Is quantum computing real? Doesn't it assume that /x/-tier quantum nonsense is true (like a particle can "see" it's being watched, etc)? I find it concerning that "Apple" and other corporations are using it to market and the three-letter spooks are using it for fearmongering tactics about breaking encrpytion.
Is it actually legitimate or just research based on false assumptions?
One israelite wrote a paper on that and he has mathematically proven that quantum computers cannot have more than 53 qubits or something like that and therefore will never be useful and I believe him.
you don't need to worry about three letter agencies breaking your encryption with quantum computers when the x86 architecture itself contains hardware backdoors via embedded cores straight from the manufacturer. if you refuse to run proprietary software, break your cpu with a hammer
It's not that I'm afraid of them breaking encryption, but I'm curious about this whole field of research that seems so fake.
it seems fake because it is fake
if it's fake, it's fake for the purpose of answering the question "where did the money go?"
Illiterated gays. Next time you're going to say quantum physics is fake. Just brcause you brainlets don't understand quantum comouting doesn't mean it's obsolete.
quantum physics literally are fake and gay
Ok what operations does quantum computing enable that cant be done by conventional computing
>muh breaking encryption!
Cop out answer. Explain how.
Uh..... like.... if you get enough special particles together, and we can, SCIENCE says so, then you can break encryption by making them magically connect with each other and pass information.
hard drive encyption is all you have.
>duuuude quantum computing is real! Theres like heckin QBITS DUUUDE. THEY HAVE ANGLES!!!?!
>ok but cant i just model this behaviour in a conventional programming language? Its like 2 lines of lisp
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It's LE SPECIAL! It's complex numbers!
>Knows it's being seen
Yes, it's called interaction with a photon moron. Same as being touched is interaction with any massive particle.
Why do you morons assume it cares about (You) in particular? Isn't IQfy supposed to be literate?
>Why do you morons assume it cares about (You) in particular? Isn't IQfy supposed to be literate?
Nobody claimed this other than op.
To nitpick or clarify your post, OP, a particle cannot "see" and cannot tell it's "being watched". The concept of the wave function collapse is commonly misunderstood to think that "observation" means "being seen by a sentient, sapient being", when in reality it means "it is interacted with by any outside force, object, field, or other influences". To make observations on a quantum scale, you must interact with the particle you're trying to observe and thus it's impossible to observe without collapsing the wave function.
This makes sense. Why is the /x/ view I mentioned so commonly pushed by some people in quantum "computing" and even physics? Isn't it literally a metaphysical view (a thing they hate)?
I can only speculate, but I partially blame sci-fi media/the general public and partially blame scientists trying to grift for grant money.
It's a far, far more attractive idea to most people (who are at least partially religious and/or superstitious) to hear that a fundamental part of reality relies on consciousness. Very alluring because it implies the human mind influences the world on levels we don't understand yet.
we live in a world where humans larp about knowing age of universe, even though speed of light prevents any number from ever being provable
This. I always laugh when the same people that believe the universe is "billions of years old" try to speak with authority on anything empirically untestable but based on their extrapolations of the past with a load of unprovable assumptions.
and don't forget to use dark matter if any inconsistency in your religious larp is ever found
>"observation" means "being seen by a sentient, sapient being"
Jordan Peterson literally said that in a discussion with a physicist.
then how do you know the particle you 'interact' with isnt just getting polluted with the quantum information of the particle you use to 'measure'?
i fully admit im a brainlet that barely understands quaternions let alone fidget spinners
Isn't that the problem, that the information is always polluted.
yes isn't it irpnic how when I look up if light is particle oflr a wave, I get mixed results?
>um yikes chuddy, it's both!
haha no frick off moron, likely explanation is that photons release waves when decaying, that's why light also isn't observable, only things sun shines on are observable
>>um yikes chuddy, it's both!
Oh my science so much this! It's like gender! It's in both states at once and we can decide what it is!
so in other words you cannot prove that quantum physics aren't real, I can create tasteless, odorless and colorless poison that can be put into water and I will call it quantum poison now because until you chemically interact with it, it looks like plain water and whether it's safe or poison is unknown just because you are too dumb to perceive it
>t. too dumb to understand the Double Slit Experiment.
Quantum physics/mechanics is just our best theory to describe what we have observed you moron. The most logical option we could think of that we verified to some degree. Assigning metaphysical meaning to physical observations (muh Two states at the same time) is a moronic, but less moronic than you are.
>Is quantum computing real?
no
>here's this lisp program that does matrix multiplications
>THAT IS SPECIAL
at least lisp programs work at all
>le universe is OLD but.... but.... written human records date back to 10k years at most even with our broken assumptions
>MONKEY SUDDENLY BECAME VERY SMART BUT WAS STUPID FOR 10000 millions of years
>I don't believe in order in nature
>BUT BUUT.... induction actually works okay!?!?!?
>Is quantum computing real?
Yes
>like a particle can "see" it's being watched, etc
You don't understand quantum physics
>Is it [...] just research
Yes, there's no practical application for quantum computing
>But cryptography
Quantum computers will never compute anything of use
Decide for yourself, but consider that people want to SHUT IT DOWN!
stop reading popular sci-fi bs. quantum mechanics is mostly just field behavior in continuous space using a slightly different topology than we generally use, same as relativity. it shouldn't be surprising that when continuous fields interact with other continuous fields you get an infinite number of results. it also shouldn't be surprising that setting up and measuring those fields with any degree of accuracy is completely fricking impossible because of the very physical limitations that quantum mechanics predicts. so quantum computers are real but they suck because understanding something doesn't mean you have a cheat code that lets you manipulate it directly by re-writing universal code. they'll probably always such because precision will always be hard
quantum computing is mostly hype and scifi because the reality is uncool
it's actually all just probability and statistics
the best use it has, and is already being used, is quantum key distribution
since qubits get changed as soon as they're read it's impossible to mitm