check it out
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computi...eut/index.html
Printable View
Or for more information goto http://www.qubit.org
That site has a lot of documentation on the subjects and even some Job postings!
There is only 1 thing I find strange about the whole thing.
"We are going to use 5 atoms in tandem to do the processing.... and then wrap it in 5,465,234,874,324,156,345,213,634,123,645,578,345 atoms just so you can actually hold onto the computer and plug stuff in"
D'oh... We lost one of the 5 atoms... it accidentally touched its container and swapped places with the one next to it.
So now instead of getting "Memory Violation Errors... Blue screen of Death"
We are going to get "Quantum Singilarity Error... Black Hole of Death"
:D :D :D
In the late fifties or early sixties, the theorhetical boys were extolling the virtues of computers based on super conducting circuits. They even made some simple ones to prove that the theory worked.
Of course, they needed to cool the hardware using liquid helium or perhaps liquid hydrogen, since temperatures close to absolute zero were required.
I haven't seen one yet, although maybe they will be implemented some day using the high temperature super conducting materials dicovered in the past 5-10 years.
In the publish or perish envirnopment of acedemia, some wonderful ideas are proposed by people who do not really expect success.
I have great faith in the experts in mainstream science. I hasve yet to see one claim something absurd or impossible.
I would hestitate to say that quantum computing will not come to pass, but our current computers have enough glitches as is. I shudder to think about computers using quantum effects. Remember that it is the nature of the quantum world to be probabilistic, not deterministic.
I wish them luck, but would not buy a lot of stock in a company committed to designing & manufacturng a quantum computer. I will believe it when I see one doing something that a conventional computer cannot do or doing something in a more cost-effective manner.
It looks to me like a theorhetically good idea which will fail due to practical considerations. Like back in the twenties when Goddard was making experimental multi-stage rockets, there was somebody else who claimed that you could build a huge cannon-like device which would fire a spaceship to the moon. Both were laughed at, Goddard's idea came to pass, while the other guy's idea is goan & forgotten (even though theorhetically sound).
Guv
I agree that there are probably a ton of practical consideration which may make the advent of the quantum computer difficult, it certainly will not be impossible. And in the next 10-15 years, as we approach the limit of silicon based technology, there will be a whole industry and a whole lot of money pumped into achieving the next step...and that next step seems to be quantum.
Did you not read in the article how it succeeded in factoring large number in a single step? This is an important issue for cryptography...Quote:
I will believe it when I see one doing something that a conventional computer cannot do
dvst8
Dvst8
I am certain that no currently available quantum computer can factor a number as large as 10-15 digits, let alone a number which could not be factored by a conventional computer.Quote:
Did you not read in the article how it succeeded in factoring large number in a single step? This is an important issue for cryptography...
In the article cited in your first Post, I did not see anything about a quantum computer factoring a large number. I did see a claim that something was done in one step which would require multiple steps using a conventional computer (Finding the period of a function, I think it said). I saw no claim for a currently available quantum computer doing anything which could not be done by a conventional computer.
I repeat my former statement.It seems to me that I read somewhere about a quantum computer solving some combinatorial problem, maybe the traveling salesman problem. These are difficult problems for conventional computers, and might be the ones to make me eat my words.Quote:
I will believe it when I see one doing something that a conventional computer cannot do or doing something in a more cost-effective manner.
I am questioning the practicality of quantum computers, not their possibility.
40-50 years ago, I was wrong when I thought that the limits of minimization and speed would be reached before the nineties. I was right about cryogenic computers being impractical (I never claimed impossible because there were laboratory models back then). I wonder if they will arise again.
It still appears to me that quantum computing has some fierce practical obstacles to overcome, reliability being one of them. However, I have seen some articles about error-corrective methods to overcome this particular problem. Apparently the experts in this area are also concerned about reliability, else why worry about error correction when you are working with systems not yet capable of anything remotely useful?
It is interesting that some of the articles about quantum computers estimate that we still have about 20 years before we reach the limits of our current technology. I though we closer to the limits than that, but I trust their opinion on this issue more than my own.
One problem with trusting experts from academia is that there is a "publish or perish" syndrome in that environment. If they can get funding and the research will produce something to publish, they will work on anything, regardless of their expectation of success.
Guv
I was wrong about the number factoring. Quantum computers have not yet done it, but will do it in the future. I will quote directly from the article, and then show you where YOU are wrong;
from article:
you said in your original post:Quote:
Chuang said his team used the test quantum computer to solve a typical mathematical problem used in cryptography — finding the period of a function. The computer was able to solve any example of the problem in one step, while a conventional computer would require repeated cycles to solve the problem.
So there you go. A quantum computer has found the period of a function in one step, whereas a conventional computer would have to iterate. By your your cited criteria, you have to now believe it. I really don't see why you're being so stubborn about this. It's here. Are you one of these people who have difficulty accepting change? Perhaps I'm a person who too eagerly accepts it...Quote:
I will believe it when I see one doing something that a conventional computer cannot do or doing something in a more cost-effective manner.
But I do agree with you about the academia stuff...
I think molecular computing will probably hit the mainstream before quantum does, but that's just a moot point. Perhaps this is why experts say there's about 20 years left....molecular computing will allow us to do some pretty neat stuff, but not close to as much as quantum.
gotta run.
dvst8
Dvst8
Take a look at my Post.Did you even notice that I acknowledged the one step solution by the quantum computer? I guess that is irrelevant to somebody with a Philadelphia lawyer mentality.Quote:
.... I did see a claim that something was done in one step which would require multiple steps using a conventional computer (Finding the period of a function, I think it said)......
Okay, Okay — I was absolutely dead wrong!! The quantum computer did something that a conventional computer could not do. So do analog computers, by the way. Some of them solve problems without doing any calculations at all, while a conventional computer must perform thousands of calculations. They even do it without using registers!
I give up my former untenable position, changing it to the following.
I will believe that a quantum computer is a worthwhile device when it obtains a solution to some problem for which a conventional computer cannot obtain a solution. I will also consider a quantum computer worthwhile if can be shown to be more cost effective on problems for which both the quantum computer and the conventional computer are capable of finding a solution. I am not sure what my opinion will be if the quantum computer can solve a specific problem much faster, but is far more expensive than the conventional computer. In that case, I might need an analysis of the value of the time saved versus the extra cost of the quantum computer.