Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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 Conversation)   We will get tangled up as we read about what quantum entanglement is   (theconversation.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Quantum mechanics, EPR paradox, Quantum entanglement, quantum entanglement, Bell's theorem, particle of an entangled pair, CERN John Bell, Nobel Prize  
•       •       •

406 clicks; posted to STEM » on 07 Oct 2022 at 9:15 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



12 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-10-07 8:52:08 AM  
Gotta love the word quantum.
 
2022-10-07 9:24:56 AM  
Quantum entanglement is a relatively new business opportunity for clever computer scientists.  Its appeal is that it may solve some potential problems that haven't been identified but requires a lot of funding up front which allow for a nice grift.  It is a newer version of fusion energy investments.
 
2022-10-07 9:34:46 AM  

kdawg7736: Gotta love the word quantum.


I smart and funnyed your comment.
/Please don't observe.
 
2022-10-07 9:56:29 AM  

sleze: Its appeal is that it may solve some potential problems that haven't been identified


there are already multiple quantum algorithms created that seem pretty insurmountably superior to classical algorithms (and have been for decades; both Shor and Grover were like 1995) as well as at least demonstrations that they can do modeling of quantum systems, though the current demonstrations of that have severe scalability issues. At worst, you'll still have the security of networked quantum computers
 
2022-10-07 10:42:01 AM  

New Farkin User Name: sleze: Its appeal is that it may solve some potential problems that haven't been identified

there are already multiple quantum algorithms created that seem pretty insurmountably superior to classical algorithms (and have been for decades; both Shor and Grover were like 1995) as well as at least demonstrations that they can do modeling of quantum systems, though the current demonstrations of that have severe scalability issues. At worst, you'll still have the security of networked quantum computers


I'm glad you said "seem" because a lot of people are running around believing the hype that quantum algorithms have been solidly proven to provide exponential speed up. I'm an optimist, but I think the jury is still out, and there are at least a couple of well-respected researchers who are very pessimistic.

I would have to check (but I'm too lazy) but I'm pretty sure there is reasonable doubt that any quantum algorithm has been proven formally superior to a classical one. Shor's algorithm is better than the best known classical equivalent, but not the best  possible (but currently unknown)classical algorithm.

Grover's algorithm does slightly better, it is better than the best possible classical algorithm but it provides at most quadratic improvement over the classical algorithm, not the exponential improvement most commentators consider to be "supremacy". Of course, this is still useful for practical purposes, for example brute-forcing symmetric cryptographic keys, but that can be averted by simply using longer keys because encryption remains exponentially cheaper than decryption.

I have no comment on the physical sampling stuff, not something I know about.

And I'm glad you mentioned the practicality; scalability, noise, and error correction are practical if not theoretical problems still.
 
2022-10-07 10:43:20 AM  

New Farkin User Name: sleze: Its appeal is that it may solve some potential problems that haven't been identified

there are already multiple quantum algorithms created that seem pretty insurmountably superior to classical algorithms (and have been for decades; both Shor and Grover were like 1995) as well as at least demonstrations that they can do modeling of quantum systems, though the current demonstrations of that have severe scalability issues. At worst, you'll still have the security of networked quantum computers


p.s. quantum network security is nice, but it seems to me that its weakness is that somebody eavesdropping on the comms channel can prevent communication, forcing you to drop back to classical encryption?
 
2022-10-07 10:44:59 AM  
A wise man recently said that in the wake of the Nobel Prize for physics you will see two kinds of articles in the press: those that try to simplify the topic and in the process get it horribly wrong; and those that don't even try to explain it.
 
2022-10-07 11:35:41 AM  

HugeMistake: I would have to check (but I'm too lazy) but I'm pretty sure there is reasonable doubt that any quantum algorithm has been proven formally superior to a classical one. Shor's algorithm is better than the best known classical equivalent, but not the best possible (but currently unknown)classical algorithm.


I definitely chose "seem" intentionally. I always personally think that Shor will only turn out not to be better if P=NP, but that is based on literally nothing at all

HugeMistake: And I'm glad you mentioned the practicality; scalability, noise, and error correction are practical if not theoretical problems still.


I'm always bullish on the potential for quantum computers but I'm never going to assert that we'll definitely be able to make ones good enough to be super significant lol

HugeMistake: New Farkin User Name: sleze: Its appeal is that it may solve some potential problems that haven't been identified

p.s. quantum network security is nice, but it seems to me that its weakness is that somebody eavesdropping on the comms channel can prevent communication, forcing you to drop back to classical encryption?


As far as I understand that's right. Hopefully you have redundancy and I'm sure people are thinking hard about the best way to implement it, but hey. Worst comes to worst you didn't leak any information and you know somebody is spying on you
 
2022-10-07 12:06:30 PM  
"You're making progress folks, keep on it. We're not allowed to just give you the portable worm-hole"

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-07 12:39:31 PM  
It's time travel. We're too big to be able to do it, so we experience time linearly, but they aren't. They are bouncing back to the point of entanglement over and over, swapping places each time, until eventually observed, at which point they always only ever went the route they took the last time. Photons do a similar thing when they go through the double slits. It's how come a single photon can produce an interference pattern with itself, but only if it is observed after the slits.

It fits the experimental data.
 
2022-10-07 1:09:25 PM  

New Farkin User Name: HugeMistake: I would have to check (but I'm too lazy) but I'm pretty sure there is reasonable doubt that any quantum algorithm has been proven formally superior to a classical one. Shor's algorithm is better than the best known classical equivalent, but not the best possible (but currently unknown)classical algorithm.


I definitely chose "seem" intentionally. I always personally think that Shor will only turn out not to be better if P=NP, but that is based on literally nothing at all


Yes, I meant to add a comment about P=NP. A number of the proposed algorithms I've seen are provably better ifP/=NP, because the classical algorithm is proven NP complete. It's fascinating to me that these two topics end up being intertwined. I suspect that says something deep about the universe, but I don't have enough weed to figure out what it might be.

I have a recurring nightmare that P/=NP turns out to be undecidable, and then what?
 
2022-10-07 2:40:59 PM  
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.