Will Quantum Supremacy be achieved in our lifetime?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Quantum Computing
Will Quantum Supremacy be achieved in our lifetime?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Maybe not in our lifetime but definitely within the next 100 years.
The tech companies have released lots of sdks for experimenting with it in recent years, and media attention has also grown
how this translates to actual progress I am unaware
Google promised 2029, but that seems hopeful
is that a man or a woman
>a man or a woman
superposed troony
>thinking in binary
it's a quantum troon
>it's a quantum troon
there's several troons working on microsofts quantum team and the QDK
both until you observe it
kek
Thanks to the advent of Quantum Tranology the scientists of the early 21th century discovered this strange quirk of the universe. The Double bawd experiment showed that a troony is both a male and female while being observed under proper conditions. Under normal conditions the troony is a male but once observed through the lens of a camera it's a loose female, thence the name of the experiment. "I think I can probably say that nobody understands Trannies" - Ricardo Fineman et al.
You're trying too hard
t. troonyosaurus wrex
I dunno I chuckled at "Double bawd Experiment". Execution could have been a bit better, but overall 7/10 post.
>I chuckled at "Double bawd Experiment"
That's because you're a newbie who has never posted in any of the double slit experiment threads
The strange quirk of this new physics brought about an explosion of development in other fields such as Philosophy of QT, from which emerged the now famous philosophical thought experiments: "If a troony is alone in the woods and nobody is around to observe it, is it still a troony"?
>still thinking in binary
ngmi, QC is not fo you
both until you look in its pants
schrödinger's dick
obviously a man
Both.
The hermaphrodites have taken control of the quantum computers and they're going to broadcast sissy hypno via non-locality.
>is that a man or a woman
Wrong board. I think you're lost anon. You're looking for pol. that's where all the whiney incels, conspiracy theorists, future mass shooters, racists, and antivaxxers usually hang out. I'm sure you'll find it to your liking.
The other anon does have reason to ask; there are many trannies working on quantum computing. In particular, the Microsoft quantum computing team has several trannies and "allies".
When do you think it'll see wide use? DARPA, large corporations and startups seem to have begun focusing a lot on the software aspect of quantum computing, especially algorithm design, but also the surrounding development ecosystem. Hopefully this means that it'll be soon.
Its gender is in a superposition until we observe it.
*i.e; what's in its pants.
Guess you didn't observe the 100 times this "joke" was made by others replying to the post
>observe
Observe this "supererect" dick
>Quantum Supremacy
google also claims to have already achieved quantum supremacy
https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/10/quantum-supremacy-using-programmable.html
IBM btfoed this claim
>this staged infighting between establishments proves that this totally not globohomosexual guys!!!
>muh globohomo
Quantum Supremacy won't immediately make Bitcoin &c. void, but eventually so. Then the whole crypto market likely crashes
They said they would, but gave up.
No. It also won't break every single encryption, at least for now. If in doubt, just double your key length to get the same safety as before.
>QM
Were talking about quantum computing, not quantum mechanics. You're wrong btw.
Frick that's hot. I want to lick it.
Still ongoing.
Quantum supremacy is a meme concept that is tenuously defined, used only to pacify the toddlers of the world who have no understanding of the concept of "delayed gratification". What matters is an actual quantum speedup on a problem of practical (academic or industrial) interest. That won't happen until we have a fault-tolerant quantum computer with at least on the order of ~50-100 logical qubits, which is millions of physical qubits with error rates below at least 1/1000. Which is decades from now, by my best guess.
They did not. They claimed that, using the world's biggest supercomputer (at the time) and by running a hyperoptimized algorithm that neither they nor anyone else in the world had actually coded and compiled (which has to be done to immaculate precision in order to get every ounce of computational juice out of the machine and algorithm), they could get the runtime down from an estimated ~10 millennia to ~1 week. [math]They never actually ran any algorithm.[/math] It was pure cope and hastily put together in order to save face against Google's result, hence why it was only a short blog post, not a scientific paper.
Now that said, a lot has happened since Google's paper, and [math]other[/math] groups have implemented their versions of classically simulating Google's 53-qubit experiment. Not only are their algorithms better than IBM's proposed one, but they actually put their money where their mouth was and [math]ran[/math] the damn algorithm. For instance, in https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.03011 a Chinese group replicated Google's experiment (to within equivalent statistical confidence) by parallelizing over 512 Nvidia GPUs (32 GB RAM each) for 15 hours.
I doubt it. Crypto will probably crash by itself long before a large-enough fault-tolerant quantum computer is built.
Idiot blogpost made by a nobody layperson who is too lazy and arrogant to learn and make a proper argument.
Look up Gil Kalai instead.
>What matters is an actual quantum speedup on a problem of practical (academic or industrial) interest
>mathematical proofs are useless since I can't make something worthwhile out of them
Where did I say anything to this effect? The context of my statement is clearly regarding the notion of demonstrating, with real hardware, a quantum supremacy/advantage/speedup over classical methods for the same problem. My point is that "quantum supremacy via sampling bit strings from a state that has less than 1% fidelity from the intended state that was supposed to be prepared" is of no genuine use or interest. Not even as a quantum RNG.
I'm not saying anything about the rigorous mathematical framework behind quantum info. But if you want to talk proofs, there's plenty of fully rigorous theorems that seemingly have little bearing on reality as well. How about the QMA hardness of preparing ground states? If it's so hard, how does Nature do it on a regular basis?
That experiment you linked is just random circuit sampling with more volume than Google's experiment. It has nothing to do with demonstrating quantum error correction, breaking fault-tolerance thresholds, etc.
The key point is literally the rest of that statement that you cut out. Yes, classical error correcting codes have a nonzero logical error rate, but it approaches 0 (exponentially fast) as the number of physical bits in the code increases. Gil's conjecture is that all QECs possess an ultimate logical error rate lower bound that is constant with respect to the code size (number of qubits used to construct the code).
Mind you, this is just a conjecture, and essentially requires modifying our model of quantum physics (because Peter Shor already proved the threshold theorem, given our current understanding of quantum mech).
>literally the rest of that statement that you cut out
Oops, yes. I'm moronic. Thanks for clearing this up. Do you happen to know his reasoning for assuming such a lower bound? Is it just a worst case assumption?
>conjecture
argument dismissed, conjectures are useless
The frick? Are you even following the reply chain? It's not my conjecture, and I certainly don't believe it. But anons wanted a quantum skeptic so I mentioned Kalai. I wasn't even the one who outlined his argument, I just brought up his name.
And you're absolutely wrong, conjectures are valuable if not essential. Virtually the entirety of complexity theory is founded on the conjecture that P != NP, otherwise a dozen hierarchies collapse to trivial statements.
I don't know why he thinks so. My guess is that it's a combination of experimental results (or lack thereof) and the fact that QM is not the full picture of reality. Certainly the last aspect is true, but does that mean the piece we're missing means no physical system can go below any code threshold? I doubt it, personally.
Or maybe his conjecture is on philosophical grounds. A quantum error correcting code is literally an entirely new phase of matter that Nature doesn't seem to ever produce by itself - a macroscopically stable, coherent quantum system with topological order. It's certainly bizzare to imagine. But then again, Nature doesn't produce anything close to a mode-locked laser, and yet that is now standard technology.
>Gil Kalai
found this, which sounds like a reasonable argument
also his conjectures
>Conjecture 1 (No quantum error correction). The process for creating a quantum error-correcting code will necessarily lead to a mixture of the desired codewords with undesired codewords. The probability of the undesired codewords is uniformly bounded away from zero. (In every implementation of quantum error-correcting codes with one encoded qubit, the probability of not getting the intended qubit is at least some δ > 0, independently of the number of qubits used for encoding.)
>Conjecture 2. A noisy quantum computer is subject to noise in which information leaks for two substantially entangled qubits have a substantial positive correlation.
>Conjecture 3. In any quantum computer at a highly entangled state there will be a strong effect of error-synchronization.
>Conjecture 4. Noisy quantum processes are subject to detrimental noise.
but these conjectures are challenged by recent advancements of the dear chinks
>Quantum Computational Advantage via 60-Qubit 24-Cycle Random Circuit Sampling https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.03494
also longer talk
Not other Anon. This seems weird to me:
>In every implementation of quantum error-correcting codes with one encoded qubit, the probability of not getting the intended qubit is at least some δ > 0
Isn't this trivially true for all error correction schemes, including classical error correction? Yet, it still works.
quantum supremacy by generating a distribution of random numbers faster than a regular computer. It's a totally contrived and useless scenario.
it's here, it's useless see above. There has been some progress in quantum error correcting codes though, so useful quantum computers might happen. Useful for weird applications like making bitcoin worthless with a computer only governments can afford at least.
Will quantum computing one day suddenly crash the value of all crypto assests to zero?
There are post quantum blockchains. Not sure if I would trust any crypto that hasn't been time tested by the public. There's a reason RSA works. Don't roll your own crypto and all that.
There is genuine "post quantum" cryptography. The mathematics is quite sophisticated. I don't know if any memecoins do it correctly, though
No. It's a meme garbage.
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/
>No. It's a meme garbage.
Opinion piece from midwit who cant into quantum
His only argument is that since the tech is not currently useful, it's all bogus and a sham field, disregarding all recent advances in the field
As I already said its a meme garbage Field. There is nothing to show for all those "advancements" apart from PhDs living off of taxpayer money sucking off each other.
I bet you think George Boole's work was useless too
So we both agree he is correct then, good.
What advances, 99% of QM theories have no proof to back them up and is just moron jargon made to sound complicated so the average popsci mouthbreather would get excited
Ah yes, the eternal cope.
>You're just not smart enough to understand it!
google already did it
>Quantum Supremacy
Now you must call it Quantum Advantage, I kid you not.
>I kid you not
bait, their website isnt changed
would be ludicrous to suddenly change it to "Quantum Advantage"
quantum computer won't change anything. it MIGHT have some uses in cryptography, but that's it.
Just look at that stupid ass thing.
How can you think it's not a huge scam?
Just look at that stupid ass thing. How can you think it's not a huge scam?
Just look at that stupid ass thing. How can you think it's not a huge scam?
Just look at that stupid ass thing. How can you think it's not a huge scam?
I have 5 years to understand how this machine works.
What can I read that'll help me achieve my goal?
You mean on a hardware or software level? Or both? Software level is rather easy, hardware is tough.
thing go beep boop beep boop
Whenever a new person starts they read this
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.06560
assuming they didn't come from a QC background, in which case this would be much too basic.
It will teach you the essentials of what's going on.
That prop is moronic.
I agree, women shouldnt be allowed in labs even just to take pictures
>women
More like quantum coping lol
Anyone remember the hype around nano-technology and nanomachines ?
yeah bro
t. also a quantum computer disliker
i remember when segways were gonna change everything too
Already was. 2 years ago.
100% of quantum computing is meme subject bullshit, just like nanotech and "AI." Fricking morons don't understand "entanglement" is just conditional probability.
>AI
how is ai bullshit?
what does that even mean
ai is ubiquitous and have been for years
Entanglement produces correlation that is stronger than classical correlation. You don't know what you're talking about.
Wave function collapse is not a physical model but a model of how physics obtains information. So no, it never will.
What?
>What?
WFC is a statistical formalism. How many machines do you know of that operate on statistical formalisms and not physical principles?
There is no difference you pseud. And the answer is all of them.
>There is no difference you pseud
Newtons laws aren't statistical formalisms.
The entire field of machine learning is based on statistical learning theory.
We were talking about physical theories.
Just paraphrasing Heisenberg on the topic.
>Will Quantum Supremacy be achieved in our lifetime?
Give it 10 years
Sooner than that
Give it about ~15-20 years and something probably will come out of it.
Superconductors are finally starting to see real uses because a lot of enabling technology is coming into play (particular 'ruggedized' superconductor encasings).
This is kind of how most of these technologies go.
>New thing (Quantum Computing, Neural Nets, Nanotech, superconductors, etc.)
>Huge industry and academic interest in something new
>lots of money
>no good applications because of limiting supporting technology
>a couple decades pass
>supporting technologies are finally existent and affordable
>Military starts adapting it
>Industry follows and the field explodes again
yeah
it's already been achieved but not publicly available to stop the chinese from stealing it
Huge larp, i suggest checking their fundings papers and if they haven't israeliteed out donations.
My brother works for a leading quantum computing company as a researcher. Specialized in B-E condensate quantum computing. ama to ask him
What does he think of non-locality used in quantum internet technology? I've spoken to others at work about it, they said it 'has a limited range' but in the white papers it implies otherwise.
Wouldn't that allow us to, well, tap into an alien internet is time-space is no longer a factor?
>alien internet
Ayylmaonet
Locality is always obeyed by nature as far as we have observed. The "nonlocal" quantum correlations you're referring to have to be initially prepared by particles which locally interact. Furthermore they are very fragile states of matter and are "one time use" so to speak.
Space and time are absolutely a factor. Don't get swindled by overhypers.