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

Groups > sci.physics > #529133 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#529770 — Quantum "bits".

William_Unruh replied (to me):
> > As I understand it,
> > no one has ever streamed qubits.
> 
> No idea what "streamed qubits" means. 

Video (binary bits) can be streamed from
a server to my browser, where I watch it.

No one can do that with "qubits" (quantum "bits").

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529812 — Re: Quantum "bits".

On 2015-11-01 16:26, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> William_Unruh replied (to me):
>>> As I understand it,
>>> no one has ever streamed qubits.
>>
>> No idea what "streamed qubits" means.
>
> Video (binary bits) can be streamed from
> a server to my browser, where I watch it.
>
> No one can do that with "qubits" (quantum "bits").

Why is that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529833 — Re: Quantum "bits".

[trimmed]
In sci.physics Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-11-01 16:26, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> William_Unruh replied (to me):
>>>> As I understand it,
>>>> no one has ever streamed qubits.
>>> No idea what "streamed qubits" means.
>> Video (binary bits) can be streamed from
>> a server to my browser, where I watch it.
>> No one can do that with "qubits" (quantum "bits").
> Why is that?

Acute lack of imagination.

-- 
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, 
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he 
is very probably wrong. 
[When a dropkick says it.... fergid abard et...]
-- Arthur C Clarke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529817 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 2015-11-01 14:11, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
>> William_Unruh replied (to me):
>>>> Quantum Computing isn't just expensive,
>>>> it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits.
>>>
>>> It has a number of known benefits.
>>> VASTLY faster solution of some hardproblems is one.
>>> (the most famous of which is factoring).
>>
>> In theory, or in practice ?
>
> ??? At present obviously in theory. But your second comment "no known
> benefits" was not about practice.
>
>>
>> As I understand it,
>> no one has ever streamed qubits.
>
> No idea what "streamed qubits" means.

He likes Netflix.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529897 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

William Unruh wrote:

>On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:

*plonk*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529930 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 2015-11-02 09:07, chrisv wrote:
> William Unruh wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
>
> *plonk*
>
Why?  It's valuable stuff!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529815 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 2015-11-01 12:53, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> William_Unruh replied (to me):
>>> Quantum Computing isn't just expensive,
>>> it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits.
>>
>> It has a number of known benefits.
>> VASTLY faster solution of some hardproblems is one.
>> (the most famous of which is factoring).
>
> In theory, or in practice ?
>
> As I understand it,
> no one has ever streamed qubits.

Proof?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529809 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 11/1/2015 11:12 AM, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
>> Bob_Watkins (in Sci.Physics) wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Quantum Computing isn't just expensive,
>> it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits.
>
> It has a number of known benefits. VASTLY faster solution of some hard
> problems is one. (the most famous of which is factoring).

it cant be any faster,
we are already at the speed limit of transmission in IC chip, and on a 
Board of the speed of light on that material.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529814 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 2015-11-01 12:12, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2015-11-01, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
>> Bob_Watkins (in Sci.Physics) wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Quantum Computing isn't just expensive,
>> it's (nearly?) impossible and has no known benefits.
>
> It has a number of known benefits. VASTLY faster solution of some hard
> problems is one. (the most famous of which is factoring).

Examples?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529778 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

For your reference, records indicate that 
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

> Why make quantum computer ?

Asks the person creating a superposition of 6 newsgroups.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529813 — Re: Why make quantum computer ?

On 2015-11-01 16:37, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
>
>> Why make quantum computer ?
>
> Asks the person creating a superposition of 6 newsgroups.

Is that 12 positions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529683

Lofty Goat 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.

Huh?  What do you mean?

>
> 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.
>
> Wait and see.

Are you saying that digital computers can be replaced with quantum
computers?  Do you really want a quantum computer to do your
arithmetic and data management?

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#531063

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:53:25 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:

> Lofty Goat 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.
> 
> Huh?  What do you mean?

Read below, starting at the word "cheaper".

>> 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.
>>
>> Wait and see.
> 
> Are you saying that digital computers can be replaced with quantum
> computers?  Do you really want a quantum computer to do your arithmetic
> and data management?
> 
> /BAH

Whoosh.

Did you really want your tabulating machines replaced by transistor-based 
von Neumann computers?

In hindsight, probably so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529585

On 10/31/15 6:32 PM, Lofty Goat 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.
>

   Yes, I know.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529613

On 10/31/2015 08:33 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 10/31/15 6:32 PM, Lofty Goat 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.
>>
>
>    Yes, I know.

Oh look muffy! It's Sam Wormley holding a physics "discussion"!

Three words! I think that is a record for a discussion from him. I'm 
thinking it must be "climate change" that has caused this actual science 
discussion out of him.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529671

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 5:33:05 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 10/31/15 6:32 PM, Lofty Goat 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.
> >
> 
>    Yes, I know.

  You know, Sam, if you actually wanted to participate in a discussion, instead of an AOL-level "metoo" you could have led with what you know, and added what you think the eventual outcome of research in that area will be.

  But I suppose that your ability to resist including a YouTube link is a start.

  As for me, I think large-scale quantum computing will eventually happen but won't have real-world usefulness until quantum mechanics and continuum-based mechanics are reconciled. It won't be any better than current computing methods for macroscopic problems.

  What do you think it will be good for that current computing methods handle poorly or not at all?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529688

On 11/1/15 6:55 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> You know, Sam, if you actually wanted to participate in a discussion, instead of an AOL-level "metoo" you could have led with what you know, and added what you think the eventual outcome of research in that area will be.


   I lead by posting a link to the physics news article, often quoting
   a paragraph or two. If any reader wishes to discuss the content with
   me, I will respond.

   Generally, I don't respond to anything that is not a sincere effort
   at discussion.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529709

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 08:07:07 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 11/1/15 6:55 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> You know, Sam, if you actually wanted to participate in a discussion, instead of an AOL-level "metoo" you could have led with what you know, and added what you think the eventual outcome of research in that area will be.
>
>
>   I lead by posting a link to the physics news article, often quoting
>   a paragraph or two. If any reader wishes to discuss the content with
>   me, I will respond.
>
>   Generally, I don't respond to anything that is not a sincere effort
>   at discussion.

What do you think is insincere about Mark's question: "What do you
think it will be good for that current computing methods handle poorly
or not at all?"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web