/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14253139

118KiB, 970x647, quantum computer.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Questions about quantum computing

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 17:19:35 2022 No.14253139 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14253155 >>14253166 >>14253236 >>14253981 >>14258965 >>14258972 >>14259785 >>14260400 >>14260405

I am totally ignorant about quantum computing and I would be very grateful if someone educated in the subject could answer my questions

1 - Is it possible to use the quantum computers that we currently have (for example IBM's Project Eagle) as conventional computers? If it is not possible why not? By this I mean playing video games, surfing the internet, creating software, etc.

2 - What needs to be developed and discovered so that we can start manufacturing quantum computers en masse as we do now with conventional computers?

3 - How much time do you think is missing before we can experience quantum computers as we currently do with laptops, phones, video game consoles, etc?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 17:23:24 No.14253150 Report

Quoted By: >>14253164 >>14253192 >>14264260

>1 - Is it possible to use the quantum computers that we currently have (for example IBM's Project Eagle) as conventional computers? If it is not possible why not? By this I mean playing video games, surfing the internet, creating software, etc.
No, the instruction sets are entirely different and you would need to have a way to compile and run the aforementioned software.

>2 - What needs to be developed and discovered so that we can start manufacturing quantum computers en masse as we do now with conventional computers?
Two things:
- Massive scaledown of their size
- Reliability in room temperature environment (As it is now, they only run even somewhat reliably at extremely low temperatures that can only be achieved in laboratory settings)

>3 - How much time do you think is missing before we can experience quantum computers as we currently do with laptops, phones, video game consoles, etc?
I personally think this will never happen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 17:24:26 No.14253155 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253139
Yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 17:28:25 No.14253164 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253150
>you would need to have a way to compile and run the aforementioned software

A new operating system but for quantum computers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 17:28:41 No.14253166 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253139
dude just watch this and save everyone a bit of time
https://youtu.be/wRKc_ilWcao

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 17:37:42 No.14253192 Report

Quoted By: >>14253211 >>14259410

>>14253150
>I personally think this will never happen.

Why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 17:44:26 No.14253211 Report

Quoted By: >>14259139

>>14253192
For the reasons I mentioned when answering the second point--I don't think they will ever be resolved to the point that quantum processors can be used in consumer hardware. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but at the heart of quantum mechanics are extremely volatile physical interactions, there would have to be some pretty major breakthroughs to reduce that volatility.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 17:53:38 No.14253236 Report

Quoted By: >>14253283 >>14259139

>>14253139
>Is it possible to use the quantum computers that we currently have as conventional computers?
Quantum computing is a generalisation of classical computing so a quantum computer is in theory capable of anything that a classical computer of the same size is capable of. However, since a quantum computer is a massive hassle, you wouldn't really have any reason to use it for regular computing tasks, only for the specialised tasks it is good at.

>What needs to be developed and discovered so that we can start manufacturing quantum computers en masse as we do now with conventional computers?
I don't think there's any motivation for this as quantum computers would probably only be useful for research level tasks so a consumer would have little need for one.

>How much time do you think is missing before we can experience quantum computers as we currently do with laptops, phones, video game consoles, etc?
See above but I also agree with the other poster. The amount of cooling and isolation from the environment that a quantum computer needs to do proper quantum computing is so resource intensive that I don't see their mass production as being particularly economical, particularly since they won't be any more useful for what most people need from computers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:01:21 No.14253247 Report

Quoted By:

The worrying thing is when we have a quantum computer good enough to run Shor's algorithm, then Google or IBM or whoever will immediately lease it to the NSA and they'll easily decrypt the RSA on all the shit they've passively collected.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:13:43 No.14253283 Report

Quoted By: >>14253336

>>14253236
>I don't think there's any motivation for this

Bro, if only you knew how wrong you are with this

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:26:50 No.14253336 Report

Quoted By: >>14253346

>>14253283
Enlighten us

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:29:15 No.14253346 Report

Quoted By: >>14253352 >>14253458

>>14253336
Imagine that a current computational process that takes 1000 years is solved in less than a second

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:30:46 No.14253352 Report

Quoted By: >>14253371

>>14253346
>a current computational process that takes 1000 years is solved in less than a second
LOL. Name a couple.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:37:48 No.14253371 Report

Quoted By: >>14253377 >>14253458

>>14253352
there are many processes that take a long time to finish and making those long processes be solved in an instant is useful for everyone and a reason why many people want to have access to a quantum computer

From unzipping a file and making 3D animations to encrypting or decrypting confidential and proprietary software

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:40:04 No.14253377 Report

Quoted By: >>14253405

>>14253371
>unzipping a file
>making 3D animations
Explain how quantum computing helps with that.

>decrypting confidential and proprietary software
I don't see what I stand to gain from your government thugs spying on me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:49:16 No.14253405 Report

Quoted By: >>14253416 >>14253458

>>14253377
>Explain how quantum computing helps with that.

I already said that I don't know anything about it but it is what this technology promises and augurs

>I don't see what I stand to gain from your government thugs spying on me.

Are you talking seriously? What part do you not understand that the government will not be the only ones with quantum computers? And it is for that very reason that a computer security buff would also want a quantum computer.

I have already exemplified the reasons why someone would want a computer and why it is absurd to think that there are no reasons why someone would want one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 18:54:04 No.14253416 Report

Quoted By: >>14253444

>>14253405
Not the guy you're talking to, but you're clearly a retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:01:22 No.14253444 Report

Quoted By: >>14253458

>>14253416
>you're clearly a retard

Sure, do you still believe there's no reason why the average consumer wouldn't want a faster computer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:05:41 No.14253458 Report

Quoted By: >>14253473

>>14253346
>>14253371
>>14253405
>>14253444
>I don't know anything about it
Right.

Quantum computers are not just "regular computer but faster". There is a specific set of computational tasks that they can do efficiently, just as there is a specific set of tasks that a regular computer can do efficiently. There are problems that a regular computer can't do efficiently that a quantum computer can but there are also tasks that would be slow for both of them as well as tasks that would be the same speed. It is not a blanket speedup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:11:25 No.14253473 Report

Quoted By: >>14253517 >>14256318

>>14253458
>It is not a blanket speedup.
We still know very little about this science, nothing is absolute. You could say the same about conventional computers in the 1940s. We've gone from room-spanning computers to a simple laptop 1,000 times faster and more stable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:11:32 No.14253475 Report

Quoted By: >>14253502 >>14260408

The set of problems where a quantum computer can solve things faster than a classical computer is BQP space, which is the set of decision problems that can be solved with probability at least 2/3. It's not the same thing as just "this quantum computer can solve all problems faster than a classical one", its "we can arrange the wave function of these entangle particles in a way such that the total state cancels the wrong answers of the solution with probability at least 2/3". Then you run the algorithm ~1000 times and you look at the total output space and you, from there, focus on the solutions that happened most often. Basically, quantum computers are a way to have a probabilistic turing machine perform some calculations with high probability of being correct.
There are only a few algorithms that are actually faster when computed in BQP space, there does not exist a complete exponential increase in power (quantum computers don't take exponential time algorithms into poly time etc).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:20:00 No.14253502 Report

Quoted By: >>14253514 >>14253517

>>14253475
>It's not the same thing as just "this quantum computer can solve all problems faster than a classical one"

I know it's not the same. It is obvious that it will not work like a classic computer but something that has already been shown is that it can be faster than a classic computer and I am not saying this, all the scientists who know about this subject say it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:24:22 No.14253514 Report

Quoted By: >>14253533

>>14253502
No, computer scientists do not say "it is faster than a classical computer" for all tasks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:24:33 No.14253517 Report

Quoted By: >>14259677

>>14253473
>We still know very little about this science
This is untrue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP

You should learn what a complexity class is.

>We've gone from room-spanning computers to a simple laptop 1,000 times faster and more stable.
Right, and we might get faster and better quantum computers but the complexity results will still be the same.

Again, there are tasks that a QC would be better at, at the same time there are tasks that a quantum computer would not be better at because the fastest way of doing it happens to be achievable by a regular computer. Furthermore there are problems that would take both quantum computers and classical computers a long time to solve. These things can be proven mathematically, it's called complexity theory.

Like I said before, a QC is in theory capable of whatever a classical computer is. The thing is, the limited set of problems that a QC would be better at are not things that general consumers will have any regular need for so most people will be better off with a regular laptop or something since it won't require a sub mK dilution fridge to work.

>>14253502
>something that has already been shown is that it can be faster than a classic computer
Faster at doing a particular task, not everything.

>the scientists who know about this subject
That's me

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 19:29:46 No.14253533 Report

Quoted By: >>14253866 >>14254024 >>14254947

>>14253514
>"it is faster than a classical computer" for all tasks.

I never said that. The last three words were added by you and also that is something that until now nobody knows, the technology keeps advancing and we discover new things

Nobody would have thought that we would have computers capable of processing call of duty in the palm of our hands before the discovery of the transistor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 21:05:32 No.14253866 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253533
>also that is something that until now nobody knows
You can literally prove these things, there's a whole field of computer science/mathematics about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 21:39:36 No.14253981 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253139
>Is it possible to use the quantum computers that we currently have (for example IBM's Project Eagle) as conventional computers?
It wouldn’t be ideal for the computing tasks you do at home. The current setup where you query quantum devices to do computation remotely (just as one would make a proposal to use telescope uptime / get experimental materials) is ideal for their current use case
> What needs to be developed and discovered so that we can start manufacturing quantum computers en masse as we do now with conventional computers?
You don’t want that because the power draw would be astronomical. Either way, you would need to make sure you had materials that didn’t decohere closer to room temperature. Currently, the fridge that QC happens in is among the most expensive parts of the endeavor
> How much time do you think is missing before we can experience quantum computers as we currently do with laptops, phones, video game consoles, etc?
This will not and should not happen. Quantum computers are scientific devices whose uses are not well suited for every day consumer tasks. They are squarely focused on certain hard computational tasks in materials science, quantum field theory, machine learning, cryptography, etc.. Your average consumer would see little benefit from *owning* one but a huge benefit from all the technology it enables the qualified people who use it. Make sense?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Feb 2022 21:50:40 No.14254024 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253533
No, you don’t understand. It’s not a matter of scale. The tasks that a QC is good for are not consumer grade - but they are great at tasks which can produce lots of consumer (and non consumer) grade technology.
>but bro, the passage of time…!
No, quantum computers have been extensively studied as computational objects as well as physical devices. We know very well what they’re bad at. They excel at tasks in the R&D sphere, but even basic difficulties getting consistent readouts make them finicky in “normal” contexts.

As for programming languages and operating systems, they’re active research, but there’s a fundamental difficulty and lack of abstraction you have to deal with when doing quantum computation. Either you use the formalism of operators in Hilbert space or you use the formalism of category theory. Neither are accessible to your average programmer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Feb 2022 05:00:00 No.14254947 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253533
>also that is something that until now nobody knows, the technology keeps advancing and we discover new things
People meme on computer scientists on this board, but their job is largely investigating what is possible with computers. They have extensively studied the benefits of quantum over classical and have figured out the fundamental limitations beyond just making a quantum computing device.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Feb 2022 18:19:29 No.14256318 Report

Quoted By: >>14259492

>>14253473
>We still know very little about this science, nothing is absolute.
We spent 30 years showing that it's not a blanket speedup. Prodigies like Ewin Tang have shown that certain, very important classes of ML problems experience no meaningful quantum speedup over classical computers, which is very surprising and unintuitive.
Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.04271
Good, accessible article on the matter: https://www.quantamagazine.org/teenager-finds-classical-alternative-to-quantum-recommendation-algorithm-20180731/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 17:44:30 No.14258965 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253139
1. No. Forget about instruction sets etc. for now - it's true but missing the point. The glaring reason is that if you used 127 qubits as plain classical bits, you don't even have 16 bytes of classical memory. That's a joke. Then add in the fact that there is 0 error correction and you are essentially outputting random noise as soon as your circuit has more than a handful of logic gates. You'd be better off flipping a coin 127 times.

2. If IBM wanted, they could produce a bunch of Eagles right now. It's just a silicon chip in a dilution refrigerator; we already mass produce chips. The problem is that we'd be left with a bunch of noisy, almost-useless chips. It'd be a waste of money.
The problem isn't the manufacturing process. It's a fundamental problem of attaining high fidelity control of the qubits embedded into the chips. Despite what their press releases say, they are producing these chips to do fundamental research, gaining a better understanding of these quantum systems so that they can inch closer to properly error-corrected devices.

3. Never. QCs will be highly specialized tools for scientific and potentially industrial use. They aren't replacements for the technology of classical computation. Ask yourself: when was the last time you experienced a high-performance supercomputing cluster? Why aren't we using the Summit supercomputer to play video games? They've been out there for decades and they're so much more powerful than any home system you own, but 99% of the population has never used one.
Besides, classical computers are already very powerful, and only for very specific problems do we "need" a quantum computer to shore up their weak points.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO quantum.png, 173KiB, 891x1928

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 17:48:07 No.14258972 Report

Quoted By: >>14259860

>>14253139

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 19:11:39 No.14259139 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253211
There have been some the past year. Some Australian university reported control mechanisms for O(10^6) qubits. Manufacturing isn't there yet, but seems on a good track given the linear trend. The main issue imho is the connectivity. We're really far from having fully-connected systems.

>>14253236
You may want to look into photonic quantum computers. No expensive decoupling needed.

Very good replies btw.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 20:34:36 No.14259410 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253192
quantum computing for the vast majority tasks makes no sense. most tasks can be performed quickly already and need to be 100% accurate. when i press s, an s better appear on the screen 100% of the time. quantum computing is about exploiting probability distributions of physical outcomes at very very very tiny scales to compute answers to very particular computationally difficult problems with high probability in far far less time than a traditional computer would take to explore a random set of possibilities manually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 21:06:46 No.14259492 Report

Quoted By: >>14259651 >>14259659

>>14256318
The paper doesn't say that at all. Are you retarded or trolling?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 21:58:02 No.14259651 Report

Quoted By: >>14261082

>>14259492
>The paper doesn't say that at all.
>Are you retarded or trolling?
Are *you* retarded? It's exactly that.
It's giving a fast classic algorithm for a problem that had a fast quantum algorithm (Kerenidis and Prakash’s quantum recommendation
system) in ML. It's showing there is no quantum speedup for this specific problem.
Tang has been working on de-quantizing results in the same sense that some computer scientists work on derandomization results for classical algorithms.

I'll ask again - are you retarded? Are you illiterate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 22:01:59 No.14259659 Report

Quoted By: >>14261082

>>14259492
>The paper doesn't say that at all.
>>Abstract: We give a classical analogue to Kerenidis and Prakash’s quantum recommendation system, previously believed to be one of the strongest candidates for provably exponential speedups in quantum machine learning.
>The main insight of this work is the use of simple routines to manipulate l 2-norm sampling distributions, which play the role of quantum superpositions in the classical setting. This correspondence indicates a potentially fruitful framework for formally comparing quantum machine learning algorithms to classical machine learning algorithms.
Are you retarded?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 22:12:59 No.14259677 Report

Quoted By: >>14259975

>>14253517
>that's me
What's it like working in the field? Are you math guy? Physics? Engineering? I did a summer program in nanoelectronics during undergrad and spent some time speaking with the lead prof about QC. This was over a decade ago. He advised that I don't put all of my eggs in that basket as it was, at the time, unclear whether it would ever work out, despite the money being thrown at it.

Tangentially, I got the same impression about a lot of physics research. The impression that the science reached the same state it was in during the turn of the 20th century, i.e. "nothing more to do than book-keeping", before the quantum/relativity revolutions. From cosmology to the standard model, physics seems a bit stuck. Is a group going to build a larger collider to get new particle data? What problems are the many grad students and postdocs working on these days?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 22:55:15 No.14259785 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253139
Quantum computers compute quantum math.
There isn't much of an overlap between quantum computing and conventional computers/ consumer electronics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Feb 2022 23:29:55 No.14259860 Report

Quoted By: >>14259958

>>14258972
>penicillin
>requires 10^80 bit to be described on a classical computer
>somehow we already now everything about it without using every atom on this world
???

for reference:
10^80 bit = 10^68 Tbit
average PC storage capacity: 1 Tbit
amount of atoms on earth: 1.3 x 10^50 (t. Google)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 00:13:51 No.14259958 Report

Quoted By: >>14260310 >>14260701

>>14259860
pasted from elsewhere
"
I'm not sure if the 286 qubit estimate has ever been fully explained, but we can backwards reason about how to get to the figure.

First off, accuracy of quantum chemistry simulations via Trotterization is a function of the basis set (in both classical and quantum simulations). The basis set is kinda like a coordinatization the electron orbitals. There are a lot of different types of basis sets, like sto-ng or coupled cluster bases, each with varying performance.

Sto-ng is the minimal basis set, which requires the fewest number of qubits / classical simulation time at the cost of accuracy. For this, each typical electron orbital is assigned a qubit. So, doing a quick calculation (with orbitals pulled from here):

Carbon: 4 orbitals, 16 atoms
Hydrogen: 1 orbital, 18 atoms
Nitrogen: 5 orbitals, 2 atoms
Oxygen: 5 orbitals, 4 atoms
Sulfur: 9 orbitals, 1 atom
In total, this adds up to 64 + 18 + 10 + 20 + 9 = 121 orbitals. Now, we also need to account for spin up/spin down orbitals, so that's at least 242 electrons, for our least accurate simulations.

It's likely that the estimate of 286 is a coupled cluster estimate or sto-ng estimate with additional orbitals thrown in (for example, we might also want to simulate the possibility that electrons become excited beyond the valence orbitals).

As for the classical estimate, the comment by Mark S is entirely right: on a classical computer, we'd need to store the potential combinations where the electrons sit. In a naive computation, this is simply 2n where n is the number of spin-orbitals. There are some optimizations that can be made to reduce this cost, but this exponential scaling is what really prevents ab initio techniques from being applied more widely (think: an extra electron will double the storage cost of your computation... yikes!!)
"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 00:20:19 No.14259975 Report

Quoted By: >>14260003

>>14259677
>The impression that the science reached the same state it was in during the turn of the 20th century, i.e. "nothing more to do than book-keeping", before the quantum/relativity revolutions.
This is a stupid idea because things have changed considerably on the face of science and technology. Quantum computing is one of the forefront areas where we've made huge amounts of progress in manipulating superconducting materials, in condensed matter theory, and in computational theory as well as computational applications to physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 00:35:20 No.14260003 Report

Quoted By: >>14260329

>>14259975
How much of this progress is due to brute force engineering-style trial/error and how much is due to physical theory? What is the most interesting breakthrough in condensed matter in the past decade?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 03:27:45 No.14260310 Report

Quoted By: >>14261086

>>14259958
I know this comment isn't yours and it's just trying to illustrate a very rough back of the envelope idea, but I just have to stress - this is nowhere close to anything that a realistic and useful quantum simulation would look like. Just so people don't get the wrong impression:

1. Trotterization is outdated; you need LCU or qubitization methods, which require many more ancilla qubits than simply those used to represent the system.
2. STO-nG basis sets are a joke for any serious calculation, even classical computational chemists will laugh you out of the room if you present a result in STO-nG.
3. At the same time, no one does computational chemistry with all the orbitals - you pick an active space and freeze all the other orbitals. That's the central benefit of using orbitals in the first place, otherwise you might as well use plane waves.
4. Also, electrons are not orbitals. Electrons are excitations in the orbitals, but when calculating resource costs of second quantized chemistry the number of electrons only tangentially comes into the picture. So, it's not 242 electrons, it's 242 spin orbitals. And adding an extra electron isn't what "doubles the storage cost" - it's adding another orbital that does. There are plenty of scenarios where one considers a fixed chemical system (hence, fixed number of electrons) but we increase the number of orbitals in which the system is represented. This is called growing toward the continuum limit. Also even in FCI no one works with a $2^n$ dimensional Hilbert space, we always restrict to the $\binom{n}{N}$ dimensional subspace of $N$ electrons in $n$ spin orbitals. Still exponential scaling in the worst case, but there are significant savings.
5. Also also, and now I'm getting real tangential, but storage isn't entirely the problem either. For example, FCIQMC requires exponential amount of time, but does *not* require an exponential amount of memory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 03:34:05 No.14260329 Report

Quoted By: >>14260568 >>14264145

>>14260003
Not him, but IMO topological phases of matter is one of the biggest results of modern condensed matter. For instance, the toric code is an analytically solvable model which is thermodynamically gapped. Not to mention that it ties in intimately with quantum computing, since the toric code (really, the surface code) is one of the most promising quantum error correcting codes to implement in the near future. It's an amazing result that both condensed-matter theorists and quantum-computational experimentalists are equally obsessed about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 03:37:00 No.14260335 Report

Quoted By:

quantum computers will likely be used as a supplement to conventional computers at first

anything beyond this is irresponsible to speculate on

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 04:15:06 No.14260400 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253139
5 qubit, rack server quantum pc. 50 qubit coming in 2025. https://quantumbrilliance.com/quantum-brilliance-hardware

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 04:17:37 No.14260405 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253139
I beleive quantum accelerators will be used as NPU's. One paper demonstrated computing a Network that should have taken 10,000 years in 3 seconds. They will be heaps cheap on diamond wafers embedded with Nitrogen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 04:19:31 No.14260408 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253475
The framework will do it for us. They will abstract that stuff away.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 06:36:39 No.14260568 Report

Quoted By: >>14260665

>>14260329
> topological phases of matter
not to detract from the result, but aren't they still in search for proof via the anyon? I remember an article about how a lab fudged their data to look like they had discovered anyons but had to retract after a further study of their presented data

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 08:27:14 No.14260665 Report

Quoted By: >>14260833 >>14262625

>>14260568
Topological phases are not just anyonic excitations. It refers to a particular ground-state order which is robust to small perturbations in the Hamiltonian. A simple spin model with the right coupling strengths can exhibit topological order, for instance the AKLT model (spin-1 analogue of the Heisenberg model).
Experimentally, basic examples of topological order have been demonstrated for decades, for instance via superconductivity or the fractional quantum Hall effect. More exotic/recent examples might be something like photonic systems that support edge states.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 09:26:34 No.14260701 Report

Quoted By:

>>14259958
I only know half of the stuff you mentioned but I still find it unfathomable how 121 orbitals and 242 electrons require 10^80 bit to be described.
If I were bold, I'd even say you could describe all of it on some 100 pages of paper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 11:55:40 No.14260833 Report

Quoted By: >>14262625

>>14260665
I see
Do you have any resources to learn this? My background is mathematical physics from the math side, not from the physics side though

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 14:55:53 No.14261082 Report

Quoted By: >>14261939

>>14259651
>>14259659
>finding one example that is almost as good as the quantum algorithm means a whole class of quantum algos got btfo'd
Fucking idiots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 14:59:37 No.14261086 Report

Quoted By: >>14263922

>>14260310
>Trotterization is outdated; you need LCU or qubitization methods, which require many more ancilla qubits than simply those used to represent the system.
This is very interesting for me. Thanks. Can you elaborate a bit on why these advanced methods are needed?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1644759476670.gif, 88KiB, 420x420

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 15:12:58 No.14261102 Report

Quoted By: >>14261141 >>14261149

The human mind is capable of some quantum functions. Would it be possible to create biological quantum computers? Just have to feed it and change it's waste chutes daily.
I think that is at least as realistically possible as consumer level quantum computers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 15:40:34 No.14261141 Report

Quoted By: >>14261144

>>14261102
I identify as a quantum computer and can give you a quantum answer:
maybe, but I am not sure

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 15:42:07 No.14261144 Report

Quoted By: >>14261152

>>14261141
So you're saying there is a chance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 15:45:00 No.14261149 Report

Quoted By:

>>14261102
Why? What biological brains do is already similar to quantum computers, and is much more flexible...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 15:47:29 No.14261152 Report

Quoted By: >>14261177

>>14261144
I am not sure because of the uncertainty principle. You can not ask a question and get an answer at the same time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 16:02:21 No.14261177 Report

Quoted By: >>14261188

>>14261152
But I should be able to learn the answer if I don't know the question?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Feb 2022 16:11:09 No.14261188 Report

Quoted By:

>>14261177
maybe, but I am not sure

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Feb 2022 00:39:21 No.14261939 Report

Quoted By: >>14263928 >>14264146

>>14261082
https://ewintang.com/assets/2019-01-28-an-overview-of-quantum-inspired-sampling.pdf
nobody is saying quantum algorithms are btfo'd. It's that quantum advantage over classical is a complicated topic and not at all durrr mostly speedups. It's a topic where the work of computing theorists is actually very useful and immediately practical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Feb 2022 13:11:08 No.14262625 Report

Quoted By: >>14263672

>>14260665
>>14260833
Pls respond

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Feb 2022 00:10:28 No.14263672 Report

Quoted By:

>>14262625
Bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Feb 2022 03:19:54 No.14263922 Report

Quoted By:

>>14261086
I guess I shouldn't have used the word "need". But based on current resource estimates in a fault-tolerant cost setting, it's pretty clear that post-Trotter methods will be orders of magnitude more efficient.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Feb 2022 03:22:32 No.14263928 Report

Quoted By: >>14266022

>>14261939
Here's a question that I literally can't ask anywhere outside of 4chan, but have always wondered: is Ewin Tang a tranny?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Feb 2022 06:25:58 No.14264145 Report

Quoted By:

>>14260329
Don't forget topological quantum computing. Microsoft published some noce results last year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Feb 2022 06:28:48 No.14264146 Report

Quoted By:

>>14261939
That I agree with. Still, the message the other Anons proposed was given by that paper was not what the paper said.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Feb 2022 08:39:21 No.14264260 Report

Quoted By:

>>14253150
>No, the instruction sets are entirely different and you would need to have a way to compile and run the aforementioned software.
Just ask RMS to upgrade gcc

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Feb 2022 01:00:32 No.14265975 Report

Quoted By:

Consider the terminal velocity of electricity over a circuit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Feb 2022 01:35:39 No.14266022 Report

Quoted By: >>14266656

>>14263928
Yes. Here's an old article with male pronouns:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180725201359/http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive-issues/2010-13/2012/12/cultivating-genius/index.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Feb 2022 09:22:51 No.14266656 Report

Quoted By:

>>14266022
Wow, an article from age 12. That's pretty conclusive, thanks for the link.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches