Why no dodgy Quantum Entanglement technology?

[AlbertL]

This should be the Next Big Thing in dodgy tech buzzwords, right along with "blockchain", "nanotechnology" and "graphene".  The scammers are missing out!

[Whales]

Blockchain and machine learning are easy to "get working".  The scam is then in the social side (what it's sold to do).

Quantum Entanglement is very difficult/impossible for scammers to "get working".  Every scam needs a hint of truth in it to be believed, so they need at least something to work.  There are easier options than QE.

[SiliconWizard]

Quantum computing (which makes use of "entanglement" among others things, as far as I understand it) is definitely "trendy" and the big ones have jumped on the bandwagon. It's just extremely expensive at this point,  for a slim result, so not "startup" material.

That said, if some startup pretends to have found a way of making "quantum computers" much cheaper/with many more qbits than what is currently state of the art, then certainly there's potential here for dodgy projects. But again, the big ones are investing serious cash in this, so they would keep an eye and would be quick to tell potential investors this is just bullshit. You'd directly be stepping on the toes of giants such as IBM.

[El Rubio]

It will appear ( if not already) in the audiophool industry soon enough. The “ researchers” at those companies just need to get the lingo together and then figure out out how to describe what it does to audio.

[Kjelt]

In the mean time the "real" scientists are the ones cheating with their results to get published asap and offered big money and laboratories from hightech companies. Only to be forced to withdraw their claims a few years later and get their ass kicked by the science community since no-one else can reproduce their results. And that is what real science is all about, reproducing, comparing and make technological progress.

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

[pcprogrammer]

There is also the parallel universes that scammers can use to make money. It is al so vague that lots of people will buy into it.

Like "you will never loose on your investments again, because no matter what you decide, in a parallel universe your other choice pays out."

I watched a youtube video about it a while back where the Schrödinger cat was used as an example that each possibility was acted out in a parallel universe. Not sure who was in the video and how I got to it, but I was watching stuff of physics girl and dr Becky at the time, and landed on the one about the parallel universes.

No idea if any of it is even remotely making sense, but for me it ranks up there with the quantum entanglement and the whole quantum computing for that matter. Way over my head

I prefer my computers to be binary. Easy to understand

Edit: It was veritasium:

[Kjelt]

No parallel universe needed, we have these virtual reality game universa where game manufacturers sell virtual items like clothes, weapons, etc. Etc. For real money.
I don't know how they did or what people spent real money on it but this is a billion $ virtual merchandise enterprise. I am too old for this s*it.

[Haenk]

Wouldn't it be nice to have an upgrade path 1G->2G->3G->4G->5G->QE blocker? Of course that device wouldn't be cheap (for the buyer) but who cares about the price, when it will block all future bad-for-your-health quantum states.

[martinr33]

There's plenty of work going on in quantum, but there'a also a lot of hype (which is how you get funding).

We still have a few years before the first fruits of quantum become obvious, which will happen in rather mundane optimization areas. Inventory, production, scheduling and so on. Quantum will be competing with neural networks, conventional computing, and specialist hardware.

Maybe around 2035, we'll see quantum computers that make meaningful breakthroughs in chemistry, drug discovery, materials science.

And by 2040, maybe all your old secrets will be exposed as cryptography starts to fail.

(and yes, we have had some amazing breakthroughs in the last 5 years that set us on a path for working systems)

[Kjelt]

Is it me or is the whole world at this moment only in dire need of one thing:
a new high efficiency environmentally clean energy source and energystorage ?
Shouldn't the whole scientific community first focus on this and continue with the rest after it has been realized ?

[AVGresponding]

Is it me or is the whole world at this moment only in dire need of one thing:
a new high efficiency environmentally clean energy source and energystorage ?
Shouldn't the whole scientific community first focus on this and continue with the rest after it has been realized ?

One of my friends is a professor of evolutionary biology, and though much of her research revolves around the impact of environmental factors such as pollution, monoculture etc on evolution, I'm not sure what she could bring to the fields of energy generation and storage.

[SiliconWizard]

Is it me or is the whole world at this moment only in dire need of one thing:
a new high efficiency environmentally clean energy source and energystorage ?

Is it? That's a very complex question. On a superficial level, that sounds about right. (And that we are wasting a lot of time and resources on dead-ends and stupid tech, I agree with!)

Now, the fact that we are using essentially non-renewable sources of energy that are not environmentally-friendly at all has at least the benefit of being time-limited. It will stop us at some point, and we won't be able to do more damage. Of course, then things may not look pretty for us as a species (and for many other species), but there *will* be an end to it. And this won't be the end of the Earth. The remaining will just adapt to new conditions. We precisely do not have enough energy available (even if one could argue we have too much already) to do any drastic damage to the planet. We do to make drastic damage to ourselves though and modify our environment enough to change it significantly. But that's not the same.

If we suddenly had access to a clean and virtually unlimited source of energy (at least compared to what we have now), sure the immediate consequences of using this energy would not be nearly as bad, but the long-term consequences may be disastrous. The more energy we have at disposal, and the more damage we'll be able to make. Doesn't need to come directly from the energy source itself.

So, yeah, that's a mixed bag. Those thoughts are nothing new, and many leaders are fully aware of this. I'm pretty sure that if we finally elaborate this clean, almost unlimited energy source that we are all dreaming of, governments - or most likely supranational entities - will have to artificially limit its access and raise its prices considerably in order to avoid the chaos that I evoked just above. Which is likely to come with even more political and stability problems that we are living at the moment.

Just a few thoughts. Maybe we should focus on something else.

Shouldn't the whole scientific community first focus on this and continue with the rest after it has been realized ?

Notwithstanding the above point, this is something that in general I agree with. For instance, I've often said that focusing on makings craptons of EVs with the current technology (batteries that generate pollution whiile being made, that are difficult to recycle - and make additional pollution for doing so) and without a reasonably clean way of generating electricity (I think close to 80% of worldwide generation is currently still on fossil fuels), this is a dead-end approach and we'd better focus on covering the basics first. That doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion though. Also, some people will argue that we can do both in parallel, which is flawed and kinda the opposite of "focusing".

Whatever, I don't think we are doing anything right towards that goal at the moment.