Quantum computers and qubits revisited....
-
The number of answers it can respond with is very different from the number of questions that can be asked. To extend your analogy of qubits having personality, how many questions could you ask a person where they could only respond yes or no to? The ability to only receive yes/no responses makes the data received useful, because it means that it's verifiable, and consistend. Until qubits learn to lie that is :-D I can see it now... the day computers learned to lie. (maybe they already have?) I think that the data in one qubit is potentially infinite, although practically it's very large.
Exactly! You got the concept! Crazy days are ahead man.
Jeremy Falcon
-
The joke argument is a different kind of indeterminacy, it is about a difference of interpretation. In quantum mechanics everyone agrees on the outcome. In quantum mechanics when you look away, things go multiple directions at once and then when you look at it, everything snaps back like it went in only one direction. If you set everything up exactly the same way and then try it again, it will snap back but in a different direction. Eventually you can figure out what all the directions are by measuring it enough times. That's where the probability comes into play. The way I think of it is that you drop a rock in a pond and instead of the rock making a splash it disappears and becomes the ripples on the pond. When you look for it again, it pops out somewhere. The bigger the wave, the more likely the rock is to appear at that location.
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
Andy Brummer wrote:
The joke argument is a different kind of indeterminacy, it is about a difference of interpretation. In quantum mechanics everyone agrees on the outcome. In quantum mechanics when you look away, things go multiple directions at once and then when you look at it, everything snaps back like it went in only one direction.
Yes it's about interpretation, but it's an analogy. That's the point of an analogy, to look at something different to help the concept. That being said, it's not that different. The problem scientists are having is they think it's random because most logical scientists are thinking "scientifically". Their brains are too hard wired and understand reality in only one way. They'll probably have to die and new ones come in before we make major advances.
Andy Brummer wrote:
If you set everything up exactly the same way and then try it again, it will snap back but in a different direction. Eventually you can figure out what all the directions are by measuring it enough times. That's where the probability comes into play.
What I'm saying though it that it's not random. It just appears that way since they don't yet see the big picture. Probability is just an approximation of an old way of thinking.
Andy Brummer wrote:
The way I think of it is that you drop a rock in a pond and instead of the rock making a splash it disappears and becomes the ripples on the pond. When you look for it again, it pops out somewhere. The bigger the wave, the more likely the rock is to appear at that location.
We can't assume more likely to do anything anywhere yet. Most folks barely understand it enough to make that claim. Probability is clouding the situation.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Since this is the future of computing, it's time we all started to learn about it. Most people that try to explain it fall short (even Microsoft). So it would be cool to get some of the brains on here to take this study further. So, here's my take on it, so far. This river runs really deep folks, but let's start with just the concept of a
qubit. It's logic defies traditional logic in that it has three states:yes/on,no/off, andindeterminate.* However, when measured it can only show two states:yes/onoroff/no. Here's a traditional wtf definition of it that few can make sense of...Quote:
Bits, either classical or quantum, are the simplest possible units of information. They are oracle-like objects that, when asked a question (i.e., when measured), can respond in one of only two ways. Measuring a bit, either classical or quantum, will result in one of two possible outcomes. At first glance, this makes it sound like there is no difference between bits and qubits. In fact, the difference is not in the possible answers, but in the possible questions. For normal bits, only a single measurement is permitted, meaning that only a single question can be asked: Is this bit a zero or a one? In contrast, a qubit is a system which can be asked many, many different questions, but to each question, only one of two answers can be given.
So, to make this more clear. Let me explain the quantum theory outside of the realm of bits. Think of it this way, what makes a joke funny, when someone gets it, understands it, and agrees with it right? And to agree with it that person must have had an experience in life that coincides with that joke; otherwise they wouldn't get it. If it's a joke a only select few get, does that joke become not funny because most people don't laugh? Or is it funny still because at least a few do? The answer is both! And if you want to store data on whether or not the joke is funny, you have to store both true and false, because the "truth" is relative. Now, the joke may not be funny to you (an observer) but it is still funny to someone and thus funny and not funny at the same time. As such, an answer to the question can only take form when the question is asked and the answer is dependent on the observer or person / machine asking. Does this make more sense to peeps now? There's a lot more I'd like to talk about on the subject if th
It's all superposition* until I observe one actually working. Or, you can think of it as a magical machine that tell you what you want to hear, as the result is dependent upon the observer (as you yourself stated.) I imagine the government and Fox News are therefore very interested in such devices. As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash. While it may be that something will eventually exist that can perform computation in a quantum space, it will be for only a select set of problems in which the probability calculations are essentially handled by the quantum space itself rather than the "soft" space of binary bits. And ironically, because the qubit (or qubytes, or whatever) represent a probability, you have to run the algorithm numerous times to get the answer out of the distribution curve. It will be interesting to see the performance benefit of that. But why do I say hogwash? Because, except for certain very specific algorithms which require massive computation, this is not something your Facebook user is going to need. And besides, we are barely wrapping our head around distributed multi-threaded applications, what would probability programming language look like? Let's be real - the world we live in is state-full and the programs we write need to interact with a state-full world, not an indeterminate probabilistic one. Anyways, your question is great and the responses are quite interesting too. :) Hope you don't mind the nay-sayer attitude. It's just that I get tired of reading about all these theories that promise to revolutionize life as we know it. :) * - pun on supposition, or, if you prefer, superstition.
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
The joke argument is a different kind of indeterminacy, it is about a difference of interpretation. In quantum mechanics everyone agrees on the outcome. In quantum mechanics when you look away, things go multiple directions at once and then when you look at it, everything snaps back like it went in only one direction.
Yes it's about interpretation, but it's an analogy. That's the point of an analogy, to look at something different to help the concept. That being said, it's not that different. The problem scientists are having is they think it's random because most logical scientists are thinking "scientifically". Their brains are too hard wired and understand reality in only one way. They'll probably have to die and new ones come in before we make major advances.
Andy Brummer wrote:
If you set everything up exactly the same way and then try it again, it will snap back but in a different direction. Eventually you can figure out what all the directions are by measuring it enough times. That's where the probability comes into play.
What I'm saying though it that it's not random. It just appears that way since they don't yet see the big picture. Probability is just an approximation of an old way of thinking.
Andy Brummer wrote:
The way I think of it is that you drop a rock in a pond and instead of the rock making a splash it disappears and becomes the ripples on the pond. When you look for it again, it pops out somewhere. The bigger the wave, the more likely the rock is to appear at that location.
We can't assume more likely to do anything anywhere yet. Most folks barely understand it enough to make that claim. Probability is clouding the situation.
Jeremy Falcon
Can you give me an example of how the probability interpretation is wrong? If it is just an approximation of an old way of thinking, than can you tell me more about the new way?
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
-
It's all superposition* until I observe one actually working. Or, you can think of it as a magical machine that tell you what you want to hear, as the result is dependent upon the observer (as you yourself stated.) I imagine the government and Fox News are therefore very interested in such devices. As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash. While it may be that something will eventually exist that can perform computation in a quantum space, it will be for only a select set of problems in which the probability calculations are essentially handled by the quantum space itself rather than the "soft" space of binary bits. And ironically, because the qubit (or qubytes, or whatever) represent a probability, you have to run the algorithm numerous times to get the answer out of the distribution curve. It will be interesting to see the performance benefit of that. But why do I say hogwash? Because, except for certain very specific algorithms which require massive computation, this is not something your Facebook user is going to need. And besides, we are barely wrapping our head around distributed multi-threaded applications, what would probability programming language look like? Let's be real - the world we live in is state-full and the programs we write need to interact with a state-full world, not an indeterminate probabilistic one. Anyways, your question is great and the responses are quite interesting too. :) Hope you don't mind the nay-sayer attitude. It's just that I get tired of reading about all these theories that promise to revolutionize life as we know it. :) * - pun on supposition, or, if you prefer, superstition.
Marc Clifton wrote:
As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash. While it may be that something will eventually exist that can perform computation in a quantum space, it will be for only a select set of problems in which the probability calculations are essentially handled by the quantum space itself rather than the "soft" space of binary bits. And ironically, because the qubit (or qubytes, or whatever) represent a probability, you have to run the algorithm numerous times to get the answer out of the distribution curve. It will be interesting to see the performance benefit of that.
That's the catch though. It has nothing to do with probability. Our current iteration of it is like a first draft. We're trying to apply old-school laws to a something 99% of the world just does not understand. It's like asking a blind kid to tell us what the color blue is. Good luck. Most people just don't see it, but such is the nature of life. The masses are slow to catch up (if ever).
Marc Clifton wrote:
But why do I say hogwash? Because, except for certain very specific algorithms which require massive computation, this is not something your Facebook user is going to need. And besides, we are barely wrapping our head around distributed multi-threaded applications, what would probability programming language look like? Let's be real - the world we live in is state-full and the programs we write need to interact with a state-full world, not an indeterminate probabilistic one.
We're at the very start of it. Think of it like the Wintel relationship, Windows gets more bloated so machines get faster to pretty much give us the same speed. The problems of tomorrow will be much greater and different than the problems of today. So there will be a need, we just haven't invented all of those needs yet.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Anyways, your question is great and the responses are quite interesting too. :) Hope you don't mind the nay-sayer attitude. It's just that I get tired of reading about all these theories that promise to revolutionize life as we know it. :)
Nah it's cool. I'm rough around the edges, sure. But I like it when people say what they're thinking. Didn't say I was gonna upvote you though. ;P
Jeremy Falcon
-
Can you give me an example of how the probability interpretation is wrong? If it is just an approximation of an old way of thinking, than can you tell me more about the new way?
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
Andy Brummer wrote:
If it is just an approximation of an old way of thinking, than can you tell me more about the new way?
I'm at work right now, but since you're genuinely asking I'll write a real reply... like a real real one. But it'll take a few days to do it justice since I gotta get the crap out of my head into something that resembles something more coherent than clutter.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
If it is just an approximation of an old way of thinking, than can you tell me more about the new way?
I'm at work right now, but since you're genuinely asking I'll write a real reply... like a real real one. But it'll take a few days to do it justice since I gotta get the crap out of my head into something that resembles something more coherent than clutter.
Jeremy Falcon
cool, I'm looking forward to it.
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
-
It's all superposition* until I observe one actually working. Or, you can think of it as a magical machine that tell you what you want to hear, as the result is dependent upon the observer (as you yourself stated.) I imagine the government and Fox News are therefore very interested in such devices. As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash. While it may be that something will eventually exist that can perform computation in a quantum space, it will be for only a select set of problems in which the probability calculations are essentially handled by the quantum space itself rather than the "soft" space of binary bits. And ironically, because the qubit (or qubytes, or whatever) represent a probability, you have to run the algorithm numerous times to get the answer out of the distribution curve. It will be interesting to see the performance benefit of that. But why do I say hogwash? Because, except for certain very specific algorithms which require massive computation, this is not something your Facebook user is going to need. And besides, we are barely wrapping our head around distributed multi-threaded applications, what would probability programming language look like? Let's be real - the world we live in is state-full and the programs we write need to interact with a state-full world, not an indeterminate probabilistic one. Anyways, your question is great and the responses are quite interesting too. :) Hope you don't mind the nay-sayer attitude. It's just that I get tired of reading about all these theories that promise to revolutionize life as we know it. :) * - pun on supposition, or, if you prefer, superstition.
Marc Clifton wrote:
As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash.
Exactly. As we continue to add more bits to our calculated approximation of reality, we continue to approach, asymptotically, the real world results that only an analog computer can provide. I'd advise anyone to invest in companies that make highly accurate analog integrating amplifiers, or jumper cables. Since the jumpers have a lower risk of failure, that's obviously where the safe money will go.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash.
Exactly. As we continue to add more bits to our calculated approximation of reality, we continue to approach, asymptotically, the real world results that only an analog computer can provide. I'd advise anyone to invest in companies that make highly accurate analog integrating amplifiers, or jumper cables. Since the jumpers have a lower risk of failure, that's obviously where the safe money will go.
Will Rogers never met me.
As one of the 99% who haven't a clue, has anyone thought of quantum tic tac toe?
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
-
Since this is the future of computing, it's time we all started to learn about it. Most people that try to explain it fall short (even Microsoft). So it would be cool to get some of the brains on here to take this study further. So, here's my take on it, so far. This river runs really deep folks, but let's start with just the concept of a
qubit. It's logic defies traditional logic in that it has three states:yes/on,no/off, andindeterminate.* However, when measured it can only show two states:yes/onoroff/no. Here's a traditional wtf definition of it that few can make sense of...Quote:
Bits, either classical or quantum, are the simplest possible units of information. They are oracle-like objects that, when asked a question (i.e., when measured), can respond in one of only two ways. Measuring a bit, either classical or quantum, will result in one of two possible outcomes. At first glance, this makes it sound like there is no difference between bits and qubits. In fact, the difference is not in the possible answers, but in the possible questions. For normal bits, only a single measurement is permitted, meaning that only a single question can be asked: Is this bit a zero or a one? In contrast, a qubit is a system which can be asked many, many different questions, but to each question, only one of two answers can be given.
So, to make this more clear. Let me explain the quantum theory outside of the realm of bits. Think of it this way, what makes a joke funny, when someone gets it, understands it, and agrees with it right? And to agree with it that person must have had an experience in life that coincides with that joke; otherwise they wouldn't get it. If it's a joke a only select few get, does that joke become not funny because most people don't laugh? Or is it funny still because at least a few do? The answer is both! And if you want to store data on whether or not the joke is funny, you have to store both true and false, because the "truth" is relative. Now, the joke may not be funny to you (an observer) but it is still funny to someone and thus funny and not funny at the same time. As such, an answer to the question can only take form when the question is asked and the answer is dependent on the observer or person / machine asking. Does this make more sense to peeps now? There's a lot more I'd like to talk about on the subject if th
"thus funny and not funny at the same time." So... a qubit is Schroedinger's bit?
-
Since this is the future of computing, it's time we all started to learn about it. Most people that try to explain it fall short (even Microsoft). So it would be cool to get some of the brains on here to take this study further. So, here's my take on it, so far. This river runs really deep folks, but let's start with just the concept of a
qubit. It's logic defies traditional logic in that it has three states:yes/on,no/off, andindeterminate.* However, when measured it can only show two states:yes/onoroff/no. Here's a traditional wtf definition of it that few can make sense of...Quote:
Bits, either classical or quantum, are the simplest possible units of information. They are oracle-like objects that, when asked a question (i.e., when measured), can respond in one of only two ways. Measuring a bit, either classical or quantum, will result in one of two possible outcomes. At first glance, this makes it sound like there is no difference between bits and qubits. In fact, the difference is not in the possible answers, but in the possible questions. For normal bits, only a single measurement is permitted, meaning that only a single question can be asked: Is this bit a zero or a one? In contrast, a qubit is a system which can be asked many, many different questions, but to each question, only one of two answers can be given.
So, to make this more clear. Let me explain the quantum theory outside of the realm of bits. Think of it this way, what makes a joke funny, when someone gets it, understands it, and agrees with it right? And to agree with it that person must have had an experience in life that coincides with that joke; otherwise they wouldn't get it. If it's a joke a only select few get, does that joke become not funny because most people don't laugh? Or is it funny still because at least a few do? The answer is both! And if you want to store data on whether or not the joke is funny, you have to store both true and false, because the "truth" is relative. Now, the joke may not be funny to you (an observer) but it is still funny to someone and thus funny and not funny at the same time. As such, an answer to the question can only take form when the question is asked and the answer is dependent on the observer or person / machine asking. Does this make more sense to peeps now? There's a lot more I'd like to talk about on the subject if th
I think that the way that you are trying to understand it is the wrong way. :) From a practical view, I think the better view is that of a wavicle of light. It can be viewed in two different ways - that is as a wave form (i.e. determining what the state is in time) or it can be viewed as a particle (i.e. when looking at it in a specific point of time to get the current state, then predicting where it might be in the point, in time, when it can be observed again.) This is the disparity of quantum computing and any discussion on the fundamental parts of the data. It (the individual qubit of data) cannot be looked at meaningful as a single item as the result in the next measurable state is unknown - it could be any of a number of different states. The question is how does the collection of data appear to change over time. What is the pattern of it's (the collection of datum) flow? This is what gives rise to the great debates in physics: Do you want to focus on the individual behaviour of a photon, or on the behaviour of the beam of light that the photon is part of? We can predict to a fine degree on what the behaviour of the beam, but the behaviour of the individual photons is not known as it is one of an infinite number of possible states. To bring the discussion back to the qubit/quantum computing arena, you have to view it in the same manner; the behaviour of the program vs the behaviour of an individual piece of data. The behaviour of the individual datum point is nearly meaningless as it will change over a set of possible states - whereas the behaviour of the program is strongly predictable (and the state of the datum within the moment of measurement is also strongly predictable within a "cloud" of possible states for that moment). I think that this is the great challenge for the quantum programmer - how to we program for the process of a individual, chaotic piece of data, to reflect the strongly, logical, behaviour of the program over time.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash. While it may be that something will eventually exist that can perform computation in a quantum space, it will be for only a select set of problems in which the probability calculations are essentially handled by the quantum space itself rather than the "soft" space of binary bits. And ironically, because the qubit (or qubytes, or whatever) represent a probability, you have to run the algorithm numerous times to get the answer out of the distribution curve. It will be interesting to see the performance benefit of that.
That's the catch though. It has nothing to do with probability. Our current iteration of it is like a first draft. We're trying to apply old-school laws to a something 99% of the world just does not understand. It's like asking a blind kid to tell us what the color blue is. Good luck. Most people just don't see it, but such is the nature of life. The masses are slow to catch up (if ever).
Marc Clifton wrote:
But why do I say hogwash? Because, except for certain very specific algorithms which require massive computation, this is not something your Facebook user is going to need. And besides, we are barely wrapping our head around distributed multi-threaded applications, what would probability programming language look like? Let's be real - the world we live in is state-full and the programs we write need to interact with a state-full world, not an indeterminate probabilistic one.
We're at the very start of it. Think of it like the Wintel relationship, Windows gets more bloated so machines get faster to pretty much give us the same speed. The problems of tomorrow will be much greater and different than the problems of today. So there will be a need, we just haven't invented all of those needs yet.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Anyways, your question is great and the responses are quite interesting too. :) Hope you don't mind the nay-sayer attitude. It's just that I get tired of reading about all these theories that promise to revolutionize life as we know it. :)
Nah it's cool. I'm rough around the edges, sure. But I like it when people say what they're thinking. Didn't say I was gonna upvote you though. ;P
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It has nothing to do with probability.
But I thought it did. From what I've read, with a qubyte, for example, it is in all 256 possible states simultaneously until it is collapsed into a single specific observable state. Quantum computation can therefore me more efficient because you can work within the realm of "all possible answers" and only the most probable ones will resolve after repeated runs. At least that's my lay understanding.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
We're trying to apply old-school laws to a something 99% of the world just does not understand.
Indeed. To some extent, it seems like a solution waiting for problems. And god only knows, we humans are good at creating problems (as you said.) Marc
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It has nothing to do with probability.
But I thought it did. From what I've read, with a qubyte, for example, it is in all 256 possible states simultaneously until it is collapsed into a single specific observable state. Quantum computation can therefore me more efficient because you can work within the realm of "all possible answers" and only the most probable ones will resolve after repeated runs. At least that's my lay understanding.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
We're trying to apply old-school laws to a something 99% of the world just does not understand.
Indeed. To some extent, it seems like a solution waiting for problems. And god only knows, we humans are good at creating problems (as you said.) Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
But I thought it did. From what I've read, with a qubyte, for example, it is in all 256 possible states simultaneously until it is collapsed into a single specific observable state. Quantum computation can therefore me more efficient because you can work within the realm of "all possible answers" and only the most probable ones will resolve after repeated runs. At least that's my lay understanding.
It turns out I need to clarify. My understand of the quantum world and the current implementation of it with quantum computers are two different things. You are correct in the implementation of it currently, but it's an approximation of what the quantum concept is all about. It's asking for real cheese, but giving us Velveeta to try and fool us.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And god only knows, we humans are good at creating problems (as you said.)
Amen to that brother. The mass seems to love that nonsense, but it's where we're headed ready or not.
Jeremy Falcon
-
"thus funny and not funny at the same time." So... a qubit is Schroedinger's bit?
NymerianWulff wrote:
So... a qubit is Schroedinger's bit?
Dunno, not sure what that is. Can you elaborate?
Jeremy Falcon
-
I think that the way that you are trying to understand it is the wrong way. :) From a practical view, I think the better view is that of a wavicle of light. It can be viewed in two different ways - that is as a wave form (i.e. determining what the state is in time) or it can be viewed as a particle (i.e. when looking at it in a specific point of time to get the current state, then predicting where it might be in the point, in time, when it can be observed again.) This is the disparity of quantum computing and any discussion on the fundamental parts of the data. It (the individual qubit of data) cannot be looked at meaningful as a single item as the result in the next measurable state is unknown - it could be any of a number of different states. The question is how does the collection of data appear to change over time. What is the pattern of it's (the collection of datum) flow? This is what gives rise to the great debates in physics: Do you want to focus on the individual behaviour of a photon, or on the behaviour of the beam of light that the photon is part of? We can predict to a fine degree on what the behaviour of the beam, but the behaviour of the individual photons is not known as it is one of an infinite number of possible states. To bring the discussion back to the qubit/quantum computing arena, you have to view it in the same manner; the behaviour of the program vs the behaviour of an individual piece of data. The behaviour of the individual datum point is nearly meaningless as it will change over a set of possible states - whereas the behaviour of the program is strongly predictable (and the state of the datum within the moment of measurement is also strongly predictable within a "cloud" of possible states for that moment). I think that this is the great challenge for the quantum programmer - how to we program for the process of a individual, chaotic piece of data, to reflect the strongly, logical, behaviour of the program over time.
David D Williams wrote:
I think that the way that you are trying to understand it is the wrong way.
Not at all man, I swear. I'm just looking at it from a standpoint further along than our current iteration of it. It's like the matrix. We call it chaotic and unpredictable because "the collective we" doesn't understand it yet. It's an approximation applied to an old way of thinking because some people - especially scientist - have a hard time letting go of what they already know.
David D Williams wrote:
I think that this is the great challenge for the quantum programmer - how to we program for the process of a individual, chaotic piece of data, to reflect the strongly, logical, behaviour of the program over time.
You can't. It's impossible. Logic is black and white. You need to start seeing gray to get it. We're looking for patterns in black and white, but they simply do not exist. That's why most people fall short. Things can be two things at once. Accept that and this stuff starts to unfold. Logical thinking in itself will need an upgrade to fully express what this stuff is.
Jeremy Falcon
-
NymerianWulff wrote:
So... a qubit is Schroedinger's bit?
Dunno, not sure what that is. Can you elaborate?
Jeremy Falcon
He's refering to Schroedinger's cat[^]. Yes, a qubit is like a Schroedinger's cat. And a quantum computer is like a box full of cats that can all interact with each other right up until you open the box.
-
He's refering to Schroedinger's cat[^]. Yes, a qubit is like a Schroedinger's cat. And a quantum computer is like a box full of cats that can all interact with each other right up until you open the box.
Yes, that's exactly it. I'm still learning all the terms for this stuff, but that's the concept. Form doesn't come into be until we observe it and it only appears to be what we think it is because of the limitations of our perception. Our concept of "focus" is just that, we can only see a slice of the matter of reality. Real reality, is all, is God. End all. Be all. Beginning and end type stuff. Science is finally getting to the point we can understand our version of "God". Still might take a few hundred or so years, but we're getting there. Man this river runs deep. I have to start spouting this crap out in chunks or else I'm gonna sound insaner-ish. :-D
Jeremy Falcon
-
Since this is the future of computing, it's time we all started to learn about it. Most people that try to explain it fall short (even Microsoft). So it would be cool to get some of the brains on here to take this study further. So, here's my take on it, so far. This river runs really deep folks, but let's start with just the concept of a
qubit. It's logic defies traditional logic in that it has three states:yes/on,no/off, andindeterminate.* However, when measured it can only show two states:yes/onoroff/no. Here's a traditional wtf definition of it that few can make sense of...Quote:
Bits, either classical or quantum, are the simplest possible units of information. They are oracle-like objects that, when asked a question (i.e., when measured), can respond in one of only two ways. Measuring a bit, either classical or quantum, will result in one of two possible outcomes. At first glance, this makes it sound like there is no difference between bits and qubits. In fact, the difference is not in the possible answers, but in the possible questions. For normal bits, only a single measurement is permitted, meaning that only a single question can be asked: Is this bit a zero or a one? In contrast, a qubit is a system which can be asked many, many different questions, but to each question, only one of two answers can be given.
So, to make this more clear. Let me explain the quantum theory outside of the realm of bits. Think of it this way, what makes a joke funny, when someone gets it, understands it, and agrees with it right? And to agree with it that person must have had an experience in life that coincides with that joke; otherwise they wouldn't get it. If it's a joke a only select few get, does that joke become not funny because most people don't laugh? Or is it funny still because at least a few do? The answer is both! And if you want to store data on whether or not the joke is funny, you have to store both true and false, because the "truth" is relative. Now, the joke may not be funny to you (an observer) but it is still funny to someone and thus funny and not funny at the same time. As such, an answer to the question can only take form when the question is asked and the answer is dependent on the observer or person / machine asking. Does this make more sense to peeps now? There's a lot more I'd like to talk about on the subject if th
Thanks for the basic intro, I have been reading up on Quantum computing for the last decade. I am still interested in what results are being shown for the D-Wave systems 512 Qubit silicon. I understand their architecture is based around quantum annealing and not the raw form of quantum computing ( I believe that requires ground state Hamiltonian to compute result Hamiltonian to formulate full result state). I am currently under the impression that the research has not yet provided the type of speed increases predicted by Shor's algorithm. I'm interested if anyone has produced more positive research results recently to provide here.
"Matthews... we're getting another one of those strange 'aw blah ess spa nol' sounds from dolphin number three?"
-
Thanks for the basic intro, I have been reading up on Quantum computing for the last decade. I am still interested in what results are being shown for the D-Wave systems 512 Qubit silicon. I understand their architecture is based around quantum annealing and not the raw form of quantum computing ( I believe that requires ground state Hamiltonian to compute result Hamiltonian to formulate full result state). I am currently under the impression that the research has not yet provided the type of speed increases predicted by Shor's algorithm. I'm interested if anyone has produced more positive research results recently to provide here.
"Matthews... we're getting another one of those strange 'aw blah ess spa nol' sounds from dolphin number three?"
Any time. I'm looking to get into it more myself. Still new to how computers work with it. My understanding of quantum theory revolves around more of the abstract ideas rather than a technical implementation of it, but reading your post makes me want to start googling.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Since this is the future of computing, it's time we all started to learn about it. Most people that try to explain it fall short (even Microsoft). So it would be cool to get some of the brains on here to take this study further. So, here's my take on it, so far. This river runs really deep folks, but let's start with just the concept of a
qubit. It's logic defies traditional logic in that it has three states:yes/on,no/off, andindeterminate.* However, when measured it can only show two states:yes/onoroff/no. Here's a traditional wtf definition of it that few can make sense of...Quote:
Bits, either classical or quantum, are the simplest possible units of information. They are oracle-like objects that, when asked a question (i.e., when measured), can respond in one of only two ways. Measuring a bit, either classical or quantum, will result in one of two possible outcomes. At first glance, this makes it sound like there is no difference between bits and qubits. In fact, the difference is not in the possible answers, but in the possible questions. For normal bits, only a single measurement is permitted, meaning that only a single question can be asked: Is this bit a zero or a one? In contrast, a qubit is a system which can be asked many, many different questions, but to each question, only one of two answers can be given.
So, to make this more clear. Let me explain the quantum theory outside of the realm of bits. Think of it this way, what makes a joke funny, when someone gets it, understands it, and agrees with it right? And to agree with it that person must have had an experience in life that coincides with that joke; otherwise they wouldn't get it. If it's a joke a only select few get, does that joke become not funny because most people don't laugh? Or is it funny still because at least a few do? The answer is both! And if you want to store data on whether or not the joke is funny, you have to store both true and false, because the "truth" is relative. Now, the joke may not be funny to you (an observer) but it is still funny to someone and thus funny and not funny at the same time. As such, an answer to the question can only take form when the question is asked and the answer is dependent on the observer or person / machine asking. Does this make more sense to peeps now? There's a lot more I'd like to talk about on the subject if th
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Since this is the future of computing, it's
Rather certain that the current evidence would only suggest that is a possibility and not a given. The fact that something is possible isn't even close to meaning it will have the economic feasibility to become a replacement technology. If however you have an example of a under $1000 desktop which is currently in production and competitive with similarly priced machines I would certainly like to see the link.