Products > Computers

About Quantum Computing

**SiliconWizard**:

On some level, quantum physics is a bit like burying one's head in the sand. If you can't see your observer, then it can't really see you either. Right?

That was the quantum moment of Pr. Proton. :-DD

**Marco**:

This is based on absolutely nothing, but I have the suspicion that a lot of funding for electronic quantum computing is simply a distraction to keep optical quantum computing as far away from public research as possible.

**xrunner**:

--- Quote from: ggchab on September 06, 2019, 11:52:09 am ---I understood the state is neither true nor false until we "look" at it. Then, we "force" the nature to reveal something and this will either be false or true.

That's fascinating but the theory is far beyond my understanding. I even read that nobody really understands what's behind the mathematics of quantum physics! Even more fascinating ! We don't really know what's happening. We have mathematical models that fit the observations, make predictions but they are models only...

--- End quote ---

I read somewhere that the Great Thinkers out there are hypothesizing that we're all in a simulation. The quantum stuff is the base "level" of observation that the simulation allows, because it has to be ready to portray whatever we end up looking at or choosing ... or something like that hell I don't understand it either. :-DD

**RoGeorge**:

--- Quote from: ggchab on September 06, 2019, 11:52:09 am ---

--- Quote from: RoGeorge on September 05, 2019, 11:59:47 am ---Superposition is NOT true and false at the same time. It is EITHER true or false. Then, why not just saying so? Because, in fact it is not about a discrete value, like true/false, or 0Volts/+5Volts in a digital computer. It is, in fact, a continuous value. For example it can be 0.5V, or 4.7V, or maybe 2.5V, or any other value between 0 and 5 Volts.

--- End quote ---

I understood the state is neither true nor false until we "look" at it. Then, we "force" the nature to reveal something and this will either be false or true.

That's fascinating but the theory is far beyond my understanding. I even read that nobody really understands what's behind the mathematics of quantum physics! Even more fascinating ! We don't really know what's happening. We have mathematical models that fit the observations, make predictions but they are models only...

--- End quote ---

That is exactly how I think it is.

In fact, all the quantum computing would be much easier to understand if we think about it like it would be an analogical computer, in the same way we use to have "computers" before the digital era. Back then, to do for example an addition of 2 + 3, you were just putting together a 2 Volt and a 3 Volt voltages at the input of an amplifier (through a resistor each), and you get the response of a 5V at output, and that was the result. No bits, just a contiguous analog voltage.

In fact this is how quantum computers are really working right now. The only difference is that, for the quantum computers, we can't measure the analogic value of a qubit, and all we can say when we "measure" or "look" at a qubit is that the qubit is "less than half" (a logic 0) or "more than half" (a logic 1).

Qubits are so small and "fragile" that we completely "smash" them into a "less than half"/"more than half" state when we "measure" them.

The implication of this idea is that it is possible for a clasical analogical computer to do any calculations a quantum computer could do. No need for cryogenic ions or other exotic quantum objects.

Another implication of the idea that "quantum computing" is nothing but "analog computing" with an extra step (by extra step I mean the measurement of the qubit) would be that quantum computing will probably never scale. We already have had analogic computers in the past, but we are not using them any more because they do not scale well in complexity. The scaling up is the main reason why digital computers are now everywhere.

The last option in this poll was "Quantum computers are not superior at all, quite contrary, they come with extra technological difficulties" exactly for this reason. Quantum computers doesn't show any advantage versus a clasic analogic computer, but the quantum ones are very hard to handle and much more sensitive to noises and errors.

Those in computer science will probably argue about the big O number of steps, but I noticed the big O was calculated in an unfair way, thus making quantum algorithms to appear to be exponentially faster than other "clasical computing algorithms". I should probably write a paper about the unfair calculation of the big O, but for now I would rather like to experiment and take the idea further.

**Jookia**:

Mathematically almost all encryption is crackable by a computer, quantum or not. There's algorithms that do it in less 'steps' on quantum computers, but that doesn't really matter if a quantum computer can't perform those steps efficiently enough.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version