>>12476345We literally have thousands of “engineers” and “scientists” writing software and doing “research” on a machine that nobody knows how to build.
People dedicate their careers to a subject which doesn’t exist in the corporeal world.
No EC qubit was ever built.
The number of states for a 4000 qubit computer is ~ 2^4000 states. That’s 10^1200 or so continuous variables we have to manipulate to at least one part in ten thousand.
The number of protons in the universe is about 10^80. This is why a quantum computer is so powerful, you’re theoretically encoding an exponential number of states into the thing.
Can anyone actually do this using a physical object? Citation needed
In principle, classical analog computers can solve NP-hard problems in P time. You can look at the work on Analog super-Turing architectures by people like Hava Siegelmann. It’s old stuff, and most sane people realize this isn’t really physical, because matter isn’t infinitely continuous. If you can encode a real/continuous number into the physical world somehow, P=NP using a protractor or soap-bubble. For whatever reasons, most complexity theorists understand this, and know that protractor P=NP isn’t physical. Somehow quantum computing gets a pass.
And let's not talk about the engineering miracle breakthrough required to be able to build, calibrate, and align each component that goes into an actual QC. It's actually the reason we don't have actual QC.
Quantum computing is a meme
