Products > Computers

About Quantum Computing

(1/6) > >>

RoGeorge:
Would be interesting to know what are the today beliefs and expectations about this new area.   :)

BravoV:
Probably just for me, always stick to "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" .. and until today, no simple explanation for average Joe like me exist, on why I need to use it.  :-//

PS :
Just assume I have an average intelligent level, starting to grip on Einstein's theory of special relativity  :P, and so filthy rich that is itching to invest on the computing field.

RoGeorge:
Indeed, it's quite a salad of physics (quantum physics), math (linear algebra with complex matrices) and computer science (algorithms, big O, etc.), all sprinkled with news hype and confusing words like "teleportation", "oracle", "spooky action" and that famous "zombie cat"  ;D , with none of these terms meaning what the quoted words suggest.

BravoV:

--- Quote from: RoGeorge on September 05, 2019, 07:52:24 am ---Indeed, it's quite a salad of physics (quantum physics), math (linear algebra with complex matrices) and computer science (algorithms, big O, etc.), all sprinkled with news hype and confusing words like "teleportation", "oracle", "spooky action" and that famous "zombie cat"  ;D , with none of these terms meaning what the quoted words suggest.

--- End quote ---

Yep, a great example, on how the US President explained to "avg Joe" the reason for sending human to the moon.

Quote :
"In his speech, Kennedy characterized space as a new frontier, invoking the pioneer spirit that dominated American folklore. He infused the speech with a sense of urgency and destiny, and emphasized the freedom enjoyed by Americans to choose their destiny rather than have it chosen for them."

Great speech imo, plain simple yet so powerful.  :clap:

Wish one day, at least "one" of those quantum scientists, is smart enough to come with words that on the par like that above, cause I don't see there is a need to bombard confuse the lay people, with space science tech jargons like the rocket science, which I believe it will be too overwhelming.  :-DD

RoGeorge:
That was a very powerful speech.  However, it is very unlikely a scientist will ever say such words about quantum computers.  First, because that was a motivational speech delivered by a politician, then, because there is no final goal and no deadline defined for quantum technologies.

Anyway, about the confusion when reading about quantum "whatever", I felt myself exactly the same frustration.  After all, nobody asks about the most abstract formalism to be detailed in a magazine, but at least a rough description of how things work would be nice.  Unfortunately, the same generic (and IMHO fundamentally wrong) fairy tales are repeated over and over.

Here's the two cents of my current understanding:

1. Superposition, AKA the Schrödinger's-cat being dead-and-alive at the same time.

This is probably the most damaging ideea repeated over and over.  It is not true, and it shouldn't be used at all.  The so called "Schrödinger's cat" tale adds no value in understanding the concept of superposition.  It's a distraction for everybody (funny cats, metaphysical thoughts about life and death, etc.)  Simply said, this idea is the maximum damage one can come up with when talking about superposition.  Let's forget about the poor zombie cat.

OK, so what it is "superposition"?

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.

Let's say you have a 0 to 5V adjustable voltage source.  You set the voltage to 3.8V but I don't know that.  The problem is I don't have a voltmeter to measure the exact voltage.  All I have is a logic probe (or a comparator) with a LED.   I will never know you set it to 3.8V.  Since it was set at a voltage higher than 2.5V, my LED will shine, and I'll say it's a logic 1, or a true.

That is why I will say "The voltage was in a superposition (for me) until I measured it with my LED.  Now that I've measured it, I know it's value was "LED was turned ON"".  ;D
- Note the "voltage superposition" is just another way of saying "somewhere between 0 and 5 Volts".
- Note that I will never know the real value of 3.8V, because my LED is not capable of displaying different light intensity, my LED can only shine on or off.  The real value, 3.8V, it's called "the probability of the event", but we won't go into details about the probabilities, not for now.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page