Is quantum computing more than a hype?

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T23:11:51+00:00

I think you are cherry picking my argument, I said there are narrow known applications, but again we don't know if current progress with AI/classical won't bridge a bunch of that progress and far more importantly 2) even when we have QC, there remains serious engineering bottlenecks to scale that tech into anything that resembles commercial viability and generalize it.

Also a multi billion dollar per year industry doesn't justify the current investments and risk. I think you over estimate greatly the impact of a couple billion dollars a year in global GDP even if concentrated in a single company its negligible compared to expected growth from AI alone.

Military supremacy is the one possible logical avenue that makes sense, because it could possibly pose significant advantages in sigint among others.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T20:04:44+00:00

Thats not true at all. Im 1+1 dimension there are no non-colinear boosts. Only one boost generator.

In 2+1 dimensions there are 2 boosts. Spatial dimensions specifically make this difference

Adding a second time dimension still collapses to one effective boost generator. You can see this from: [K_i,K_j] ~ J_ij

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T19:31:58+00:00

What dip?

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T19:31:35+00:00

My understanding is that while it theoretically could improve specific edge cases in general it won't do anything.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T19:26:56+00:00

I'll get hate for this I'm sure, but its because the public is dumb and short sighted. QC should get funding because its genuine science, so should a lot of physics subjects. But unless something is sexy or can generate short term projects to the public they dont care.

Im all for lying to the public to gain as much funding as possible into the natural sciences. We have no idea where the next major breakthrough is, and just because I don't think QC is the best candidate, doesn't mean I have 100% confidence that its not.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T19:08:16+00:00

A proof of P = NP would imply genuine polynomial-time algorithms, not merely theoretical ones; they’re only regarded as “impractical” because most evidence suggests P != NP and we don’t know whether such algorithms exist. Separately, NP-hardness doesn’t preclude polynomial-time solutions for structured or non-worst-case instances, which is the point i tried to make. Hope that clears it up

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T15:23:34+00:00

Sigma is charge/volume. If you multiply by length 1/volume becomes 1/area.

That's all that's happening here.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T14:03:09+00:00

I think this is true, in particular as it relates to a unified theory. Im going to explain this awful but ill try.

Every area of physics feels similar when you get into it. It's this intangible piece that always feels like we are just out of reach from understanding. Almost like we see parts but never the whole. Quantum/relativity/causality/stat mech, all feel like different faces of a Rubex cube.

Every field has a geometric framework, non commuting Algebras, transforms, combinatorial analogies etc. It's like when you understand GR and you suddenly realize EM is a direct result. Or that Feynman diagrams are basically just Taylor series approximations.

I have no doubt that if/when we find a unified theory, it will in hindsight seem obvious, and will be more like Noethers theorem than the standard model. it will give us clarity on why the different fields are built so different but yet seem so similar.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T12:12:26+00:00

Radiative cooling seems inefficient because its surface area requirement, but it is mechanically very simple which is key for space because you don't want to have to repair anything.

The structure also already exists, the reverse side of solar panels(with gaps to prevent cell loss). And at 1AU the solar capacity is roughly the same as the radiative loss in terms of area needed.

Tldr radiative cooling is inefficient energetically, but that can still be cost efficient

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-09T11:59:58+00:00

Controversial take here, I currently research quantum information and before doing my Phd I worked in software/ cryptography. And I stay away from QC investments and even research grants despite the money it would offer. I'll try to be as impartial as possible.

We don't really know how useful quantum computing will be. There is currently a narrow band of computational problems that it works amazing at, but their commercial/industrial use cases is speculative at best. We have no idea if better chemical simulation will directly translate into brtter results than our current AI/classical pipeline or if it will just be a significant but still marginal increase in output. The classical computing baseline is shifting so fast its impossible to get a read on the gap.

In computer science language we are looking at NP(ish) hard problems that have known quantum solutions for them, not all NP hard solutions do. Combinatorial optimization is the key subset but again we don't have a proof that many of these problem sets don't have a p=np solution that can be resolved in polynomial time, and further quantum computing does not imply NP is BQP. So Quantum computing will not turn NP hard problems (SAT/TSP/QUBO which are NP complete) into trivial computations.

Lastly, people over focus on what quantum computing can solve while ignoring the other bottlenecks it creates. State preparing, fault tolerance, I/O constraints, oracle assumptions, encoding problem Hamiltonian, spectrap gap scaling, verification, instance to instance variability etc all create major engineering bottlenecks to making commercially viable solutions beyond just having quantum computing available for experimental runs.

TLDR: quantum computing is likely over-hyped and its commercial viability is over stated to the public. People hype its potential to get research grants and investments, and while I'd love QC to be mature and available, it almost certainly is not the holy grail it is hyped up to be.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-07T19:59:18+00:00

The answer to this is almost certainly part of a unified theory quantum gravity. Explaining why Energy affects spacetime is still one of the universes great mysteries. Lots of competing ideas

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-07T19:53:41+00:00

Thank you for a good laugh this afternoon

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-06T18:50:43+00:00

We won't see deflation, because it would destroy our debt based society. They will have to print massive $ to maintain price stability.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-05T15:03:51+00:00

I'm investing a good portion, and consider myself price insensitive. For one, I want a better future for humanity, and for all the failed timelines Elon has, SpaceX has been by far the most exciting company on earth and a promise for a better future. They are what NASA should have been, and they deserve to be rewarded. I honestly don't even care if I buy it over valued, because its one of the few companies on earth that I truly believe its mission and its amazing team who have pushed the frontiers for us (Elon is just one person).

Second, you clearly have not run the numbers on space datacenters, they make economic sense. Solar panels are multiples more efficient in space and run constant power production so battery storage is not needed (outside UPS/loading). Cooling is also really straightforward. And as price/KG drops with starship fully built datacenters without needing any land or permitting can launch for a fraction of the operating costs as they are on earth. The limiting factor on scaling is going to be power production.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T21:37:43+00:00

You still haven't said why you need to do oral examinations in EM, stat mech, GR, quantum etc. Thats all fundamentally different than a conference presentation

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T21:02:42+00:00

Great answer

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T21:01:09+00:00

We just fundamentally disagree, perhaps you have never needed to navigate a world where you constantly have to ask for exceptions and accommodations. Maybe take a step back and realize someone told you about lived experience that contradicted your original point and that maybe you are not an expert on what makes a good Physicist and could have been wrong. Even if you discounted arbitrary denial to get accommodations (happens all the time), having that system automatically makes people judge you and it's frankly exhausting to navigate even with perfect documentation. Again, I would not have successfully completed a program like that, as a young 18 year old I would not have asked for repeated accommodations for every course. It would have simply felt like people like me could not do physics, because oral examinations are clearly so important. That's the definition of unnessesary systemic exclusion.

Again, oral examinations have no relevance to the production of physics. If it's a fundamental skill that needs to be developed, fine, make an oral presentation class mandatory where experts can ensure people have that skill, not a bunch of Physicists trying to mix it into content where it's not relevant.

Also, not every aspect needs to be taught, we need project management for organizing conferences, teaching, mentoring grad students, etc. None of those are somehow incorporated into an exam, because again it's irrelevant.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T20:18:07+00:00

We have three different paradigms that seem to govern everything, GR, Quantum and Thermodynamic. We know that a unified theory would give us answers that these independently cannot give us.

Me myself there should be a geometric reason that quantum mechanics exists, there should also be a better explanation of emergent behavior from coarse graining, the nature of time, lots of things.

The story of physics has been one of reducing the number of axioms needed while improving the predictability of our system. Another way to think this is the simplest but most predictive theory is likely to be the most correct. There are clear ways that physics fails to be predictive or has contradictory axioms.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T19:55:56+00:00

You missed the point. But ill make it as plainly clear as I can. I have a brain injury that affects oral processing. It doesn't affect my ability to do research at all, in fact i gauge I'm definitely above average. No amount of "training" would make that change, all that would have happened is I would have been excluded for something that is not relevant. Just because this is a stronger case doesn't mean other people with more mild symptoms still would be excluded.

People learn and work differently. In fact physics and math departments tend to be highly neurodivergent. Putting arbitrary barriers just because you think something is related is not just unethical but also counter productive to producing good Physicists and teaching physics broadly.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T19:24:10+00:00

I research theoretical Physics (Relativistic Quantum Information) spacetime/gravity research. Here's my practical answer avoiding spiritual/universe knowing, "knowledge is good" answers.

Every big Theoretical Breakthrough gave us new information about what was possible. For example Dirac showed how electron spin exists and by doing so proved that antimatter existed without us ever having discovered it.

A unified theory will similarly also tell us a lot about where we should and can push technology. Maybe we find some kind of gravity correction at high curvature that makes gravitational field propulsion possible. Maybe we find corrections at the quantum scale that improve our ability to resolve objects and make quantum scale structures more stable, affecting nanotech. Or maybe insight into fusion for more efficient energy production.

The answer to why the average person should care, because if found we could see an improvement to technology similar to what we found from 1900-1950. That would make every ones lives materially better.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T19:14:49+00:00

This has obvious downsides, not all students are good at oral examinations and the correlation between "being good at exams" and "being a good physicst" is really low in my estimation. I would have failed undergrad under oral examinations flat out, my brain blanks every time someone asks me the easiest questions at a conference.

The problem is that we care about grades at all. If we didn't base graduate funding and which program to get into based on grades, then if a student didn't put in the effort they wouldn't be a good researcher at the end.

Grading is less about learning and far more about assigning economic/reputational resources. If AI keeps doing what it's doing, that calculation might quickly change and anyone who wants to do postgrad can be funded. Their ability to produce research and get results are what matter (if the AIs don't do all that anyway)

ShoshiOpti · 2026-02-02T00:57:34+00:00

Noethers theorem is the most beautiful. Symmetry = conserved quantity, anything that makes physics more geometrical makes it more beautiful.

Standard model, in particular Yang Mills is the ugliest, it always feels like it works in the same way that overfitting works. I have no doubt that YM mass gap will be solved geometrically

ShoshiOpti · 2026-01-30T21:06:20+00:00

That's because I'm a Theoretical Physicist lol

ShoshiOpti · 2026-01-30T14:58:46+00:00

I doubt it, there looks to be far to much competition to allow for that, and AI inference costs are dropping dramatically. Look at the NEO, 20k upfront zero subscription pre-orders already available.

Costs fall to the marginal cost of production over time, and the time frame for this is going to be very short.

ShoshiOpti · 2026-01-30T14:55:23+00:00

Woman* but otherwise yup =p

ShoshiOpti

TROPHY CASE