Read more.Quote:
Said to be 10 billion times faster than Google's Quantum Supremacy prototype.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Said to be 10 billion times faster than Google's Quantum Supremacy prototype.
Not reprogrammable? Seems like one hell of a quantum disadvantage to me...
BAH ! Anyone know the best looking qbits are made in Denmark
Even if we ignore the lack of reprogramming how do we even know if the answer is correct when the best supercomputers we have would take "half the age of Earth on the best existing supercomputers"
It's all very well showing the answer to something we know 'faster' but if we haven't got the answer by another means how do we know it's not just some random number generator being shown off.
I'd say that rather depends on what it's programmed to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke7
If, for instance, it's that effective at cracking encryption, it could be a smidge useful .... rendering just about all existing encryption, from military command and control, to national and international banking systems, either heavily cmpromised or conceivably, useless.
If it was put to, for instance, medical research rather than encryption, or perhaps to weather forecasting or climate modelling, who knows where the potential benefits to everybody might stop?
If nothing more than a proof of concept, their 'non-reprogrammable' computer has potentially massive implications
The result can be posited and what the expectation of it would be so if the resultant calculation fits a model of expectation then the answer must be or is close to correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
It's basically how all theories are created, someone theorises that XY must equal to Z via this reasonable assumption so after performing the dutiful and if the results are within a bounds of expectation then the calculation is established to have been "correct". But if the results are different to expectation then either the calculation is wrong or the reasonable assumption of the theory is incorrect.
Absolutely. And as I understand it, most "quantum" computers of today are "reprogrammable" but the quantumware has to be custom written for the the quantum processors characteristics so it doesn't exactly feel much different than the competition it's fighting with, where the "reprogramming" happens is just moved up a level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
Same way we do it with computer models currently, feed in the date, get it to predict/calculate a future event, observe said future event, compare what the computer said would happen with what actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
If the computer model matches real world events with a high enough degree of accuracy then you can be fairly confident it's more than a really expensive RNG.
All these boastful announcements make me laugh. A bunch of engineers suddenly pretend to understand quantum physics. Remember me the day that all these quantum-vapor-ware vanishes in a thin air of decoherence and noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
But you can still have a random number generator even with those expectations in place. If you set up an rng between a range (which could be known in advance) or its designed in a way so that certain variables can be added (or it has a formula to auto generate it) you can still come out with a number that fits the expectation for the result that you're after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't doing it all itself. but if it's designed for just one thing then there is nothing to say that it hasn't be 'coded' in a way to just give the expected results rather than calculate the results, it wouldn't be the first time China has said/done something to maintain their 'status' on the world stage and it doesn't help when quantum computing is such a hard thing to test accurately.
And the thing that makes me laugh are clueless skeptics such as yourself. And I use skeptic loosely because that word suggests you actually have some understanding of the subject - which you don’t if you honestly think quantum computing is going to up and vanish like a fart in the wind. It’s *incredibly* more useful than you seem to realise. And sure, I very much doubt we’ll all be owning one like the PC in X number decades, but that’s due to the nature of the task being performed, for which regular old Turing Machines are better. Anything related to maths or physics, at a level you seem to have limited understanding of even existing, will be absolutely dominated by QC for precisely the reasons outlined in the article: time.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Amstrad
Er, did anyone else notice that the experiment this is "simulating" is basically the computer? They're simulating the path of photons through an optical device by putting photons through an optical device - all they've done is make an experimental setup, which is neat but isn't a computer.
By the same logic I could state that my PC simulates the motion of electrons through a modern silicon chip several trillion times per second, but having to construct the optical/electronic circuit that you're "simulating" rather defeats the purpose of simulation (just call it a prototype)
Remember when the Titan V was criticised for giving different results after the same simulation was done?? QUESTION : How do we know if the answer is correct??
I bet that you are one of those arrogant engineers that believe that with a clever trick will overcome some fundamental barriers that nature has set to us for a reason. I wish all of you to prove me wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke7And the thing that makes me laugh are clueless skeptics such as yourself. And I use skeptic loosely because that word suggests you actually have some understanding of the subject - which you don’t if you honestly think quantum computing is going to up and vanish like a fart in the wind. It’s *incredibly* more useful than you seem to realise. And sure, I very much doubt we’ll all be owning one like the PC in X number decades, but that’s due to the nature of the task being performed, for which regular old Turing Machines are better. Anything related to maths or physics, at a level you seem to have limited understanding of even existing, will be absolutely dominated by QC for precisely the reasons outlined in the article: time.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Amstrad
"anything you can do, we can do better..."
My electronic engineering degree included a course in quantum physics, and that was 30 years ago. It was a small (no pun intended) part of the course back then, I imagine it would be rather more in-depth these days. One of the first devices we were taught was the tunnel diode, which work on the quantum chance that an electron will appear on the other side of an insulator. So you could say engineers have already been using quantum tricks to overcome a fundamental insulating barrier for some decades :DQuote:
Originally Posted by John_Amstrad
Edit: So the next site I visit has an interesting article on Quantum Chess, and you thought engineers play games with this stuff!
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/...ss-tournament/