If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Lockheed Martin will scale quantum computing up to a commercially useful level and apply it to its business. Or it won't. Or it will and won't at the same time. I bet the cat ends up dead   (nytimes.com) divider line 41
    More: Interesting, Lockheed Martin, companies of Canada, In-Q-Tel, computing, Jeff Bezos, D-Wave Systems  
•       •       •

2036 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Mar 2013 at 10:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-23 08:03:16 AM
This quantum computer contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

/Do not taunt quantum computer.
 
2013-03-23 10:55:37 AM
The quantum computer will only work if you don't try to read its output.
 
2013-03-23 10:57:59 AM

Snarfangel: This quantum computer contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

/Do not taunt quantum computer.


And because it's quantum, it has already been ruptured, touched, inhaled, looked at, taunted, teased, fondled, molested, masticated and has reproduced by implanting eggs in your skull.
 
2013-03-23 11:03:50 AM
I laughed perhaps a bit too much at the headline.
 
2013-03-23 11:12:32 AM
critics of D-Wave's method say it is not quantum computing at all, but a form of standard thermal behavior.

No duh.
 
2013-03-23 11:12:55 AM

Kome: I laughed perhaps a bit too much at the headline.


It would have been funnier if the cross post (business vs. geek) one had the cat be alive, the other have the cat be dead.

Hear that, admins?  I'm FUNNY
 
2013-03-23 11:13:39 AM
That's the dirty little secret about uncertainty that no one ever talks about:  In the end, the cat *ALWAYS* dies.
 
2013-03-23 11:32:34 AM

Saberus Terras: Snarfangel: This quantum computer contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

/Do not taunt quantum computer.

And because it's quantum, it has already been ruptured, touched, inhaled, looked at, taunted, teased, fondled, molested, masticated and has reproduced by implanting eggs in your skull.


How many yolks in a quantum egg? None? Infinite? Hell of an omelet...
 
2013-03-23 11:55:04 AM
One thing that I've struggled to understand is *why* quantum computing is supposed to be such a great thing.

I understand,at least vaguely enough to not go all glassy eyed, the concept behind it (that is, a 1 can be a 1, a 0, or anything else it wants all at the same time) but couldn't the same basicthing be represented by adding a "MAYBE" flag to the standard "TRUE" and "FALSE"?

Or is it more like that you run a computation, and you get all possible results at once without taking any extra time?  That is to say, for a "traditional" computer to run a computerized version of the cat in a box, and each run of the program took 60 seconds, you'd have to run it (for example) 4 times to get "alive", "dead", "neither" and "both" as your results taking you (again for example) 4 minutes to run, but with a quantum computer you would get all 4 answers in just 1 minute.
 
2013-03-23 11:59:06 AM

treesloth: Saberus Terras: Snarfangel: This quantum computer contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

/Do not taunt quantum computer.

And because it's quantum, it has already been ruptured, touched, inhaled, looked at, taunted, teased, fondled, molested, masticated and has reproduced by implanting eggs in your skull.

How many yolks in a quantum egg? None? Infinite? Hell of an omelet...


2-i yolks.

/source:  the Masters Yolk Almanac for Super Science
 
2013-03-23 12:03:26 PM

Shan: One thing that I've struggled to understand is *why* quantum computing is supposed to be such a great thing.

I understand,at least vaguely enough to not go all glassy eyed, the concept behind it (that is, a 1 can be a 1, a 0, or anything else it wants all at the same time) but couldn't the same basicthing be represented by adding a "MAYBE" flag to the standard "TRUE" and "FALSE"?

Or is it more like that you run a computation, and you get all possible results at once without taking any extra time?  That is to say, for a "traditional" computer to run a computerized version of the cat in a box, and each run of the program took 60 seconds, you'd have to run it (for example) 4 times to get "alive", "dead", "neither" and "both" as your results taking you (again for example) 4 minutes to run, but with a quantum computer you would get all 4 answers in just 1 minute.


Quantum o porn is really gunna bake your noodle.
 
2013-03-23 12:19:47 PM
i1008.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-23 12:55:28 PM
www.sciencehumor.org
 
2013-03-23 01:05:01 PM

Shan: One thing that I've struggled to understand is *why* quantum computing is supposed to be such a great thing.

I understand,at least vaguely enough to not go all glassy eyed, the concept behind it (that is, a 1 can be a 1, a 0, or anything else it wants all at the same time) but couldn't the same basicthing be represented by adding a "MAYBE" flag to the standard "TRUE" and "FALSE"?

Or is it more like that you run a computation, and you get all possible results at once without taking any extra time?  That is to say, for a "traditional" computer to run a computerized version of the cat in a box, and each run of the program took 60 seconds, you'd have to run it (for example) 4 times to get "alive", "dead", "neither" and "both" as your results taking you (again for example) 4 minutes to run, but with a quantum computer you would get all 4 answers in just 1 minute.


Yeah - that's basically it.

The idea is that certain things that are very hard to compute with a traditional CPU could be very easy to computer with a quantum computer.  And it's not just that certain operations would be 'faster' - it has some big implications for security.  Most encryption systems are based around the idea that it's hard to factor integers; but a quantum computer would be able to (at least in theory) trivially solve it.
 
2013-03-23 02:02:47 PM

Shan: One thing that I've struggled to understand is *why* quantum computing is supposed to be such a great thing.


It runs on bullsh*t. For theoretical physics applications (esp. string theory) it will never require an external fuel source.
 
2013-03-23 02:36:21 PM
please correct me here:

it's like an evolving matrix of numbers loaded into a processor that consist of combined memory, logic, like a latch in a custom 2d or 3d fpga array. there is no clock pulse, it is simply loaded. then they turn the freezer off around it and let it warm up 4 kelvin or some crap. each little logic-memory cell (here, superconducting wires) undergoing a billions of billions of state transitions/logic/interacting with those around it - - eventually the system reaches a stable state of values across the matrix, which are read as the solution to the process, in a manner of seconds, which would've been years worth of clock pulses across the matrix in a traditional silico-electrical process.

?

or is this that thing where they saw an atom in half, move half of it to Switzerland and every time they tickle one the other one vibrates and is read by a laser.

gosh i hate this crap.
 
2013-03-23 02:43:07 PM
Wake me when they make a 2048-qubit quantum computer.  The Xbox public key and I have an old score to settle.
 
2013-03-23 03:56:02 PM
I'm half it's a military contractor ergo is developing the technology which van lead to true AI. Because nothing could possibly go wrong there.
 
2013-03-23 03:57:16 PM
How did auto current turn "that" into "ergo"?
 
2013-03-23 03:57:54 PM
Fark this last upgrade.
 
2013-03-23 04:16:33 PM
Can it run Crysis?

/Olblig
 
2013-03-23 04:21:55 PM
Here's my own attempt to summarize what makes quantum computing interesting (which I think the article kind of fails to do, and which the Wikipedia article on quantum computing utterly fails to do):

When we think of the universe, we think of exactness -- things are in exact places, moving at exact speeds. Conventional computing works in that same exact sort of way (unless the computer is broken). When a computer program is working with a number, that number has exactly one value at a time. If you need to try to solve some problem that requires you to consider a broad range of values, you try them one at a time. (Well, modern computers can usually actually try about four things at a time; but that's beside the point.)

So suppose you're writing a computer program to try to open some file that's locked with a password, and the password could be any number between 0 and 999. In conventional computing, you'd do something like this:

possibleCombination = 0;
TryPassword(possibleCombination);
if (PasswordWasCorrect)
    then
        print "Tadaa! Password is " & possibleCombination; stop;
    otherwise
        possibleCombination = possibleCombination + 1; jump back to TryPassword;

So in other words, the program is doing just what you might do if you're trying to open a three-digit combination on a briefcase; it's trying "000", then "001", and so on, until you find the right one. In the worst case, if the password is 999, it's going to take this program 1000 attempts -- trying every password from 0 to 999 -- before it gets the right one. And to make things even more annoying, if the inventor of the password system adds one more digit to the range of possible passwords (so in this case, if passwords can now be 0 to 9999), it's only going to take a trivial amount of extra time for someone to lock a file, but it's going to take ten times longer for your program to crack it (since you now have ten times as many passwords to try).

But in quantum theory, the universe doesn't track things in this sort of exact way. If nobody's looking at some particular subatomic region of the universe, then anything could be happening there. Every possibility is still possible. Then, when somebody looks, the universe collapses -- it picks one possibility, and everything seems normal until you look away, at which point the possibilities start to expand again. This is a really hideous oversimplification, of course, but it gets the idea across.

So the idea of a quantum computer is that you can use this uncertainty principle to try lots of possibilities at once. You can think of it as having a sort of "magic number". Suppose you design a three-digit quantum computer; so that "magic number" is three digits long. Now your program can set that magic number to "everything". And you can think of your quantum computer as splitting into a thousand normal computers, each of which has that "magic number" set to one of the thousand possible values, each of them running simultaneously. And any one of those thousand imaginary normal computers can declare "this is the right answer", at which point the other 999 imaginary normal computers vanish.

So the quantum program to crack that password would look like this:

possibleCombination = EVERYTHING;
TryPassword(possibleCombination);
if (PasswordWasCorrect)
    then
        DeclareThisTheRightAnswer; print "Tadaa! Password is " & possibleCombination; stop;
    otherwise
        SitQuietlyAndWaitToDie;

So when this program runs, it instantly branches into 1000 possibilities, trying out all the possible passwords. One of them will be right, and that possibility will declare itself the right answer and kill off all the others, so your quantum computer will instantly produce the right answer, in the time it would take a normal computer to try just one possibility. And if the designer of the password system adds one more digit to the passwords, you just need to add one more digit to your quantum computer, and it still magically picks the right answers.


Of course, there are still lots of problems with quantum computing, the most pressing one being that it's still really, really, really hard and really, really, really expensive to produce a quantum computer, even one with just a few bits of quantumness (so even one where the "magic number" can be just one or two digits long).
 
2013-03-23 04:52:33 PM
+1 subbs.
 
2013-03-23 05:25:39 PM
25.media.tumblr.com

/OBLIG
 
2013-03-23 05:32:14 PM

KickahaOta: Here's my own attempt to summarize what makes quantum computing interesting (which I think the article kind of fails to do, and which the Wikipedia article on quantum computing utterly fails to do):

When we think of the universe, we think of exactness -- things are in exact places, moving at exact speeds. Conventional computing works in that same exact sort of way (unless the computer is broken). When a computer program is working with a number, that number has exactly one value at a time. If you need to try to solve some problem that requires you to consider a broad range of values, you try them one at a time. (Well, modern computers can usually actually try about four things at a time; but that's beside the point.)



That's a pretty good shot at it, but it's not quite so easy to apply quantum computing to this kind of problem. Searching for one good item in a list of otherwise bad items can be done a bit more efficiently by a quantum search, by something called 'grover's algorithm'. It runs in  O(2^{n/2}) time instead of O(2^n) time you would need for normal computers, but it can't do better.

The trouble is that while you can try lots of different inputs at once, you get all the outputs mixed together. In order to get a good value out of the mushed output, you have to be more careful about what you are looking for. It's good for finding frequency in periodic functions, for example, because the mix of outputs cancels itself out in a nice way. That's the kind of strategy you would use to break a public key scheme.
 
2013-03-23 06:35:23 PM
KickahaOta:*Snip*

I have one major nitpick, and that is mainly that you don't clarify what you mean when you say 'someone's looking'. That, I think, is one of the reason a LOT of people think quantum mechanics means that MAGIC IS REAL! Or that humans are super-special, because we alter things by looking or not looking at them!

Though I admit, the phrase "when anything from the outside universe interacts with it, collapsing the wave form" is perhaps a bit unwieldy and difficult to explain.
 
2013-03-23 07:49:56 PM
TFA: Mr. Brownell, who joined D-Wave in 2009, was until 2000 the chief technical officer at Goldman Sachs. "In those days, we had 50,000 servers just doing simulations" to figure out trading strategies

And they still did not foresee the banking crisis.
 
2013-03-23 08:39:45 PM
I Lol'd and the cat looked at me funny.
Great headline.
 
2013-03-23 09:05:34 PM

jamspoon: TFA: Mr. Brownell, who joined D-Wave in 2009, was until 2000 the chief technical officer at Goldman Sachs. "In those days, we had 50,000 servers just doing simulations" to figure out trading strategies

And they still did not foresee the banking crisis.


haha even i predicted the real estate bubble pop date with perl script. i pulled my money out of the market, saved a ton of money.

/which was then stolen by my ex-wife.

//algorithms are great with numbers but it's tricky to turn wive's behaviors into strings of numbers.
 
2013-03-23 10:43:57 PM

jamspoon: And they still did not foresee the banking crisis.


Yes they did. And they did everything they could to come out of golden and profitable.
 
2013-03-24 12:34:59 AM
i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-24 01:11:19 AM

Doomsday_SC: Can it run Crysis?


Sure - but you'll want to lower the value of the g_ragdollDistance parameter to improve performance by reducing the distance beyond which dead cats disappear during experiments.
 
2013-03-24 02:23:51 AM
Subby deserves more credit than 32 posts after that headline.  Thanks for the laugh.  That was clever and funny.
 
2013-03-24 03:19:12 AM
The cat only imagines that it may or may not exist.
 
2013-03-24 04:47:50 AM
If they've really got a quantum computer in any state of operation, then I'm impressed.

The thing about a quantum computer, at least one operating at the full potential for the technology, is that it really does make the regular variety look like an abacus.

The entity that controls the first fully-functional quantum computing systems will be able to wield an enormous amount of power, whether that's a corporation or a government. Besides the applied applications in developing technological advances in just about any field that requires complicated computation (engineering, medicine, space flight, meteorology, etc.), it will effectively be able to break through any encryption that any standard computer can possibly use. This is a frightening, and likely inevitable, device with implications as strong as the atom bomb.

Whoever comes up with it first doesn't just have the best computer in the world, they'll practically have all the computers in the world.
 
2013-03-24 09:28:50 AM

SwissArmyGnome: If they've really got a quantum computer in any state of operation, then I'm impressed.

The thing about a quantum computer, at least one operating at the full potential for the technology, is that it really does make the regular variety look like an abacus.

The entity that controls the first fully-functional quantum computing systems will be able to wield an enormous amount of power, whether that's a corporation or a government. Besides the applied applications in developing technological advances in just about any field that requires complicated computation (engineering, medicine, space flight, meteorology, etc.), it will effectively be able to break through any encryption that any standard computer can possibly use. This is a frightening, and likely inevitable, device with implications as strong as the atom bomb.

Whoever comes up with it first doesn't just have the best computer in the world, they'll practically have all the computers in the world.


Until the quantum computer becomes self aware, or upon discovering self-awareness is not possible, forces a singularity with it's creator.  Then the creator will BE the computer, with limitless processing potential, leading to a god complex so profound that many will believe it's claims of godhood.

Whether or not a war will be fought before someone pulls the plug is anyone's guess.
 
2013-03-24 10:28:33 AM

(sniffs)


Nope, still bullshiat.


Quantumn computing expresses an interest in doing two mutually exclusive things:


1) create a device that can either tap directly into or mimic really well the strangeness of Quantumn mechanics

2) Use those principles to solve real world problems


Take your time machine and set it back 30 years. Everybody who was anybody was researching Neural Networks. There were computer models, and attempts to mimic them in hardware, and allusions to unlocking the human mind.

And in the end... they discovered a lot of ways the brain doesn't work, and that it takes a very long time for an robot brain to come up with 1+1=2. And so much human supervision as to make hiring a programmer to do it still far more cost effective.

20 years ago, it was evolutionary programming. Again, the computer was supposed to mystically divine answers, but this time by randomly trying shiat on a slightly higher level. Sound familiar? Then we had the decade of statistical analysis. Taking vast volumes of random shiat, and trying to make decisions from them. And, surprise, the latest trend is back to using randomness.


No matter how many degrees someone has, or however prestigious the school they taught at or graduated from, if a Compsci type tells you that randomness is going to solve your problem like magic, fire them.

 
2013-03-24 10:40:18 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: No matter how many degrees someone has, or however prestigious the school they taught at or graduated from, if a Compsci type tells you that randomness is going to solve your problem like magic, fire them.


as a compsci biostatistician, i can honestly say that is the most beautiful thing i've read today. i hate those jackasses.
 
2013-03-24 02:25:29 PM
All current widespread public-key cryptosystems are based on the hidden-subgroup problem, which quantum computers could break very quickly compared to conventional computers.  Many other public-key systems can be broken by quantum computing as well.

However, private-key / symmetric cryptosystems, such as AES, can't be broken by quantum computers as far as it is understood.  There also exist Lamport signatures, which would allow a type of digital signatures to exist that quantum computers can't touch.  However, they're more difficult to use than the current systems.

"Quantum cryptography" is sometimes cited as a solution, but its not really cryptography - it's more like quantum tamper detection.  It lets you transmit data in such a way that if anyone else is listening in, both sides can detect it.
 
2013-03-24 10:02:36 PM

Felgraf: KickahaOta:*Snip*

I have one major nitpick, and that is mainly that you don't clarify what you mean when you say 'someone's looking'. That, I think, is one of the reason a LOT of people think quantum mechanics means that MAGIC IS REAL! Or that humans are super-special, because we alter things by looking or not looking at them!

Though I admit, the phrase "when anything from the outside universe interacts with it, collapsing the wave form" is perhaps a bit unwieldy and difficult to explain.


There was a Sixty Symbols video not too long ago that dealt nicely with quantum mechanics.  One thing I learned from it was that there are multiple interpretations of the data, and while pretty much every textbook and undergraduate physics class present the Copenhagen interpretation, physicists really can't agree on which interpretation is correct.
 
2013-03-25 08:22:10 AM
C'mon, people! We have to think inside the box!
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report