|
No offence, but IMO all analogies are pretty sh*t.
A joke that is funny or not depending on who's listening? It doesn't really work that way.
A possibly loaded coin that has been flipped but not observed yet? It doesn't even work that way - that's just fuzzy logic, and that doesn't capture much of the "funny quantum business", only the "weird indecision thing". If you visualize the coin as a point on a line, a cubit is a point on a sphere.
That sphere is close, but it dies if you involve more than 1 cubit, so what's the point? Just learn the math and stop desperately trying to find classical analogies. It's not classical, that's the whole point.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: No offence, but IMO all analogies are pretty sh*t.
No offense taken.
harold aptroot wrote: A joke that is funny or not depending on who's listening? It doesn't really work that way.
You're thinking the old way. Trust me man, it's time to learn again. Get out of your head and well get back into your head, but in a different way.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It's all superposition* until I observe one actually working.
Or, you can think of it as a magical machine that tell you what you want to hear, as the result is dependent upon the observer (as you yourself stated.) I imagine the government and Fox News are therefore very interested in such devices.
As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash. While it may be that something will eventually exist that can perform computation in a quantum space, it will be for only a select set of problems in which the probability calculations are essentially handled by the quantum space itself rather than the "soft" space of binary bits. And ironically, because the qubit (or qubytes, or whatever) represent a probability, you have to run the algorithm numerous times to get the answer out of the distribution curve. It will be interesting to see the performance benefit of that.
But why do I say hogwash? Because, except for certain very specific algorithms which require massive computation, this is not something your Facebook user is going to need. And besides, we are barely wrapping our head around distributed multi-threaded applications, what would probability programming language look like? Let's be real - the world we live in is state-full and the programs we write need to interact with a state-full world, not an indeterminate probabilistic one.
Anyways, your question is great and the responses are quite interesting too.  Hope you don't mind the nay-sayer attitude. It's just that I get tired of reading about all these theories that promise to revolutionize life as we know it.
* - pun on supposition, or, if you prefer, superstition.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: As to the quantum computing being the future of computing, hogwash. While it may be that something will eventually exist that can perform computation in a quantum space, it will be for only a select set of problems in which the probability calculations are essentially handled by the quantum space itself rather than the "soft" space of binary bits. And ironically, because the qubit (or qubytes, or whatever) represent a probability, you have to run the algorithm numerous times to get the answer out of the distribution curve. It will be interesting to see the performance benefit of that.
That's the catch though. It has nothing to do with probability. Our current iteration of it is like a first draft. We're trying to apply old-school laws to a something 99% of the world just does not understand. It's like asking a blind kid to tell us what the color blue is. Good luck. Most people just don't see it, but such is the nature of life. The masses are slow to catch up (if ever).
Marc Clifton wrote: But why do I say hogwash? Because, except for certain very specific algorithms which require massive computation, this is not something your Facebook user is going to need. And besides, we are barely wrapping our head around distributed multi-threaded applications, what would probability programming language look like? Let's be real - the world we live in is state-full and the programs we write need to interact with a state-full world, not an indeterminate probabilistic one.
We're at the very start of it. Think of it like the Wintel relationship, Windows gets more bloated so machines get faster to pretty much give us the same speed. The problems of tomorrow will be much greater and different than the problems of today. So there will be a need, we just haven't invented all of those needs yet.
Marc Clifton wrote: Anyways, your question is great and the responses are quite interesting too. Hope you don't mind the nay-sayer attitude. It's just that I get tired of reading about all these theories that promise to revolutionize life as we know it.
Nah it's cool. I'm rough around the edges, sure. But I like it when people say what they're thinking.
Didn't say I was gonna upvote you though. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: It has nothing to do with probability.
But I thought it did. From what I've read, with a qubyte, for example, it is in all 256 possible states simultaneously until it is collapsed into a single specific observable state. Quantum computation can therefore me more efficient because you can work within the realm of "all possible answers" and only the most probable ones will resolve after repeated runs. At least that's my lay understanding.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: We're trying to apply old-school laws to a something 99% of the world just does not understand.
Indeed. To some extent, it seems like a solution waiting for problems. And god only knows, we humans are good at creating problems (as you said.)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: But I thought it did. From what I've read, with a qubyte, for example, it is in all 256 possible states simultaneously until it is collapsed into a single specific observable state. Quantum computation can therefore me more efficient because you can work within the realm of "all possible answers" and only the most probable ones will resolve after repeated runs. At least that's my lay understanding.
It turns out I need to clarify. My understand of the quantum world and the current implementation of it with quantum computers are two different things. You are correct in the implementation of it currently, but it's an approximation of what the quantum concept is all about. It's asking for real cheese, but giving us Velveeta to try and fool us.
Marc Clifton wrote: And god only knows, we humans are good at creating problems (as you said.)
Amen to that brother. The mass seems to love that nonsense, but it's where we're headed ready or not.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: My understand of the quantum world and the current implementation of it with quantum computers are two different things.
How so? My own understanding of the quantum world is based almost exclusively on what I've read from the lectures Feynman gave on quantum mechanics (the rest that I read from lay "reporting" is theoretical drivel, in my opinion), so I'm quite interested in how you view the two as different and why it's an approximation. Certainly, I can't answer that question myself even though I agree with you!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Certainly, I can't answer that question myself even though I agree with you!
Well, I come to it from a different angle. Keep in mind I'm a tech-geek by nature, but for the past few years I've been studying human nature and acting rather than pure tech stuff. So, I picked up some human nature things I can apply to it. It's something I'm just gonna have to really write about to make sense of. But basically I'm saying the whole randomness, probability based iteration is looking at the quantum world through blinders. Our concept of motion even doesn't exist in a higher dimension. Motion (and thus time) itself is a limitation, much like this randomness.
I gotta collect my thoughts on all of this and just read up on some of the tech side of it again and just write an article on my take of it. But the best way I can explain it right now, as with Andy's examples in this thread, about particles appearing in different locations is they are not. We see them that way because we're limited, not the particles.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
