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

Groups > sci.physics > #528960 > unrolled thread

Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 16:30 -0500
    Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-29 21:43 +0000
      Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-29 18:16 -0700
    Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 21:46 +0000
      Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 15:21 -0700
        Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-29 18:23 -0700
      Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-29 18:18 -0700
    Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-29 18:10 -0700
    Re: Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:58 -0700

#528960 — Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost

Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/26/light-based-quantum-computers-will-come-at-a-great-cost

> About 100 billion optical components would be needed to create a
> practical quantum computer that uses light to process information.
> That is the conclusion of physicists in the UK, who have calculated
> how many components are required to make a fault-tolerant linear
> optical computer. Their comprehensive study found that the total
> number of required components for a photon-based computer would be at
> least five orders of magnitude larger than for a matter-based
> processor.
>
> Unlike the components of conventional computers – which are extremely
> reliable – quantum logic devices are prone to failure. This is
> because the entities used to store and transmit information – quantum
> bits (qubits) – quickly lose their quantum nature when in contact
> with the outside world. Ion-based qubits, for example, must be kept
> in ultrahigh-vacuum conditions to minimize their contact with air
> molecules. One way of dealing with this fragility is to create a
> fault-tolerant quantum computer, in which a single "logical qubit" is
> distributed across a number of different "physical qubits" – the
> latter being ions, superconducting circuits or photons. The idea is
> that if one or more physical qubits fail, then the logical qubit can
> be recovered and the calculation can continue.
>

-- 

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#528969

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost
>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/26/light-based-quantum-computers-will-come-at-a-great-cost
> 
>> About 100 billion optical components would be needed to create a
>> practical quantum computer that uses light to process information.
>> That is the conclusion of physicists in the UK, who have calculated
>> how many components are required to make a fault-tolerant linear
>> optical computer. Their comprehensive study found that the total
>> number of required components for a photon-based computer would be at
>> least five orders of magnitude larger than for a matter-based
>> processor.
>>
>> Unlike the components of conventional computers ? which are extremely
>> reliable ? quantum logic devices are prone to failure. This is
>> because the entities used to store and transmit information ? quantum
>> bits (qubits) ? quickly lose their quantum nature when in contact
>> with the outside world. Ion-based qubits, for example, must be kept
>> in ultrahigh-vacuum conditions to minimize their contact with air
>> molecules. One way of dealing with this fragility is to create a
>> fault-tolerant quantum computer, in which a single "logical qubit" is
>> distributed across a number of different "physical qubits" ? the
>> latter being ions, superconducting circuits or photons. The idea is
>> that if one or more physical qubits fail, then the logical qubit can
>> be recovered and the calculation can continue.

Summary: Quantum computers are unlikely to ever become real.



-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529038

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 5:46:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost
> >> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/26/light-based-quantum-computers-will-come-at-a-great-cost
> > 
> >> About 100 billion optical components would be needed to create a
> >> practical quantum computer that uses light to process information.
> >> That is the conclusion of physicists in the UK, who have calculated
> >> how many components are required to make a fault-tolerant linear
> >> optical computer. Their comprehensive study found that the total
> >> number of required components for a photon-based computer would be at
> >> least five orders of magnitude larger than for a matter-based
> >> processor.
> >>
> >> Unlike the components of conventional computers ? which are extremely
> >> reliable ? quantum logic devices are prone to failure. This is
> >> because the entities used to store and transmit information ? quantum
> >> bits (qubits) ? quickly lose their quantum nature when in contact
> >> with the outside world. Ion-based qubits, for example, must be kept
> >> in ultrahigh-vacuum conditions to minimize their contact with air
> >> molecules. One way of dealing with this fragility is to create a
> >> fault-tolerant quantum computer, in which a single "logical qubit" is
> >> distributed across a number of different "physical qubits" ? the
> >> latter being ions, superconducting circuits or photons. The idea is
> >> that if one or more physical qubits fail, then the logical qubit can
> >> be recovered and the calculation can continue.
> 
> Summary: Quantum computers are unlikely to ever become real.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

xxein:  How did your abacus get on-line?  Things were a lot better before, weren't they?

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

#528971

Sam Wormley wrote:

> Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost
>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/26/light-based-
quantum-computers-will-come-at-a-great-cost
> 
>> About 100 billion optical components would be needed to create a
>> practical quantum computer that uses light to process information.
>> That is the conclusion of physicists in the UK, who have calculated how
>> many components are required to make a fault-tolerant linear optical
>> computer. Their comprehensive study found that the total number of
>> required components for a photon-based computer would be at least five
>> orders of magnitude larger than for a matter-based processor.

What a load of bullshit to spew out. The idea was to put LESS components, 
not more. If we can accomplish the same task with the same amount of 
resources or less, then there is no reason to have such crap implemented 
in the first place.

The truth is that the Modern Science is crapping in his pants, because 
"quantum computers" is nothing but an unprecedented unmitigated absurdity. 
Now, so to speak, the shit hits the fan.

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

#528983

The whole QM thing is a huge
dirty diaper

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

#529041

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 6:21:04 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> The whole QM thing is a huge
> dirty diaper

xxein:  You couldn't exist without QM.  Hmm.  Nevermind.

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

#529039

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 5:46:46 PM UTC-4, Bobby Sifuentes wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> > Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost
> >> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/26/light-based-
> quantum-computers-will-come-at-a-great-cost
> > 
> >> About 100 billion optical components would be needed to create a
> >> practical quantum computer that uses light to process information.
> >> That is the conclusion of physicists in the UK, who have calculated how
> >> many components are required to make a fault-tolerant linear optical
> >> computer. Their comprehensive study found that the total number of
> >> required components for a photon-based computer would be at least five
> >> orders of magnitude larger than for a matter-based processor.
> 
> What a load of bullshit to spew out. The idea was to put LESS components, 
> not more. If we can accomplish the same task with the same amount of 
> resources or less, then there is no reason to have such crap implemented 
> in the first place.
> 
> The truth is that the Modern Science is crapping in his pants, because 
> "quantum computers" is nothing but an unprecedented unmitigated absurdity. 
> Now, so to speak, the shit hits the fan.

xxein:  Why did you ever trade your horse in for a car?

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

#529037

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 5:30:33 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/26/light-based-quantum-computers-will-come-at-a-great-cost
> 
> > About 100 billion optical components would be needed to create a
> > practical quantum computer that uses light to process information.
> > That is the conclusion of physicists in the UK, who have calculated
> > how many components are required to make a fault-tolerant linear
> > optical computer. Their comprehensive study found that the total
> > number of required components for a photon-based computer would be at
> > least five orders of magnitude larger than for a matter-based
> > processor.
> >
> > Unlike the components of conventional computers - which are extremely
> > reliable - quantum logic devices are prone to failure. This is
> > because the entities used to store and transmit information - quantum
> > bits (qubits) - quickly lose their quantum nature when in contact
> > with the outside world. Ion-based qubits, for example, must be kept
> > in ultrahigh-vacuum conditions to minimize their contact with air
> > molecules. One way of dealing with this fragility is to create a
> > fault-tolerant quantum computer, in which a single "logical qubit" is
> > distributed across a number of different "physical qubits" - the
> > latter being ions, superconducting circuits or photons. The idea is
> > that if one or more physical qubits fail, then the logical qubit can
> > be recovered and the calculation can continue.
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

xxein:  I had been wondering about that reliability.  Perhaps the computing could be quantum but the results might be sent to a more stable, but accessible optical device.  I don't think it has to be all or nothing at this early stage of development.  I guess we'll see, huh?

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

#529195

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 2:30:33 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Light-based quantum computers will come at a great cost
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/26/light-based-quantum-computers-will-come-at-a-great-cost
> 
> > About 100 billion optical components would be needed to create a
> > practical quantum computer that uses light to process information.
> > That is the conclusion of physicists in the UK, who have calculated
> > how many components are required to make a fault-tolerant linear
> > optical computer. Their comprehensive study found that the total
> > number of required components for a photon-based computer would be at
> > least five orders of magnitude larger than for a matter-based
> > processor.
> >
> > Unlike the components of conventional computers - which are extremely
> > reliable - quantum logic devices are prone to failure. This is
> > because the entities used to store and transmit information - quantum
> > bits (qubits) - quickly lose their quantum nature when in contact
> > with the outside world. Ion-based qubits, for example, must be kept
> > in ultrahigh-vacuum conditions to minimize their contact with air
> > molecules. One way of dealing with this fragility is to create a
> > fault-tolerant quantum computer, in which a single "logical qubit" is
> > distributed across a number of different "physical qubits" - the
> > latter being ions, superconducting circuits or photons. The idea is
> > that if one or more physical qubits fail, then the logical qubit can
> > be recovered and the calculation can continue.
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Treb tells me he is priceless.He makes his own chips.Yet he is not propetual.He has his worries from space. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web