>>10965385You literally have no idea how quantum algorithms work, why make a post like this at all? You must know that anyone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject will instantly call out your bullshit. Your post is a classic "not even wrong" statement - the fundamental premise is just incorrect and nonsensical.
Since I know you'll call me a quantum voodoo shill, I'll go ahead and give you some actual talking points against quantum computing so you can impress your friends. The big two are obviously 1) coherence times and 2) fault tolerance:
1) is it possible to ever get to conditions that allow coherent execution of an entire quantum circuit for these "big time" algorithms, like Shor's factoring? The gate depth is polynomial, sure, but there may be some fundamental limit on how many coherent operations can be done in one shot by any device, present or future. This one scares me most, personally, because depth using, say, CNOTs and single qubit rotations, is bad enough, but then you have to consider the overhead of compiling into hardware-specific gates, and it just gets nasty. Even the "low depth" circuits of variational algorithms are pushing our limits as we add more qubits.
2) what is the actual threshold for FTQC, and again, can physics actually reach it, or is there some fundamental physics preventing us? Now this depends on what code you choose, which throws us DEEP into a question of what kind of error correction code do I even want to use when the time comes. That's a whole can of worms I won't touch, but this fault tolerance threshold is one of the main questions that needs to be addressed to have any hope of doing real quantum computation. Then there are all these side effects of scaling up your system to encode logical qubits, like accounting for crosstalk, and needing more ancilla qubits to actually perform stabilizer measurements.
