to crypto?

Long enough you don't need to panic or worry. Short enough that its reasonable to start r&d efforts on post quantum crypto.

Is there a way to fork and add a quantum-proof encryption layer on the existing cryptocurrency paradigm i.e. Bitcoin 2.0?
Post reply on HN