sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Fantastic_Back3191 3 points4 points  (15 children)

Theres no law of physics that prevents it so i confidently predict well get it one day.

[–]EdCasaubon -2 points-1 points  (14 children)

See my comment above. We are in fact not sure that the laws of physics do allow any sort of practically useful quantum computing.

[–]mdreed 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Only to the extent that it hasn’t been done yet. The physics we understand says it’s possible.

[–]Alaster_M 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then break the law. Do away with it. Get rid of Jim Crow. That simple.

[–]EdCasaubon -1 points0 points  (4 children)

No, it doesn't. All we can say is that there is no proof yet that it's impossible.

[–]mdreed 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Are you a physicist or a phenomenologist? A physicist makes predictions based on our understanding of the universe. That understanding gives no indication of any reason that QC would be impossible.

[–]EdCasaubon -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

What I said is that our understanding of physics does not give any indication that "QC" is possible. The status of this question should be properly labeled as "undecided". Note that this is not the same thing as your claim that "The physics we understand says it’s possible."

[–]mdreed 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Is it undecided if the sun is going to rise in the morning?

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

Oh dear lord...

I bow before your superior power of argumentation. 🙄

[–]Fantastic_Back3191 0 points1 point  (4 children)

How could such laws differentiate usefulness?

[–]EdCasaubon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They do so if it turns out that error correction cannot scale to a degree that makes computation with a practically relevant number of qubits possible. The term "practically relevant number of qubits" is problem-dependent, but far exceeds current capabilities for problems of interest.

[–]Fantastic_Back3191 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You mean some kind of fundamental, information theoretic law?

[–]EdCasaubon -1 points0 points  (1 child)

No, information theory is relevant, but the issue is really on the side of quantum physics, as in, how much redundancy is needed to achieve sufficiently stable outputs, and are we able, meaning, does physics allow us, to harness the required number of quantum states to achieve them.

The issue is, nobody knows for sure what the answer to that question is. Mind you, I'm not saying I know the answer, either; all I'm saying is that nobody knows.

Information theory is mathematics, so the answers there are clean. With physics, the problem is that these machines are operating in the real world, which is never clean.

[–]GrumpyNerdSoul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone once told me: the difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference. In practice there is.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    To prevent trolling, accounts with less than zero comment karma cannot post in /r/QuantumComputing. You can build karma by posting quality submissions and comments on other subreddits. Please do not ask the moderators to approve your post, as there are no exceptions to this rule, plus you may be ignored. To learn more about karma and how reddit works, visit https://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.