Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #529602

Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing

Show all headers | View raw

Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 00:07:28 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:20:35 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum
>>>>> computing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But only if you act like a gentleman, both in style and content. A
>>>>> scientific discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What say you?
>>>>  
>>>> I say you will be incapable of anything other than cut and paste.
>>>> 
>>>> Quantum computing is yet another pie-in-the-sky dream that is unlikely
>>>> to ever become real like a cure for the common cold and peace in the
>>>> Middle East.
>>> 
>>> Quantum computers which perform "quantum annealing", used to solve
>>> linear programming problems, are already in use.  Much like the
>>> special-purpose analog computers used in the 1960s for hydrology
>>> simulations and the like,
>>> they are a harbinger of things to come.
>> 
>> Such are special purpose devices, not usefull as a general purpose
>> computer, and whether or not these things can exceed the performance of
>> a traditional computer is unanswered.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing
>> 
>> FYI there were general purpose analog computers.
> 
> Special purpose devices, and in the beginning even general purpose digital 
> computers were niche technology, because they are the first such devices 
> whose development are economically justified, are a useful platform for 
> perfecting technology.
> 
> Such is the case with special-purpose quantum computers.
> 
> In the case of quantum computation, the theory is solid.  Even a simpleton 
> like myself can understand it.
> 
> The biggest stumbling blocks in the way of practical quantum computers are 
> the transmission and storage of quantum states, whatever their physical 
> embodiment, in the computer's hardware.  Reliably entangling qbits and 
> then maintaining their coherence can be done, but it's difficult and it's 
> expensive.
> 
> What will make it easier and cheaper?
> 
> People buying the expensive devices, and other people figuring out how to 
> make them less expensive to manufacture, so they can buy bigger cars.
> 
> Cynical?  No, practical.  I'm a big fan of government-sponsored basic 
> research, but once the fundamentals are known there is nothing in the 
> world like the profit motive to keep people kaizening the gizmos.
> 
> Like Moore's Observation (No, it isn't a fucking *law*.) that every 1-1/2 
> years people will have packed twice as many transistors on a silicon chip, 
> this is largely a matter of human nature: once we start paying for things, 
> we'll make better ones until we reach the limits of the technology.
> 
> This is now the case with technologies like machine learning, which have 
> recently become commercial propositions.  It will be the case with quantum 
> computers.

What a pile of arm waving.

The first basic problem; general purpose quantum computers don't exist.

The second basic problem; quantum computers can not be made on an assembly
line and there is little hope that will change in the foreseeable future.

> Wait and see.

I'm not holding my breath.

 
-- 
Jim Pennino

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 09:42 -0500
  Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-10-30 11:42 -0400
    Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 17:22 +0000
      Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 10:49 -0700
  Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:46 +0000
  Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 17:20 +0000
    Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 18:32 -0500
      Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-01 00:07 +0000
        Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:46 -0500
          Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-01 02:22 +0000
          Why make quantum computer ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-01 01:40 -0700
            Re: Why make quantum computer ? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 04:58 -0600
              Re: Why make quantum computer ? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-01 11:08 -0500
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2015-11-01 16:19 +0000
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 16:25 -0600
            Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 07:57 -0500
              Re: Why make quantum computer ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 08:06 -0600
            Re: Why make quantum computer ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-11-01 17:12 +0000
              Why make quantum computer ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-01 09:53 -0800
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:11 +0000
                Quantum "bits". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-01 13:26 -0800
                Re: Quantum "bits". Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:47 -0500
                Re: Quantum "bits". R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-11-02 01:51 +0000
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:50 -0500
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 08:07 -0600
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-02 11:08 -0500
                Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:49 -0500
              Re: Why make quantum computer ? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 18:12 -0600
              Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:49 -0500
            Re: Why make quantum computer ? Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2015-11-01 21:37 +0000
              Re: Why make quantum computer ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-11-01 19:48 -0500
          Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-01 13:53 +0000
            Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 18:32 -0600
      Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 19:33 -0500
        Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:16 -0400
        Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 04:55 -0800
          Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 08:07 -0600
            Re: Hey jimp | let's have a discussion about the progress toward quantum computing Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-01 11:13 -0500

csiph-web