|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: It's like asking a blind kid to tell us what the color blue is.
That's actually the best analogon in this thread! Remember that traditional science is founded on observation: First you observe something, then you formulate a hypothesis, then you experiment to either verify or disprove your hypothesis. Modern science has gone on to observations that are based on apparent issues in our current best known hypotheses (plural), e. g. Einstein realized that when looking at very far away objects, some odd things happened to the light, such as bending its path when passing near heavy objects, or altering its color towards blue or red. And as a result, he devolped the theory of relativity.
Quantum theory is one step further yet, as it is based not on observations that are consistently wrong with respect to the existing theory, but instead provides apparently random deviations from known theory. Digging down to the cause delivered observations such as vacuum fluctuation, quantum entanglement, or quantum tunneling. The problem here is that this is the microscopic world, and that none of our senses have ever directly perceived a quantum effect as such. And therefore, explaining or describing these effects is pretty much the same as a blind man describing colors!
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan_Lang wrote: but instead provides apparently random deviations from known theory
Thanks for the post man! You totally get where I'm trying to go with this. What I'm proposing is that these deviations are not random at all. The random aspect is due to our limitations in perception of reality.
It's like looking at an atom (in a vague sense). You have all these electrons around it and what we "think" is an orbit pattern. Before we really knew what was going on, the pattern may have even looked random. But as science evolved, we found out that's not the case. For Instance.[^]
Once our current perceptive limitations are lifted and/or science goes one step further, we'll find out these deviations aren't random. They are in fact creating life in a dimension we cannot fully perceive yet.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash.
Exactly. As we continue to add more bits to our calculated approximation of reality, we continue to approach, asymptotically, the real world results that only an analog computer can provide. I'd advise anyone to invest in companies that make highly accurate analog integrating amplifiers, or jumper cables. Since the jumpers have a lower risk of failure, that's obviously where the safe money will go.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
As one of the 99% who haven't a clue, has anyone thought of quantum tic tac toe?
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
"thus funny and not funny at the same time."
So... a qubit is Schroedinger's bit?
|
|
|
|
|
NymerianWulff wrote: So... a qubit is Schroedinger's bit?
Dunno, not sure what that is. Can you elaborate?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
He's refering to Schroedinger's cat[^]. Yes, a qubit is like a Schroedinger's cat. And a quantum computer is like a box full of cats that can all interact with each other right up until you open the box.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's exactly it. I'm still learning all the terms for this stuff, but that's the concept. Form doesn't come into be until we observe it and it only appears to be what we think it is because of the limitations of our perception. Our concept of "focus" is just that, we can only see a slice of the matter of reality. Real reality, is all, is God. End all. Be all. Beginning and end type stuff. Science is finally getting to the point we can understand our version of "God". Still might take a few hundred or so years, but we're getting there.
Man this river runs deep. I have to start spouting this crap out in chunks or else I'm gonna sound insaner-ish. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the way that you are trying to understand it is the wrong way. 
From a practical view, I think the better view is that of a wavicle of light. It can be viewed in two different ways - that is as a wave form (i.e. determining what the state is in time) or it can be viewed as a particle (i.e. when looking at it in a specific point of time to get the current state, then predicting where it might be in the point, in time, when it can be observed again.)
This is the disparity of quantum computing and any discussion on the fundamental parts of the data. It (the individual qubit of data) cannot be looked at meaningful as a single item as the result in the next measurable state is unknown - it could be any of a number of different states. The question is how does the collection of data appear to change over time. What is the pattern of it's (the collection of datum) flow?
This is what gives rise to the great debates in physics: Do you want to focus on the individual behaviour of a photon, or on the behaviour of the beam of light that the photon is part of? We can predict to a fine degree on what the behaviour of the beam, but the behaviour of the individual photons is not known as it is one of an infinite number of possible states.
To bring the discussion back to the qubit/quantum computing arena, you have to view it in the same manner; the behaviour of the program vs the behaviour of an individual piece of data. The behaviour of the individual datum point is nearly meaningless as it will change over a set of possible states - whereas the behaviour of the program is strongly predictable (and the state of the datum within the moment of measurement is also strongly predictable within a "cloud" of possible states for that moment).
I think that this is the great challenge for the quantum programmer - how to we program for the process of a individual, chaotic piece of data, to reflect the strongly, logical, behaviour of the program over time.
|
|
|
|
|
David D Williams wrote:
I think that the way that you are trying to understand it is the wrong way. |
Not at all man, I swear. I'm just looking at it from a standpoint further along than our current iteration of it. It's like the matrix. We call it chaotic and unpredictable because "the collective we" doesn't understand it yet. It's an approximation applied to an old way of thinking because some people - especially scientist - have a hard time letting go of what they already know.
David D Williams wrote: I think that this is the great challenge for the quantum programmer - how to we program for the process of a individual, chaotic piece of data, to reflect the strongly, logical, behaviour of the program over time.
You can't. It's impossible. Logic is black and white. You need to start seeing gray to get it. We're looking for patterns in black and white, but they simply do not exist. That's why most people fall short. Things can be two things at once. Accept that and this stuff starts to unfold. Logical thinking in itself will need an upgrade to fully express what this stuff is.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the basic intro, I have been reading up on Quantum computing for the last decade. I am still interested in what results are being shown for the D-Wave systems 512 Qubit silicon. I understand their architecture is based around quantum annealing and not the raw form of quantum computing ( I believe that requires ground state Hamiltonian to compute result Hamiltonian to formulate full result state). I am currently under the impression that the research has not yet provided the type of speed increases predicted by Shor's algorithm. I'm interested if anyone has produced more positive research results recently to provide here.
"Matthews... we're getting another one of those strange 'aw blah ess spa nol' sounds from dolphin number three?"
|
|
|
|
|
Any time. I'm looking to get into it more myself. Still new to how computers work with it. My understanding of quantum theory revolves around more of the abstract ideas rather than a technical implementation of it, but reading your post makes me want to start googling.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Since this is the future of computing, it's
Rather certain that the current evidence would only suggest that is a possibility and not a given.
The fact that something is possible isn't even close to meaning it will have the economic feasibility to become a replacement technology.
If however you have an example of a under $1000 desktop which is currently in production and competitive with similarly priced machines I would certainly like to see the link.
|
|
|
|
|
Every bloody day for the last week BBC1 has had nothing but the Commonwealth Games. When will it end?
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
2hrs of Irn Bru fuelled madness and then we're back to.the background level of football /cricket noise for a couple of years.
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
...I always remove the useless edges of the bread.
That's right: I am the Anticrust.
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
We should make your weekend one day shorter. You get too bored otherwise. 
Please wait while I get your coat, sir.
The console is a black place
|
|
|
|
|
But before - remove the useless edges of QA[^]
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
That's not going to leave a whole lot left...
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
But all the nutrients are in the crust.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, all the nutrients are in the BACON!
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you screwing around with bread when you have Bacon?
|
|
|
|
|
You need somewhere to hold the Brown Sauce!
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Simple, just wrap it all in bacon.
|
|
|
|
|
Bacon is non porous, and the brown sauce would leak and splodge everywhere!
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
