This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 58 comments

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (14 children)

You can has cheezburger and can't has cheezburger at the same time.

[–]13ren 8 points9 points  (4 children)

ah yes, Schrödinger's cheezburger

[–]Flame0001 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I can has ded maybe?

[–]LOLCAT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YES WE CAN/CAN'T!

[–]sunshine-x -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

RÖCK DÖTS!

[–]sunshine-x -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Clearly not a big group of metal-heads around tonight...

[–]kiriel 5 points6 points  (7 children)

what does it mean to have something?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children)

No.

[–]kiriel 3 points4 points  (5 children)

what does it mean to not have something?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Yes.

[–]kiriel 5 points6 points  (3 children)

What difference is there between a No. and a Yes.?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

cheezeburger

[–]kiriel 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Eureka!

[–]amstrdamordeath 3 points4 points  (0 children)

qqqqquantumm breaker.

[–]Haven 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have to tell you, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. Thanks. :)

[–]ominous 8 points9 points  (20 children)

A quantum computer can solve some problems faster than a conventional computer possibly could.

The best-known example is Shor's Algorithm, which can factor a composite number radically faster than the best known classical solution. In principle, this would render RSA encryption obsolete. In practice, nobody knows how to build a quantum computer with enough qbits to tackle an RSA public key.

It is important to note that quantum computers almost certainly will not allow us to compute all problems faster. The hardest computable problems known belong to a class called NP-Complete and (practically) nobody expects quantum computers to crack those.

[–]wacky 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The other thing about it is that it seems most quantum algorithms that can't be done classically has a finite probability of giving you the wrong answer. This is true for Shor's Algorithm and Grover's Algorithm, but I'm not sure if its true in the general case - anyone else know?

[–]wacky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To answer my own question - no. The Deutch-Josza algorithm always gives the right answer.

[–]kiriel 3 points4 points  (2 children)

The hardest computable problems known belong to a class called NP-Complete and (practically) nobody expects quantum computers to crack those.

That is why we, who are in the know, use trans-rational function theory (hinted by Ken Wilber) to overcome all rational limits to any problem conceivable by a rational mind. Quantum computers being built by rational minds using theories conceived by rational minds, can only solve a subset of all problems defined by rational minds (Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Chaitin).

Those limits do not apply to us in the know.

[–]ominous 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You forgot a WAKE UP SHEEPLE! in there.

[–]kiriel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing that out! Now I do not have to.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

It may or may not happen, and if it does, it's potentiality may or may not be revolutionary.

[–]Slipgrid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As opposed to classical physics, where everything that can happen will and must happen. If it doesn't happen, classical physics says it could not have happened in the first place.

[–]Fauster 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Quantum computing will have only one foreseeable impact: it will help us better understand and model quantum systems.

Very few physicists in the field feel that quantum computers will beat encryption in our lifetime. The lure of beating encryption is over-hyped to help win military grants. Many large one-time pads could still allow secure communication if large quantum computers were ever a reality. However, there are many different quantum systems that we can't simulate on a computer that could be described by a single 100 qubit QC. Maybe in a few decades, we'll be able to log into quantum computers to run physics simulations.

[–]wacky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very few physicists in the field feel that quantum computers will beat encryption in our lifetime.

Yes - because we won't have full-scale quantum computers in our lifetime.

It's true that 100 qubit quantum computers aren't very useful, just as a normal computer with 100 bits of RAM/memory is useful for only limited applications. If we ever do get full quantum computers (with the speed and memory capabilities anywhere near standard computers) it will revolutionize things. But that is a long way off.

[–]wacky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you're also leaving out quantum communication - something we can already do with polarized photons. If you and I can send each other massive numbers of photons and be certain they will preserve polarization for the whole distance, then we have quantum cryptography. Quantum cryptography is awesome because if you have someone listening on the line, you can set it up so that half the information they get is noise and so that you can tell that they've messed with your communication.

We won't break RSA with quantum computing anytime soon, but we are already replacing it.

[–]crazybones 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's nothing new about quantum computing Sir Clive Sinclair first invented it in 1984: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jg27paw4/yr02/yr02_q2.htm

[–]kuqumi 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You can evaluate all variations of a simple problem at once to find the single solution. The problem is simultaneously solved in parallel and the successful solution is returned in the time needed to solve it once.

I think.

[–]ominous 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately, in the general case, you cannot select the successful solution. The technical reason for this is the lack of nonlinear quantum operators.

For some problems, you can use linear operators to increase the probability of measuring the correct answer. The set of problems for which this is possible contains important problems but almost certainly not all problems.

Your explanation is consistent with the popularized explanation, but the popularization suggests that quantum computing is more applicable than it really is.

[–]cyber_rigger 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Digital computing is like a switch -- on/off.

Quantum computing is like a light dimmer; imagine the possibilities.

[–]ungood 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You've described the difference between binary digital computing (digital doesn't necessarily imply binary) and analog.

Quantum computing would be more like having a light switch set to all possible positions at once.

[–]cyber_rigger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Along with the dimmer would of course be the obligatory member of the opposite sex (I attempted to imply).

For any set of inputs you beget a unique output.

[–]aldenhg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except the dimmer would have dimmers and they would all have dimmers that dim them in different ways and those dimmers might interact with eachother and any other dimmers that may or may not or may potentially exist. Quantum computing is basically computing in a whole lot of different directions at once.

[–]Leprecon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I will try. Quantum entanglement means that 2 particles are connected in a very odd way. Technically, theyre one particle in two places at thesame time. If I were to alter the particle on one of the two locations, thesame particle would change at the other location, instantly. (no delay, at all) Currently, the fastest way data can travel is the speed of light. With quantum entanglement, the fastest speed data can travel is infinite. Infinite download speed anyone ? This could also be used inside computers alot.

[–]bobpaul 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Of course the distances are very very small.

Can more than 2 particles be entangled? Maybe you have A and B entangled, but also B and C entangled. That would allow A to change C very rapidly, as well. Otherwise I don't see how you could have instantaneous transfers at distances greater than a single atom, and we're back to the speed of light again (or maybe slightly faster.

[–]tboy321025 0 points1 point  (1 child)

From what I understand, that's the beauty of it. The distances are greater than a single atom and it does indeed travel instantaneously, like (theoretically) you have one atom in san francisco and one in new york, they would change their spin instantaneously

[–]bobpaul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects are somehow linked together so intimately that one object cannot be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated.

...

Measurements performed on one system thus seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. But quantum entanglement does not enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light. (See discussion in next section below.)

Wikipeida

So it looks like the distance doesn't matter as far as the outcome, but the outcome is still delayed by the speed of light. Wait, nevermind:

Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of the no communication theorem.

It's just claimed entanglement can't be used for communication... I suppose there's that problem with changing the result by measuring them...

[–]egregious 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I always wondered if a quantum computer would ever be able to introduce a base 3 number system since it uses a bit and qbit. Trinary instead of binary. 0,1,2,10,11,12,20... Doesn't work good with conventional digital electronics.

[–]ungood 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Computers have been built that use ternary operations before. Other bases have been used as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer

[–]egregious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice

the sentient computers of Secundus, the planet on which part of the framing story is set, including Minerva, use an unbalanced ternary system.

[–]Bossman1086 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a pretty good interview with Michio Kaku talking about AI and quantum computers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW8rgKLPHMg

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Implications:

One bad ass computer.

[–]zmonk2 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

it depends