[ad_1]
Quantum computers, you as we have heard, they are magical uber-machines that will soon cure cancer and global warming, trying all possible answers in different parallel universes. For 15 years, forward my blog and elsewhere, I have opposed this view of cartoons, trying to explain what I see as a more subtle but ironically even more fascinating truth. I raise that as a public service and almost as a moral obligation to me as a researcher in quantum computing. Alas, the work feels Sisyphean: the remarkable uproar over quantum computers has intensified over the years as corporations and governments have invested billions and can deliver technology as it has moved to 50 qubit programmable devices (in some invented references). the largest supercomputers in the world running to get their money. And in cryptocurrency, as in other areas of automatic learning and fashion, hucksters have come up with money.
In moments of reflection, however, I get it. The reality is that even with the removal of all bad incentives and greed, quantum computing would be difficult to explain briefly and honestly without mathematics. As Richard Feynman, a pioneer of quantum computing, once said about the quantum electrodynamics that won him the Nobel Prize, if it were possible to describe it in a few sentences, it would not be worth the Nobel Prize.
Not that people have stopped trying. Since Peter Shor discovered in 1994 that a quantum computer could shatter most of the encryption that backs up Internet transactions, his enthusiasm for technology has been more than intellectual curiosity. In fact, developments in the field are usually covered as a business or technology story, rather than a science one.
It would be nice if a business or technology reporter could tell readers the truth, “Look, all these deep quantum things are under the hood, but what you need to understand is the background: physicists are on the verge of building faster computers. Revolutionizing everything.”
The problem is that quantum computers will not flip everything.
Yes, they would solve some specific problems at some point in minutes, which would require more time than the age of the universe on classic computers (we think). Most experts believe that quantum computers will humbly help most experts. Moreover, while Google and others claimed to have invented recently credible quantum claims, this was for specific esoteric references (I he helped develop). It is likely that quantum computers such as breaking cryptographic codes in practical applications such as overcoming classical computers and simulating chemistry are still a long way off.
But how could a programmable computer be faster for some problems? Do we know which ones? And what does a “big and reliable” quantum computer mean in that context? We need to delve into the deep things to answer these questions.
Let’s start with quantum mechanics. (What could be deeper?) The concept of overlap is very difficult to translate into everyday words. So it’s no surprise that many writers choose an easy output: They say that the overlay means “both together,” so the quantum bit or qubit is “just a bit that can be 0 to 1 at a time.” While the classic bit It can be one or the other, and they continue to say that a quantum computer would reach its speed using qubits to test all possible solutions to the overlap — that is, simultaneously or in parallel.
This is what I thought was the wrong basic step in the knowledge of quantum computing, which leads to everything else. From now on it’s just a short leap that quickly fixes something like quantum computers the problem of passenger vendors trying all possible answers at once – almost all experts believe that they will not be able to do it.
The thing is, in order for a computer to be useful, you need to look at it sometime and read the output. But if you study the same overlap of all possible answers, the rules of quantum mechanics say that you will see and read a random answer. And if that’s all you wanted, you’d choose it yourself.
[ad_2]
Source link
