Comments on: Proving quantum computers feasible

By: GAUSS

GAUSS — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:32:44 +0000

One can hope. :) There’s a trend here: at CERN, they need to sustain the interactions and particles for longer times; at ITER, they need to sustain the reaction for longer times; in spintronics, one needs to sustain the spin for longer times. A lot of this comes down to slowing particle decay and increasing measurement capability.

By: Pommodore 94

Pommodore 94 — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:05:05 +0000

But D-Wave produces already quantum computer or?

http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems

By: eldras

eldras — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:48:12 +0000

2022 as I understand ibm is when efficiencies are expected to be good enough to be effectively error free.
This is pretty much as Einstein predicted…tat laws would be found in the quantum world proving it was a different but still causal system.

Entanglement scaling proportionately to distance (is this correct?) is a law and tons more should be found as A.I. take over research ((10 years?)
It is probable IMO that increasingly bizarre laws – but still laws- will be discovered.

https://sites.google.com/site/quantumarchaeology/

eldras

By: Ralph Dratman

Ralph Dratman — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:30:52 +0000

Just in time to power it with controlled fusion, then.

By: GAUSS

GAUSS — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:59:14 +0000

It’s always difficult ‘predicting’ these things, but a good twenty years seems a reasonable estimate. Until quantum mechanics figures out cleverer ways around the uncertainty principle, there are significant barriers to the control we can get over these atoms and particles.

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:34:38 +0000

GAUSS, I’m glad you came to comment on this article today. When you say, “It will be a long while,” do you mean ten years or much more?

By: GAUSS

GAUSS — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:01:11 +0000

Even showing a logarithmic scaling with the number of elements in the system is pretty damned good. It seems there will definitely be some powerful graph-theoretic formulations of quantum processor architectures, which opens up a lot of interesting research for quantum physicists.

It will be a long while, but we will eventually get to something resembling a real quantum computer. (Here “quantum computer” is qualified as a computing device which completely leverages entanglement and superposition of elements – not partially, but completely.)

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:48:53 +0000

You’re still young, Marcos. You’ll live to see quantum computing.
###
Ms. Angelica, could you ask Ray when we can expect it to come to pass?

By: godot

godot — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:40:48 +0000

Just because one can use a quantum computer as a Turing machine equivalent doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And just because a quantum computer is not efficient at slinging bits around in exactly the way you are used to doesn’t mean it is useless. Given real-world constraints, quantum computers can solve problems that classical computers cannot. What is your problem with them being used to do so?

By: Marcos Marin

Marcos Marin — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:56:50 +0000

Yes. For general universal computing, yes.

By: Marcos Marin

Marcos Marin — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:11:09 +0000

Illustration’s caption should have been:

“Metatron’s cube. Coincidence?”

By: Jay Bob

Jay Bob — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:49:39 +0000

Yeah, right..
Quantum computers is a fantasy, one of many of modern physics. A government funding black-hole.

I’ll believe it when I see one.