Well, actually, it can’t really be used for calculations, with a few exceptions. And you have to measure the result thousands of times before it can be considered statistically reliable. Basically, you just misunderstood what we’ve been promising for the past 30 years because you’re not qualified enough to understand it.By the way thanks for the hundred billion dollars in taxpayer money and the lifelong career opportunity. Nothing personal, kid!
>>17067453I can tell that contraption is Satanic just by looking at it.
>>17067464it is just the fridge part of the quantum computer
>>17067466>arguing with actual religious schizos who can't handle progress and want a new dark age
At least they got the principle down so they can concentrate on replicating it with quantum structures.
>>17067464i can tell youre jewish just by looking at your post
Quantum Computer=/= Complex Motion Computational Generator.
>>17067775It creates actions, it creates complex shapes through motion.
>>17067777Bubbles/Rooms, good operating systems(in comparison to Windows).
>>17067779Good, you've made the computer- now make the quantum screen/controller.
>>17067780You don't need to make the perfect screen-.something that provides a useful reading of the quantum nature of the computer. A trace.
>>17067453You misunderstand it's use. Through vibrations, computational touch, thus machine can generate any complex motion(perhaps creating a cube-hollow or cube-bubble, as a simple example).
>>17067783It's powerful enough to create a universe.
>>17067453Quantum computing is a meme and anyone with some basic knowledge of chemistry could have told you it won't go anywhere. I could explain but that would require me to put in actual effort, so I will only do that upon request. The short version is that we can't even entangle 10-20 qbits, and we would need millions. If ordinary matter could entangle to the extent to make QC viable, chemistry would literally not work.
> The short version is that we can't even entangle 10-20 qbits, and we would need millionssame thing could of been said of regular computers but due to Turing's law we can create atomic size transistors and have ultra efficient super computers (classical)Same will happen to quantum
We need another particle accelerator AND more Tokamaks knowing full well it won't work before we build them.
>>17067453Its pretty neat, but that funding should have been spent on more space related research.
>>17067884>could of been said of regular computersNo it couldn't. Entanglement is categorically different from transistor size limitations. Let me spell it out for you: even if you managed to turn a single, individual molecule into a quantum computer, with every atom as 1 qbit, the hard limit of how many of them you will be able to fully entangle is 10-20.
>>17067464Nigga crossing himself when he sees a chandelier.
>>17067777Checking those quads
>>17067453Quantum Computing is literally the biggest scam in the history of science. OP is right, we spent hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars on a technology that basically had no use 30 years ago and still has no use, and it’s only potential use even if it does start working (which it doesn’t yet) is to do trial-and-error calculations that are unreliable—and the only application for this kind of unreliable computation is to use it for decryption or hacking in the case of cyberwarfarethis was a major major case of defrauding the government, way way worse than other failures in science like String Theory or Cold Fusion, by orders of magnitude.we should literally create a Truth And Reconcilliation committee to bring the people who defrauded us to trial, and get their tenure taken away, and fine them of their retirement accounts and social security so they are left to wither away on Obamacare. These people were willingly cheating the US government and deserve to die in poverty
>>17067464i can tell this anon's retarded just by reading him
>>17067464I agree. The government should regulate quantum computers because they don't look friendly like an Apple product. That means it might want to kill us all.
why do we still give physicists money?compared to engineers what have physicists produced that actually helped society? you know instead of nukes.It's obviously just a money laundering scheme that is being subsidized by the government.Like very physics project.
>>17068970>why do we still give physicists money?All the expensive QC slop is peddled by big tech, not physics. The same who currently sell AI to morons like you.
I work on quantum algorithms at a national lab. No one has a clue what to use this for besides factoring. Even the small quantum simulations people sometimes cite would take years to run on a big enough machine
>>17069210Don't forget that every modern QC can actually be simulated much better than run IRL
>>17068098>technology that basically had no use 30 years agoThat's literally every technology before it starts being useful. Same can be said about AI and even classical computers
>>17069651That's an absolute non-argument. A dog turd on a stick has been useless since the first time someone stuck a stick in a dog turd. Every single example you gave had a clear, solvable problem that was held back by other technology missing. For QC, we have the tech. We could make the tech a million times more reliable, it would matter not.The guy you are replying to is probably just a retard who made AI generate a troll post but QC is useless for reasons that are significantly more fundamental than classical computers, but is obfuscated by people from within the field having little to no overlap with people who do actual fucking quantum simulations.
>>17069669>QC is useless for reasons that are significantly more fundamental than classical computerswell?
>>17067477>progressQuantum computing will never progress beyond the copium of ignorant investors and a few iflscience retards who don't realize there are hard engineering limits as the amount of wiring scales with the number of qbits and quickly exceeds spatial and thermal limits of the cryostat.There's a reason nothing like Moore's law exists for quantum computing.
>>17069669>The guy you are replying to is probably just a retard who made AI generate a troll postI am not, and honestly your posts look more LLM-like than mine. way to attack a person who was agreeing with you. doucheanyhow you are right and I definitely stand by my original post. and to reply to this shill>>17068098no, almost every modern technology did not live in the “theoretically useful” category for 30 years before becoming useful. What you are referring to is basically non-existent because 1) your examples are stupid (“AI” referred to a totally different thing 30 years ago, they changed the definition 25 years ago and since then it has had a different problem I’ll talk about in (2), and classical computers were useful from day 1 unless you are talking about a different technology from digital computers— but even then mechanical adding machines were very useful for decades [cash registers and the like]. )2) useless is different from “too expensive to be economically viable”. Before recently giant neural networks were in use for various applications—they were useful but not economical for various reasons. Same thing with early internal combustion engines and early automobiles. They were an expensive hobby for rich guys but dollar for dollar a horse and buggy was more practical. A similar thing happened for AI and for automobiles—basically an assembly-line manufacturing system was developed once crucial tweaks were discovered and when requisite infrastructure became available 3) there is a fundamental difference with Quantum Computing which is that (as some anon said here already) nobody can think of anything to do with it besides factoring big integers. This of course has direct applications to cryptography and code-breaking but aside from that it has no application outside an MIC arms race. The “quantum simulations” thing is crap, as another anon already said, and there are basically no economically useful applications.
>>17069953> way to attack a person who was agreeing with you.eh, you're right. I just didn't want to get my hopes up because em dashes (which I KNOW slop only uses because people use them, hell I use them sometimes). I am just cranky because /sci/ has been a disaster for months, don't take it to heart.>>17069776For any of what I say to make sense you need to know some basic linear algebra and that CC simulations of QC requires you to (at least formally) build a square matrix that has as many columns as the system has "states". Every Qb has 2 states, so an N-bit QC has [math]2^{N}[/math] states, and brute forcing the QC problem on a CC would be diagonalizing such a matrix thus [math] \mathcal{O}(2^{3N})[/math]. That is true if your QC is fully entangled, or rather, correlated. Correlation means you can't decompose the matrix (Hamiltonian) that describes your QC. For as long as you implement Qbits as atoms though their interaction with one another (and thus the amount of correlation they can have) decays exponentially with distance, and anything further away than a few hundred pm will never meaningfully interact. That means you will only ever correlate Qbits that are physically close to one another, which means that the matrix is not only incredibly sparse but effectively incredibly low rank. This will reflect in their performance too. So even if you could make a TQb sized QC it would be a mockery of what people advertised/envisioned. The real question is what a non-ideal QC can actually accomplish in the first place, realistic setups like 2D lattices are basically nearest neighbor interactions.
>>17067935proof?
>>17070225Okay, starting from the molecular Hamiltonian without an external field we assume the fuckass thing is fixed in space (no relevant nuclear motion). We don't want our QC in the gas phase after all. We only want an order of magnitude estimate of the interaction, and for that molecular physics has a standard method called Hartree-Fock.If you want to think of the physics of molecules as something that is composed of atoms (how else to describe a single atom as a qbit), you do linear combinations of atomic orbitals. That means you treat every atom like it has a set of orbitals the same way it would in the gas phase, and the only thing you need to take from that is that these orbitals decrease in amplitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-like_atom#Non-relativistic_wavefunction_and_energy. The only thing that matters is that the amplitude is proportional to exp(-r*const/a0).If you combine everything you find that the interaction between two electrons at different atoms (an integral over 1/(distance) times the product of the two orbitals) diminishes asymptotically exponentially as their distance increases. In practice their interaction is numerically 0 after a few hundred pm. That means you can only fully entangle atoms that fit into a volume of a few cubic angstrom. Doing some quick math that's like a handful of hydrogen atoms at best.
>>17070209>>17070261>you will only ever correlate Qbits that are physically close to one anotherThat's like saying "you will only ever use a light bulbs for transistors hence classical computers are super limited in what they can do. There have already been experiments where entangled particles are huge distances apart, I'm talking kilometers.It's just a matter of figuring out how to realize it within quantum computing.
>>17070527> "you will only ever use a light bulbs for transistors"You watched to much pop slop and science fiction. You know why modern day transistors are as efficient as they are? Because we found a tech that we could scale down to nigh atomic scales, you abject moron. >"Just make something smaller than an atom bro" You can't get rid of the exponential scaling of wave functions for bound systems, period. Look at an eigenstate[eqn]H\Psi = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Psi'' + V\Psi = E\Psi\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Psi'' = (V-E)\Psi[/eqn]Choosing [math]\lim_{x\to\infty}V(x)=0[/math] for large displacements which you can do for most reasonable potentials a bound state asymptotically behaves like[eqn]\Psi'' \sim \frac{2m|E|}{\hbar^2} \Psi[/eqn]Which can be simplified (we only care for normalizable Psi) and ultimately boils down to[eqn]\Psi' \sim -\frac{\sqrt{2m|E|}}{\hbar} \Psi[/eqn]and thus[eqn]\Psi \sim \exp\left(-\frac{\sqrt{2m|E|}}{\hbar}x\right)[/eqn]for large displacements in x. You are confusing "our current tech does not have a viable scale" with "to make this viable we need to change fundamental constants of the universe"
>>17070573there is a newline missing in the first eqs:[eqn]H\Psi = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Psi'' + V\Psi = E\Psi \\\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Psi'' = (V-E)\Psi[/eqn]
>>17067797Why chemistry?
>>17070607Because the only reason chemistry works the way it does (esp functional groups) is because far apart atoms don't affect each other meaningfully. A COOH group is almost always acidic and surrounding functional groups can affect reactivity in ways that are important enough to affect reactions but never big enough to fundamentally change the basics. A rotating methyl group does not give a fuck about the methyl group 20 carbons down the chain, etc.
>>17070608Thanks, but where is the link to QC
>>17070609see >>17070209Basically, the difficulty of simulating a QC classically is directly linked to how strongly individual qbits correlate. But physically far away qbits won't correlate for reasons that are very fundamentally baked into the physics of QM. That means that as things are QC is more or less polynomial in space and time to simulate if you know what you're doing. Which kind of defeats the point.
>>17070613Thanks again, > anything further away than a few hundred pm will never meaningfully interactwhat is pm?
>>17070618not him but pm is obviously picometers.
>>17070618picometers. The longest chemical (covalent) bond I remember is something to the tune of 3 angstrom (3.x times 10^-10 m) which is extremely exotic (Xe2+ cation). Since Xe is a noble gas and shouldn't even form bonds normally it is no wonder it is a fucked up example
>>17070622Ok, sorry for question.
>>17070623>picometers. The longest chemical (covalent) bond I remember is something to the tune of 3 angstrom (3.x times 10^-10 m) which is extremely exotic (Xe2+ cation). Since Xe is a noble gas and shouldn't even form bonds normally it is no wonder it is a fucked up exampleI see, but if were a QC scientist i would argue that quantum bonding is quite different and has nothing in common with the chemical one.
>>17067453>Basically, you just misunderstood what we’ve been promising for the past 30 years because you’re not qualified enough to understand itThis applies to so many fields that you'd probably consider useful.It's fine that you're not well-read in quantum computing. Your perspective on the subject is not required.If you want to cut wasteful stuff from national budgets, science probably isn't the place to look.
>>17070643the difficult thing about this is that you can't really get rid of this exponential decay, and other forms of atom-atom interaction just add a moderate factor, they don't change the shape of the asymptotics. I know places like Google should be aware of these problems but keeps making incredibly bold claims about quantum supremacy while I doubt that you can't in actuality simulate their 100 qbit crap on a 10 year old stinkpad with nothing but rank reduction algos and spite.
>>17070648Lol. What a bootlicker understanding of reality. Yeah politicians are your friends and they want the best for you. Also they are scientifically literate enough to understand what they should support.Quantum computing is not science. It's esotericism.
>>17067453Quantum computers will be used by AI in ways we can not yet understand
>>17071421dunno, we have grover's and shor's algos, and some shittier ones that aren't as useful.AIs don't yet come up with new algos. they make good use of what already exists, because they can follow the information way way way better than any human ever hoped they could, hence why they're able to pull these tricks today.in math that's especially important. so they're pretty much exhausting our backlog with everything we know so far.but coming up with new shit, that's a different subject altogether, do not mistake the two.
>>17067784>>17071491>soigape.png
>>17070657If there is an exponential decay somewhere in quantum entanglement then it would be the solution to the (currently unsolved) measurement problem. If there is not, and they can scale to thousands of qubits, then we may solve many optimization problems in polynomial time, or even advance our understanding of P vs NP. So it's either a Nobel prize in Physics, one in Mathematics, or a commercially viable product. Whether it's worth the billions of $ they're pemping into it is another issue, one for the finance bros.
>>17071765>then it would be the solution to the (currently unsolved) measurement problemThat is not how any of this works.
>>17070657How do entangled qbits know how far apart they are from each other
>>17072199Entanglement requires correlation, and to achieve a correlated state it requires an interaction where the position of one particle impacts the potential landscape of the other. Otherwise a pure state (like you obtain from measurement) remains a pure state forever.
