Can anyone explain what makes quantum computers so much more powerful?
I have been trying to read up on them but all I can find is articles saying "they can be 1 and 0 at the same time when doing a computation"
i don't see how someone can think that sentence explains to a reader why a quantum computer is so many times faster than a traditional computer
what am i missing?
>>47459813
A brain. Wikipedia covers this.
>>47459813
It's not faster for all problems, it's only faster for certain problems (BPQ).
If your problem is (for example) search, then the ability to simultaneously search everywhere at once if going to be faster than searching one thing at a time.
Superposition and entanglement.
>>47459887
ok but i am looking for how it works
how can it be that much faster? how is the code executed that quickly
>>47459915
oh that explains everything
>how does it work
>the positions are super
>what part of super do you not understand
>>47459813
I think a normal computer only has 2 POSSIBLE states a bit and can take only one of these at a time.
So to do computations you need to to make a big array of many bits and manipulate them to perform calculations. looks like this: 01010010100
From what I've heard, quantum computers have an infinite amount of POSSIBLE positions for a bit. In zeroes and ones that could be seen as, for example, 0.392321321312 or 0.23 or 0.5 or 0 or 1.
I think they can also BE in multiple states at the same time, so they can be 0.3 and 0.4 and 0.31232312 in a single quantum (bit).
So as you can see, a few single quantums have the potential to have waaaay more possible and active states that can be calculated with, compared to the normal computers.
However, I never really read into it and English isn't my native language, so don't take my word on it.
dark matter and quarks
how do you not get it
>>47459955
OK, think about this: binary is 1s and 0s. Every computation is a choice between 1 and 0. So if you need to do a search, like >>47459887 says, you normally wind up with a tree structure of choices:
A
|| (two choices)
B C
|||| (four choices)
de fg
|||||| (eight choices)
hijk lmno
...
But if you can pick _both_ simultaneously, it linearizes the problem:
A -> B and C -> D and E or F and G ...
or so I think. Don't know certainly.
>>47459994
but when you measure them you only get a 0 or 1 at the end, how would you know what other values it was representing previously if it was representing all values at the same time?
>>47460034
>but when you measure them you only get a 0 or 1 at the end
What do you mean?
>how would you know what other values it was representing previously if it was representing all values at the same time?
Dunno. Maybe you don't need to. They could affect each other with the different states, so you only give them a problem to solve and get a solution out of them when they're finished, which takes a really short time if they're that fast. However, I honestly don't know.
>>47460014
>or so I think. Don't know certainly.
string theory says plank lengths don't work that way
>>47460072
Who cares, string theory is just science fiction anyways
>>47460087
that's what they said about e=mc2
till Einsten invented the atom bomb and proved them wrong
Super strings and black holes.
>>47459813
Quantum computing is just a buzzword that people are using to get more money from their worthless research.
Dual-Core laptops from 2011 are kicking the crap out of the D-Wave 2 machine, performing 100 times faster for "quantum favored computations" and the machine itself costs more than 10 fucking million dollars.
There is no point, aside from getting more funding to blow on coke and hookers. The only realistic use for the machines is cracking encryption schemes anyway, assuming that they do magically find a way to make them beat beater-ass core duos.
This is why everytime you see a presentation on Quantum computing, the guy is usually dressed up in some relaxed wear, typically a sweatshirt and jeans. Because they know the whole thing is just a giant joke anyway and they're getting paid to just sit around their underwear jerking off and making powerpoint presentations while their sperm count recharges.
wave/particle duality and Boolean logic
google quantum bits
pi quantum bits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_IaVepNDT4
>>47460464
fuck that nigga
>>47459934
because a quantum bit[s] is all possible combinations at the same time.
if you don't like how shit works take it up with the fucking universe, we just live in it we didn't make up this weird ass shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2DXrs0OpHU
>>47460263
Autism: the post
>>47460263
Keep talking more bud.
>>47460034
What you can do is combine the values back together (Fourier transform) to find certain patterns in them (the periods of functions). The uses we know are actually pretty limited.
Then, there's the original and still most compelling reason to want quantum computers: to simulate quantum systems.
>>47460600
if observing the bit collapses the wave function how can it being in shitloads of unobservable positions prior to collapsing the wave function help you do calculations?
>>47459934
its some weird ass property of the universe.
Imagine if for a moment that you had a magic coin that could be heads or tails whenever you needed it without you flipping it. We will say this magic coin represents a quantum computer.
A person with a regular coin that needs to be flipped to get a result like heads or tails will be a normal computer as you know it for our analogy.
Now lets say you wanted to get a short sequence, like Heads, Heads. In that very specific order.
A person flipping the coins wouldn't take too long, eventually after a few seconds of flipping a coin you would get this very specific outcome.
And let's say you have 2 magic coins, remember they don't need to be flipped to get a result, so you just conjure up heads, heads, and it appears like magic.
This is roughly the state quantum computers are in right now, they supposedly work.
But they aren't that much faster than a person flipping/a regular PC.
Their magic truly shines with long sequences of coin flips.
What if I asked you to produce Heads, heads, heads, tails, heads, heads, heads, tails, tails, tails
if I gave you 10 coins and asked you to keep flipping them until you got that very specific result you might be there for a few hours or maybe even longer.
But if we have 10 magical coins, we can just magically conjure them into that specific outcome of coin flips.
This is the power of quantum computing.
>>47460642
Because just as you can change zero to a combination of zero and one, you can change that combination of zero and one back into a zero. And you can take a combination of every nth number and figure out what n was.
So are quantum computers able to decrypt encryption made by a regular computer? Can the NSA use a QC to view my Cheddar Panini?
>>47460751
Only some types. We're also talking far-out hypothetical stuff here, certainly D-Wave is no use in breaking ciphers, nor are the unclassified research projects the NSA is sponsoring yet.
The computer travels to an alternate universe where the answer has already been figured out then brings it back to ours.
>>47460666
>Imagine if for a moment that you had a magic coin that could be heads or tails whenever you needed it without you flipping it. We will say this magic coin represents a quantum computer.
>A person with a regular coin that needs to be flipped to get a result like heads or tails will be a normal computer as you know it for our analogy.
but how does that even make sense
that's if I had an equation that said "if heads do this, if tails do something else"
how does "it's both" help? is that not just a non answer?
>>47460964
People spend years of study and research trying to truly understand how the quantum world works. And that's after taking a Quantum Mechanics class in university. You're not going to get a satisfying explanation of it contained in a 1500 word post on an imageboard. It's too unintuitive, you need to change your thinking entirely.
Go find an open course for quantum mechanics.
>>47460102
>Einstein invented the atom bomb
Einstein had nothing to do with the bomb, other than warning FDR that the Germans were working on one.
Einstein: Relativity (big stuff)
Bomb: Quantum mechanics (small stuff)
Quantum mechanics sometimes uses special relativity (which is simple) but not general relativity.
>>47460964
I never mentioned equations or what if statements.
And there are downsides to a quantum computer, like the CPU/GPU relationship each has its strengths and weaknesses, you have separate hardware for each specific task, 3d render or video transcoding. A quantum computer's specialized task might be encryption breaking and it could very well be shit at everything else.
>>47460570
>>47460538
shill detected, fuck off you quantum cuck
>>47461042
i don't know, you can normally get basic answers for very complex stuff such as how an airplane flies or an explanation of e=mc2 at least to the point where you can see how it happens
this just seems like nonsense, how can something be so complicated that when you ask someone how something works they can't say much but
"to explain how this works, first assume that it works"
as if that explains it
when people explain relativity they can tell you about mass then energy then how they are related, they don't just say "imagine if uranium could be a fireball, ok got it? good"
>>47461084
>special relativity is simple
Thanks einstein
>>47461084
>this post
wow
>>47459813
Quantum computers are a complete dead end. About the only practical use is to break public key cryptography with Schor's algorithm, but algorithms already exist which would be immune.
>Thread confirms old /g/ community left long ago and board is now filled with teenagers and /v/irmin
>>47461084
i guess besides inventing it you mean
>>47461112
Sorry about your retardation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity
SR uses flat spacetime and can be mostly understood with high school algebra.
>>47461188
Sure kid
Show us your PhD
No the one you got from the university of wikipedia isn't recognised
>>47461111
It's because those topics are relatively simple compared to this. And because you've grown up in a world that behaved according to classical mechanics which is fundamentally different than quantum mechanics. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsense. It isn't intuitive and therefore it's hard for people to understand, nevermind explain.
I'm only entertaining your ignorance because you got quads, if you want to know more, you'll have to do your own research. Stop expecting instant gratification for this, it won't happen.
>>47461111
man.. if we could answer these "why" questions we would have the nobel prize
>yeah, but WHYYYY are they entangled ?
>why are they in super position ?
>why can't we measure the spin AND position electrons ?
>why is light a wave and a particle ?
>why does space time stretch?
>whyyyyy ?
>WHYYYYYYYYYY?
What you're asking is beyond our knowledge as humans and right now all we can say is "it just is"
>>47460964
What they are trying to say, is that a quantnum computer does every possible answer, or combination of answers, of what it is meant to find.
For silly normies like you, you can only think as far as Kerry's new instagram post.
For the people that use them, they crack an encryption in decades even centuries shorter time with a quantnum computer, than a standard one.
For one example, to explain the coins analogy, he was explaining it in comparison to binaries, which is data in the forms of 1, and, 0
Back in the days of beige boxes and apple 2s, there were only a few ways to code, an example being binary.
These are the atoms of coding, the smallest possible form you can break them down to by currently achievable means.
Quantnum computers are able to answer both 1 and 0, at the same time, resulting in a shorter process to gather data.
The improvement is too small for normal use, it is specifically made to find something incredibly specific, in a vast sea of data, such as the get around to an encryption that has not yet been cracked.
For all intents and purposes, if you do not know what they are, what they are for, or what they do, you should not care, and just continue your stroll across the internet.
>>47461230
So where did you get your PhD in physics and where do you keep all your nobel prizes?
I know they're not like that but whenever people talk about quantum computers I can't help but imagine a large cube of condensed energy or some weird shit like that
>>47461199
>Show us your PhD
The fuck are you talking about? SR is second year physics undergrad shit.
>>47460102
That equation was first presented by Oliver Prietto btw
>>47461266
So nothing?
Okay.
>Why would we need something faster than horses?
I'm kekking hard reading these replies. OP you should ask /sci/, /g/ should stuck to consumer electronics.
So basically quantum computers are NFAs?
>>47461308
>I'll pretend I'm smarter than everyone else without actually proving it
>>47459813
because of superposition attributes of certain particles, the particles can have more than one state of being than just one as is the case in classical physics, so more than one potential computations can be performed simultaneously all at once, instead of in sequence as is the case with conventional computers
>>47461210
If you don't understand it how can you harness it to use it on a computer? It's like quantum computers are black boxes that just showed up one day.
I understand nothing about quantum computing.
I'm going to buy a bunch of books on the subject.
>>47461210
We harness many things in technology before we have a thorough grasp of the mechanics behind it. Black boxes are a huge part of designs in general.
>>47460102
>this is what americans actually believe
>>47460600
>>47460642
>>47460719
yeah mang
>>47460263
I had a laff
>>47461327
That's not really what quantum superposition is. If you have N qubits, there are still only 2^N states.when you measure everything. It's just that the state you observe is probabilistic, not deterministic like a classical computer.
For many computations, its worse, because you only get the correct answer with a certain probabilty.
>>47461381
>If you don't understand it, how can you use it?
Think about every complex machine you've ever used, and ask yourself if you were really thinking when you posted this.
It's kind of creepy you have a picture of a little girl saved on your computer.
>>47461506
u ruse
>>47461783
fuck off she's cute
>>47461854
confirmed for pedophile
So, if quantum computers work by manipulating the properties of atoms within the computer, could we theoretically create a black hole by using these things?
>>47461869
No.
>>47461677
I mean the people who supposedly work on them obviously.
>>47461246
Nowhere, i told you all i can explain of the subject, do not be condescending because past what i have said, there is still an infinium of things to learn, i have literally only said about two things, and explained why, how is a different question, i explained it as bare as i possibly could, i know little more on the subject of quantnum computing.
However if you feel like a 15 page document on a single subject, please feel welcome to go out and try to learn anything about quantnum physics, mathemetics etc.
>Quantum computer advances
>You can now get out of your bed and turn your computer on which has already done all your work
>It has also downloaded the perfect porn you need
It must be how gods live
>>47461783
>creepy
>>>/leddit/
>>>/gaia/
>>>/tumblr/
>>>/co/
>>47461783
>this post
>>47461869
Is this how normies really think
>complicated scientific concept that I don't understand
>I wonder how it relates to black holes?
>>47462284
I mean think of it.
We utilize quantum entanglement to manipulate of the juxtaposition of every quark within a 10,000 square mile radius of, oh I don't know, let's say South Africa.
Could we send those niggers through the event horizon?
>>47462481
>square mile radius
>>47462481
like maybe bro if we could like harness dark energy i bet we could do it shit
>>47460964
>how does that even make sense
Quantum mechanics generally void most theories we have developed of the universe over the past few hundred years. So it's normal that things don't necessarily make "sense" to you. Many scientists choose to ignore the findings of quantum mechanics because they stand in conflict with their own sciences, Einstein was one of these people.
>>47461042
There's nobody in the world who claims they understand why things in quantum mechanics work. If they make that claim, they're lying.
We can compute things and have a lot of formulas that can predict average outcomes using probabilistic approaches, but we haven't been able to really explain any of the phenomena discovered. Mostly because the experiments that we have, as for example the Double-Slit Experiment give different results when running unobserved and observed.
>>47462842
Maybe people should stop trying to measure outcomes
>>47462842
>Double-Slit Experiment give different results when running unobserved and observed.
Scientologist fuck off
>>47462868
what
>>47461783
>>47462868
What does that have to do with anything? Are you stupid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
its sort of like how intel processors are stronger than amd processors given the same wattage, core count, and cycle speed
>>47462949
At least you being a retard isn't up for question
>>47463038
Flawless argumentation... almost
>>47460666
>if I gave you 10 coins and asked you to keep flipping them until you got that very specific result you might be there for a few hours or maybe even longer.
>But if we have 10 magical coins, we can just magically conjure them into that specific outcome of coin flips.
but this is a case where you know the outcome how does it solve "the traveling salesman" problem so quickly
without knowing what outcome we want where is the work being done by the quantum computer? in other words what would the code look like
the code for the traveling salesman problem has to run though all the possibilities of distance+distance+distance, then compare the answers to see which is shortest
where is the work being done that does the filtering in the quantum computer? you can't just ask it for the answer if you don't know the answer and it cant compare while it is working because measuring any bit ends the function
>>47461210
that's not the question
the question is how the logic of the fast computing works
it's going to be a bitch to write code for a quantum computer if nobody can explain syntax or what operations rules are and makes fun of them for asking
>>47461230
>Quantnum computers are able to answer both 1 and 0, at the same time, resulting in a shorter process to gather data.
>computer:
>is this a 1 or a 0?
>both
encryption = cracked
makes perfect sense
>>47461327
but that is wrong
>>47463576
Even creepier
>>47463603
it's a disney ad campaign
the only thing wrong with it is in your mind, does it make you have dirty thoughts?
>>47463629
>no minority
fucking racis crackas
>>47463629
>>47463576
Thank you Disney. My shekels are yours.
>>47463694
White girls a best though.
>>47463694
they did the pochahontis cartoon and mulan
what more do you want
>>47462481
>square mile radius
>>47463777
ok square kilometer
why are you euope people so butthurt about the metric system?
>>47459813
Ultimately, the best way you that you can think about it is that they have a completely different way of approaching computing. As others in the thread have mentioned, the main difference between quantum computers and classical computers is the method behind the computing.
Classical computers like the ones we all use are in the realm of classical mechanics, bits are simply 0s or 1s and they are goverened by relatively simple and intuitive physical laws.
Quantum computers, as their name implies are goverened by quantum phenomena. Qubits differ from classical bits in that they are not simply 0s or 1s, but they can be a superposition of that, so if you have n qubits, they can simultaneously be in a superposition of 2^n states, whereas a classical computer can only be in one of those states.
Think of it like this, you set up some state, which is a sequence of Qubits, and you modified the entirety of the state with some operations that make up a quantum algorithm, at the end, you collapse the qubits (read up on collapsing the wavefunction) into a simple classical state, where the Qubits are no different than normal bits and read out your answer. Of course, in the realm of quantum mechanics, you are only given a probability of finding a certain answer that you want because of the non-deterministic nature of it.
Essentially speaking, a quantum computer can do everything that a classical computer can do and vice versa, but quantum computers can take advantage of quantum algorithms, which are a set of operations that you do on the entire state to try to get your desired output. Classical computers can't work with these algorithms. The fundamentally different nature of these allows quantum algorithms to be theoretically faster than classical ones in certain situations.
That's really all theory based though, quantum computing is very very much in its infancy, I'm fairly certain the largest number of Qubits that have been effectively used is < 10.
Cont.
>>47463896
>square kilometer
>square
>radius
you don't know the meaning of the words you are using.
saying somethings is square UNIT is saying it has an area of X. Do radii have area?
If quantum computing is probabilistic how in the fuck is it useful? I understand the that you can utilize superpositions to "find" the one outcome you are looking for, but how do you modify the total state such that you have a 100% probability of returning the result you want?
Is it basically just getting as high of a probability as possible (let's say .000000000001%) and running the algorithm until it returns the desired result?
>>47463898
So, imagine your computer had around 1 byte of memory to work with, it'd be kinda hard to get a really good idea of what it could do outside of the theory side of things. So it's hard to say how long it will be before these things get to more useful levels, but a lot of interesting physics and engineering are going into quantum computing right now, mainly from the military and NSA and stuff, unsurprisingly.
It'll be very interesting to see the developments of them as time goes on. If you are more interested in reading about what they can do, many of the algorithms and problems that need to be solved has a theoretical number of Qubits required before they can be done, so you can get an idea of how far away the problems are from being explored.
Other than quantum being most people's favorite physics buzzword, there are hardcore theoretical predictions that hold up as to why there are some situations that a quantum comptuer will be faster and we see no reason as to why they aren't right. Definitely interesting to follow though.
Source: in physics, I don't work with quantum computing, but I have attended talks with some of the top researchers in the field, doesn't really give me any more rigor than a brief overview though.
>>47463929
It's the same thing with doing any kind of experiment. There is going to be error, but if you get the same answer over many trials, then you can state with a certain degree of statistical significance that your answer is correct.
Probabilistic doesn't mean random.
>>47463898
>Think of it like this, you set up some state, which is a sequence of Qubits, and you modified the entirety of the state with some operations that make up a quantum algorithm
how would you do that, it seems like you would make them all 1 and zeros, then they would go off and be both ones and zeros at the same time, then you would collapse them and get ones and zeros again
but where is the filtering being done? given that you can't look at them or modify them or tell them what to do while they are in the quantum state, how are they doing work for you that eliminates all the other answers?
>>47463961
>Probabilistic doesn't mean random.
No, it means based on probability.
How is a probabilistic method of computing anymore useful than deterministic computing?
>>47463970
Our deterministic method is more useful for any problems we have now, but if there is a quantum algorithm that has exponentially better time complexity than a classical algorithm, the time it takes to assure you have the correct answer within a degree of certainty could be faster than just running the classical algorithm.
>>47463968
Ehh, this is getting a bit technical, but I'll try. You can only measure them to be either 1 or 0, but when they are in a quantum mechanical process, you have to consider all possible states they can be in, whether its a 0 or a 1 or a linear combination (superposition) of other possible states. You can perform operations on the entire wavefunction, essentially modifying the entirely probability function at once, once you measure it, it becomes classical again.
The idea is that you set it in a such a state and perform your quantum algorithm on it, the goal of your algorithm being to modify the wavefunction of your state in such a way that the most likely observable state at the end is the right answer. The key is in having a clever quantum algorithm that will produce an expectation value of the "correct answer" so that when you observe you, you get only what you want out.
>>47464037
so you preform operations on all the entangled qubits during some period of time?
like you set them up to be 0s or 1s, then let them go back to a superposition, then fuck with the whole group of them somehow, then collapse the function ?
>>47464037
>but if there is a quantum algorithm that has exponentially better time complexity than a classical algorithm, the time it takes to assure you have the correct answer within a degree of certainty could be faster than just running the classical algorithm.
How could it be verified faster?
>>47463731
And those two did badly/sold little merchandise
Disney audience confirmed racis
>>47464088
Disney audience confirmed smarter than expected.
>>47464057
Note that the qubits aren't entangled in the simple case we are discussing.
But in a very rough sense, yes. You essentially set up your system, and then after it is set up and you stop interacting with individual Qubits the state stops being deterministic. At that point it is some wavefunction, where it is essentially a collection of probabilities as to where the state will be when you observe it. You can perform operations on the entire wavefunction and then when you interact with the system to read it, it becomes classical 0s and 1s and you have an answer that is (hopefully) probably right.
>>47464095
>racists are intelligent
What happened to you then?
>>47459813
who is that semen demon?
>>47464080
All theory, in the same way that new classical algorithms have theoretical time complexities which are predicted mathematically. We can do the same thing with quantum algorithms.
It ultimately comes down to counting the steps, some quantum algorithms can solve a problem in less steps than a classical one, and we therefore say it's faster.
>>47460263
>>47464169
>some quantum algorithms can solve a problem in less steps than a classical one
I guess what I'm confused about is this. How can a probabilistic algorithm consistently solve a problem faster than a deterministic algorithm? Doesn't probability automatically mean that the algorithm's result is subject to chance?
>>47464080
One thing i should have mentioned is that we are fairly far from actually using a lot of the theorized quantum algorithms, since some require a lot of Qubits and we can only make machines with about as many as you can count on two hands.
So true verification is a bit away.
>quantum computing:the subjective bullshit applied to computers
>>47464197
quantum physics is not subjective
post more little girls
>>47459813
They have gentoo installed
>>47464203
lol
>all my best guessing is fact
>>47464247
all science only consists of best guesses
>>47464186
Yes, it does mean that it is subject to chance. But that doesn't make it slower necessarily.
Say you have a deterministic algorithm that can solve a given problem in n^3 and a quantum algorithm that can solve the same problem in n^2. The only problem is say you have to run the quantum algorithm 1000 times to be sure of your answer. So you really have the quantum algorithm being 1000n^2 time complexity.
As long as n is greater than 1000 here, the quantum algorithm is faster.
>>47464272
>all science only consists of best guesses
yeah i think that is the technical definition science
evolution is only a theory
and people act like the bible not worth reading
>>47461418
>buy lots of books
internet around a bit m80 :^)
>>47464299
models are not reality
the same process of experimentation and theorization drives the study of QM and evolution and plate tectonics
Literally the best thread on /g/
Don't let it die.
It's powered by cunny
>>47464668
but /g/ does not even know how these things work
>>47459813
Quantum-, synapse- and silicon-based computers all have fundamentally different hardware and are therefore suited for different tasks. No one type is objectively 'better'.
>>47459813
>>47459955
>>47460034
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone you're not just baiting when you're pretending to be retarded with those images
>>47460102
>>47460263
>>47461199
>>47461278
I wish 14 year olds would stop posting on /g/
>>47463908
>radii
*tips fedora*
>>47465225
>Quantum-, synapse- and silicon-based computers all have fundamentally different hardware and are therefore suited for different tasks. No one type is objectively 'better'.
did anyone ask "is one type objectively better"?
what a random post
>>47465369
>You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone you're not just baiting when you're pretending to be retarded with those images
>because 4chan is such a scholarly and serious place
>>47465225
Thanks for mentioning synapse computers. Never knew about this and Jesus Christ we are living in the future. Can't wait for my sentient sex-bot to be real.
>>47465369
You can partially fulfill your wish by not posting
>>47465160
literally nobody knows how these things werk
That doesn't make it any less technology
>>47465586
>literally nobody knows how these things werk
how do you program something if you don't know how it works
Can it run crysis on max settings, 4k?
>>47465601
You don't have to fully understand how computers work in order to make some shitty Java minecraft clone. The actual scientists only understand some of the tech. They understand enough to build it and program it in a simple enough way, but they don't understand many ways in which quantum mechanics work. It's still such a new field.
>>47465619
you have to understand the logic of how it works, as in "call this, if it's X then do Y"
you can't just yell at a computer and make it give you answers
>>47460263
This.
Same thing with the climate change crowd.
>>47465691
Well they understand the logic. Someone just learning programming probably understands if statements, but they don't have to know that the CPU has ALUs, and how ALUs work, or how all the other components work together or what buses are.
>>47460034
I had this huge explanation for you but my browser tab suddenly closed and I lost it all. Then my tv started calling me gay.
So, basically, it's manipulation of atoms. Manipulation achieved through some method of perceiving the change without a human eye.
In order to achieve this form of observation we could probably use some mechanism ( like a a really strong ) that can perceive a change in anti-matter "levels" ( I like to think of this part as perceivable change in negative space/"silhouettes" ( maybe a kind of strong lens and some thing that could "read" the emitted waves via a lens, probably another weaker lens, so on and so forth ) and then we map instances as they occur in a single common atomic structure to information states. Once we've mapped information states we apply the configuration of observations to a similar atomic structure or one that achieves entanglement within an atomic distance short enough to achieve entanglement within our perceivable time frame, that of which is being observed by a separate lens that hands information about the correspondence up to something closer to our level ( we are about as small to a sun as atoms are to us kind of thing ). The calculations are done instantly but the transfer rate of the information is probably going to stay the same, considering that we still live at this, our, human scale and can only perceive at rates relative to our common cognition.
The reason people say a quantum bit can be 0 and 1 is due to the fact that even a bit appears to be at 0 when entropy is at it's lowest ( by electrical standards ), and at 1 when entropy is at it's highest, for that one "bit".
>>47465876
Taking that into consideration, quantum bits can achieve a similar 0 or 1 state by dealing with the entropy in a more qualitative manner, where entropy was only "random" because we can only gather the information at our perceivable rates, so by the time we've "chosen" a state to observe the state has changed an infathomable number of times, as stated from the human level.
So, by electrical standards, or maybe light standards, just like regular bits change state millions of times at any given observalble moment, quantum bits change state millions upon millions upon millions of times at any one observable moment. Kinda like how a helicopter's propeller appears to have a striped section across the diameter as it spins that to us looks like the propeller is spinning slowly, a quantum bit is made possible by the fact that we have two observable sides relating the position of the protons, at any one moment, "relaying" information that can infer a possible unique state which we then map to pieces of information like the individual letters, numbers, behaviors, or states of a particular program that we have already determined and can map to these new unique states.
If used in conjuction with probability schemes, we can pinpoint the quantum time at which our particular behavior or state occurs and have that "relay" the current state or behavioral pattern to the entangled atomic structure that we have set up to "read" from.
In this way the calculations occur within the time frame of a single momentus state at lightspeed ( or at full potential for a single proton ) and it only takes as much time light takes to reach our conduit where the light is then magnified or where the light is then used in some way to display a perceivable and recognizable pattern to screen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_IaVepNDT4
>>47465887
tl;dr
quantum bit is the interpretation of atomic states from atoms related to other atoms through entanglement. Then, from entangled atoms, we draw conclusions, as to the current computer state, and display relevant information. Quantum computer consists of quantum bits mapped to pre-defined ordinances. The quantum bits are intertwined/"meshed"/"weaved" to create simulated patterns of conformity that allow us to infer results from the "calculations" made at the quatum level. Calculations refering to states that were codified to represent things we would want to use to reach a desired conclusion.
I think maybe input will still be slow, unless we can just speak at it and have an air of intention be interpreted at the atomic level, much like inflection allows us to differentiate sarcasm from gravity from severity from surprise from inquiry from etc. I guess that would mean we would be imprinting our intention by speaking at it, and it would be inferred from the anti-matter rather than the atomic structure itself, where anti-matter is a sort of negative-space/"silhouette".
Want me to elaborate on anything?
oops I have a shit ton of missing sentences and clauses. My mistake. I was excited to have reached the end.
>>47465948
lemme re check my text file and then I'll repost.
>>47465876
>>47460034
Here is the corrected text:
I had this huge explanation for you but my browser tab suddenly closed and I lost it all. Then my tv started calling me gay.
So, basically, it's manipulation of atoms. Manipulation achieved through some method of perceiving the change without a human eye.
In order to achieve this form of observation we could probably use some mechanism ( like a a really strong lens ) that can perceive a change in anti-matter "levels" ( I like to think of this part as perceivable change in negative space/"silhouettes" ) that are relayed by, maybe, a kind of strong lens and then observed by some thing ( shrug ) that could "read" the emitted waves via the lens. Probably relayed to another weaker lens, so on and so forth ) and then we map instances, or atomic states, as they occur in a single common atomic structure to information states. Once we've mapped information states we apply the configuration of observations to a similar atomic structure or one that achieves entanglement within an atomic distance short enough to achieve entanglement within our perceivable time frame, that of which is being observed by a separate lens that hands information about the correspondence up to something closer to our level ( we are about as small to a sun as atoms are to us kind of thing ). The calculations are done instantly but the transfer rate of the information is probably going to stay the same, considering that we still live at this, our, human scale and can only perceive at rates relative to our common cognitive level. Please don't give me that female 10ms shit. Way faster.
The reason people say a quantum bit can be 0 and 1 is due to the fact that even a bit appears to be at 0 when entropy is at it's lowest ( by electrical standards ), and at 1 when entropy is at it's highest, for that one "bit".
>>47466056
Taking that into consideration, quantum bits can achieve a similar 0 or 1sub_1 towards 1sub_infinity state by dealing with the entropy in a more qualitative manner, where entropy was only "random" because we can gather the information at our perceivable rates, so by the time we've "chosen" a state to observe the state has changed an infathomable number of times, as stated from the human level.
So, by electrical standards, or maybe light standards, just like regular bits change state millions of times at any given observalble moment, quantum bits change state millions upon millions upon millions of times at any one observable moment. Kinda like how a helicopter's propeller appears to have a striped section across the diameter as it spins. that. to us. looks like the propeller is spinning slowly. A quantum bit, then, is made possible by the fact that we have two observable sides, from any one direction, relating the position of the protons, at any one moment. The observable nature of this is then said to be "relaying" information that can we infer and relate to a, possible, unique state which we then map to pieces of information like the individual letters, numbers, behaviors, or states of a particular program that we have already determined and can map to these new unique states. Using full programs the way we do algorithms.
If used in conjuction with probability schemes, we can pinpoint the quantum time at which our particular behavior or state occurs and have that "relay" the current state, or behavioral pattern, to the entangled atomic structure that we have set up to "read" from.
In this way the calculations occur within the time frame of a single momentus state at lightspeed ( or at full potential for a single proton ) and it only takes as much time as light takes to reach our conduit from whence the light is then magnified or from whence the light is then used in some way to display a perceivable and recognizable pattern to screen.
>>47466068
tl;dr
quantum bit is the interpretation of atomic states from atoms related to other atoms through entanglement. Then, from entangled atoms, we draw conclusions, as to the current computer state, and display relevant information. Quantum computer consists of quantum bits mapped to pre-defined ordinances. The quantum bits are intertwined/"meshed"/"weaved" to create simulated patterns of conformity that allow us to infer results from the "calculations" made at the quatum level. Calculations refering to states that were codified to represent things we would want to use in attempts to reach a desired conclusion.
I think maybe input will still be slow, unless, of course, we can just speak at it and have an air of intention be interpreted at the atomic level, much like inflection allows us to differentiate sarcasm from gravity from severity from surprise from inquiry from gf, from etc. I guess that would mean we would be imprinting our intention by speaking at it ("calibration") and it would be inferred from the anti-matter resolution rather than the atomic structure itself, where anti-matter is a sort of negative-space/"silhouette".
Want me to elaborate on anything?
So the half would be the center placement where you can only see on of the protons. Or neutrons. I forget what you call those spinning ball things.
Sorry, I'm a computer science major.
no one?
bump because someone should at least read it, considering I just spent an hour writing this out for you guys. I'll read back I guess and see if maybe it's just because it's already been cleared up.
The problem with this theory is that eavesdropping could be achieved by simply having a computer that uses quantum bits that correspond to any other quantum bit, like a master key quantum bit.
Another issue that could arise from a master key quantumbit would be that this would make less of the arduous nature that is intrinsic to the process of mapping the brain as a structure with atomic configurations being the determinant, at least at its current state, and make things like "reading" minds, or relating states to pre-determined notions of emotion/intention possible. We'd end up with a sort of minority report situation where the events that led up to the current atomic state were recalled by the current atomic state through a similar quantum derived process that uses the "ripples" as inferences from the past and "reverse-engineers", for lack of a better term, a future state using the supposition of conformity in the atomic process as a map tp time and it's related and seeming causality, as "time and event" are relayed through the quantum phase.
Quarks are smalelr than atoms, right?
>>47459955
how about reading what superposition and entanglement means... or you know absolving highschool physic
>>47466299
This is probably why it is said that if we travel back in time, we are relayed to a parallel state in the universe and fork our perception of the time phase to a new space-time continuum, or that line that forks and reaches a parallel in the movies. Because intention is one thing, and praxis another, from there the relative phasing between intents reaches a possibility as a plausible outcome and possibly to certainty but only if considered among other possibilities as plausibilities to certainties.
>>47465427
Yes, OP asked why quantum computers were better ("what makes quantum computers so much more powerful").
>>47466316
It certainly brings about a cool distinction between intent as subjective approach to a situation, or state, and intent as an applied conjunction of our intent and the object at hand's level of conformity to a pre-disposition inferred from without the quantum understanding.
>>47461188
yeah mang, now try to understand general relativity with high school algebra ;^)
>protip: special and general doesnt mean harder and easier
>>47460263
>I have an incredibly dim understanding of academia and don't realise that the D-Wave isn't a true quantum computer and has nothing to do with academic research into quantum computing
>>47462284
yes
>>47465427
>>47466378
This statement is true only under the pretense that even a quantum computer will only relay a single state at a time. meaning that it will only relate what we have, as individuals, come to determine to be the better position. But then follows the idea of intent and subjective intent, where as individuals we may want to pursue a more visual/audible/tangible/palpable/etc. approach to optimization.
You're right, they wouldn't necessarily better, but that may only be so outside of specific goals and the factors something like a culture might find to be more appreciable.
Kinda like how Indians think memorizing long strings of information is cooler, and asians think a complicated, slipper thing is cool, black people think that something a lot of people like is cool, white people think the more difficult it is to understand the cooler, mexicans idk but I personally like it when something is unregimented and can be approached from most or many directions ( most or many to allow the exclusion factor to favor privacy ), women like the conformity to their flow, etc.
>>47466395
It means specific and not so specific amirite
>>47459915
>>47460014
Sounds like complete bullshit.
>>47460263
What he said.
>>47463210
just my imaginations, but lets say
>every answer is mapped to some place in memory
>after all of them finish (which is around the same time since quantum stuff)
>compare the shortest answer
>by the position in the memory get which path it was
nobody is forcing you to just use quantum stuff in quantum computer, it probably has (or will have) a normal function for io mapping etc..
I dont think it would be practical to write to X possible memory places at the same time every time you want any IO. Right now people are working on the quantum part, but for a complete quantum computer there will surely be some synchronization with regular cpu, memory etc..
Quantum physics sounds like a cult
In a few centuries there will be a new religion around worshiping quarks and shit.
Screencap this.
>>47466395
No I read a wiki article I got this shit
I plan to tell my parents that I'll drop out of highschool since education is redundant in the information age
Quantum voodoo aside
>Graphite CPU when?
I am looking forward to the age when we dont need fucking GPU and GPU programming and everything can be done on CPU alone
>>47466538
Can confirm
>>47459813
Try asking /sci/
>>47466538
Agreed
>>47466538
Quantum physics is like 100 years old man
>>47459813
Superposition
>>47466721
I always worry that sci will only approach something as a set of formulas and suppositions based in math in order to exclude any non-keepers of the faith from joining in or learning without their fullest consent. It's strange how territorial they can be about a concept yet refuse to treat it with the utmost respect and with respect to the intentions of its creator. Kind of like people that talk shit about others trying to learn linux, which Stallman has made open source, in terms that leave out the people that haven't had the privilege of going to their university or discussion groups.
Stallman made it open source so people could learn from it. So people could exchange the ideas therein and mold them to their liking, and in essence, extend the reach of the kernel or metaphorize the current state into usable knowledge that will help all people get into "Computer".
It's not like bro assholes and those laughing whores give two shits about reading anything anyway. They just fuck someone, pay someone and have their shit given to them. But that's a whole nother thing.
>>47466538
Much like the human can learn as time goes, and much like it seems to mimic the behavior of the universe as it expands, where it expands due to the nature of information/accretion of mass over time ( with respect to the mind and universe ) maybe a current religion like say christianity or catholicism or buddhism in all of their vague generalities will come to inhabit a sort of aspect that applies itself to Quantum Physics. Kinda like how Catholicism conformed to a helopcentric belief from the idea that the earth was the center of the universe.
>>47466845
Yeah but it wasnt taken seriously until recently
>>47466845
ur mum is 100 years old fgt
>>47466879
errr they probably still think it's the center of the universe. I meant to say solar system.
Graphine Transistors when?
>>47460034
>how would you know what other values it was representing previously if it was representing all values at the same time?
You can't.
You only get one answer.
And all answers are possible, including the wrong ones.
But the PROBABILITY of getting a correct answer is higher than getting an incorrect answers.
So if you repeat the program a couple of times and get the same answer over and over you can be fairly sure it's correct.
>>47466975
The key here is representing all values. Perception is finicky this high up in the scale, at least relative to observations made at the quantum level. What is one unit of time to us, could have culminated from 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
units of time at the quantum level, to put things in perspective. Of course, there might be more strict regulations on that mater but just stir up your cognitive faculties.
>>47467012
Was it really necessary to spam all these zeroes when you could've typed 1E256 ?
>>47467046
I don't know that format well enough. You're right, though.
>>47467051
1E256 is lazy engineer slang for 1*10^256
>>47467012
That has nothing to do with what I said.
And no: quantum calculations are way slower than traditional calculations.
It's all about doing less calculations, rather than doing them faster.
>>47466885
It made some people uncomfortable early on, but it was developed very rapidly and accepted in the scientific community very quickly.
>>47466157
I read it and I'm in physics as a career. I'm sorry, but your explanation is not very good, it seems framed in such a way to confuse people and try to get them to believe by intimidation. You use the idea of antimatter very often in your posts and no where in the literature or in talks I have attended have I heard antimatter being used as an important part of quantum computing. I can't think of any physical reasoning behind and I'm inclined to believe you just like the buzzword feel to it.
Generally speaking your language is very unclear and after reading everything, a lot of your ideas behind the physics is plain wrong, The strong presence of a "human" element and talking about our intentions and perceptions in your post is laughable and reminds of that New Age spiritual bullshit. You didn't explain anything about quantum computers, you imposed your own personal clouded view of how quantum mechanics works into your post and stripped it if any validity or sense. No one should take what you have written seriously as there are less bullshit resources that explain the idea of quantum computing in a much simpler way and correct way. The Wikipedia article does a good job, but unfortunately to get a strong understanding you would need to have at least a base understanding of the physics of quantum.
>>47467411
Tell that to Einstein
>>47467012
>unit of time
>>47467411
>as a career
>small and asian
>>47467423
Einstein was wrong about his views of quantum physics, just because one prominent physicist didn't like the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics doesn't mean it wasn't accepted in the scientific community. The predictions it made were tested fairly shortly after the theories were developed, the results agreed with the theory and most people hopped on board.
>>47467509
We're mainly white guys : ^)
>>47467134
Consider that the quantum realm is vast and and in many parts "undiscovered", possibly due to our limited reach of the universe. With time, we will have more of an understanding of the outer lying judgements of the study and eventually be able to differentiate towards that degree with a much greater efficiency, just like we did with calculus and the exponential degrees.
Current quantum styled calculations are slow, but to say that quantum action as representative of the rate of calculation being slower than electro grade calculations is just plain silly. It's clear you haven't been paying attention to the fact that quantum computers aren't actually in use yet.
Consider it this way, quantum states can be represented by unique symbols, much like asian writing. If you gather them up and combine meanings to reach more unique meanings, a person might be able to read it quicker and grasp a concept quicker than someone who were reading the three combinatorial factors to the meaning.
I guess in english one equivalent is I am -> I'm. We've omitted the inclusion of space between the concept of "I am" and it bares the same meaning.
>>47467134
It has everything to do with what you said. How is it possible for something to be anything at all within a set simultaneously? Perception! If I were an atom, shit, if I were distressed even or really enjoying myself, time would appear to go slower or faster. If I'm running faster and chasing a person on a bike, the person on the bike appears to be going slower than if I were standing still.
I don't think you know what a computer is. Hint: It's not the machine.
>>47467568
Then it makes sense you would immediately dismiss it on intention to confuse and make worse.
Tell me where I'm being confusing and I'll clarify. I'm sorry if your Physics degree didn't explain some of the matter of the language to be put in place but it is as clear as it can be without relating the whole thing to the cryptic nature that is the plug and chug theory application.
>>47465435
>dat ass
mhh mh
>>47467568
>No No No, this is all wrong. If you do it this way you'll go to hell.
>>47467657
Is English your first language?
>without relating the whole thing to the cryptic nature that is the plug and chug theory application
I don't even know what this sentence means.
>>47467411
btw, intimidation?
Where in the world did you get that? Are you sure you read the right post? None of your defense had anything to with Physics, and instead just flambasted the thing on the grounds that MY intentions were bad.
As for these resources, name one not wikipedia, because that's what I used. Without getting too far into the specifics of the technologies used, because quantum computing was originally frame in a generic manner using mathematics.
Saying something like Fourier Transformation is what made it possible is more along the lines of what you described my behavior to be,
>implying
>>47467726
I'm seeing a lot of shitty english on 4chan lately, worse than usual
Guess they're trying to import indians and russians after everyone left for octochan
>>47467726
And you won't because it's against your religion, Physics Career.
Don't you just go to school, learn your physics as the proper theory and formulas, then state a hypothesis and apply the proper formulas and equations to muster out some kind of comparable value to an observation?
This is the problem with you "white" guys. You just point, flambast like your fat ass mother taught you, and say, okay okay okay but why didn't you dot the i and why is that t crossed in a slope?
I'm pretty sure OP wouldn't be asking this question if he had a Physics Degree. And i'm pretty sure a reputable physicist wouldn't be simply saying NO. He would be wanting to teach or to talk about it in great detail, unless of course, he was just doing a job he was trained to do.
Go read LessWrong's sequence on the topic.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence
>>47467766
Same fag. English isn't an American Invention. At least stick to the proper principles and definitions. Scientific english is esoteric on a good day, cryptic on a bad one.
>>47467411
http://lesswrong.com/lw/oj/probability_is_in_the_mind/
>>47467789
shitskin plz
>>47459813
who is she?
>>47460526
I watched that video, and I somehow know less about how the fuck these fucking machines of fucking black magic work.
>>47467836
Just needed to understand your intention a bit more. Thanks for the reply. Thanks for the baseline, but no thanks for the bias.
I think it would help people to know that a bit isn't a physical thing, it's the concept that the physical components make possible observations out of.
A bit is a 1 or 0 and neither 1 or 0 are physical things. Instead we use a bubble on a form, a signal on the computer, etc. Just the same, a quantum bit isn't a floating piece of magic.
>>47467789
I already made a post earlier to OP that attempted to explain it on a simple level. I came in this thread with the intention of helping people understand.
So i felt I already contributed in that regard. When I saw your post, which in my opinion is not a correct way of answering the question, i attacked it to try to discourage people from believing it. I think there are better resources out there for people to learn about this so all I want to do is steer them away from you.
When someone is trying to learn something and they come across a post like yours that is entirely incomprehensible, it's best that they just ignore it.
>>47467918
Once again, you haven't added any possible physics to the matter. You just said you are wrong, no. You are wrong, no. I am right because I have a degree in physics, yes. You are wrong, no.
You are female, btw.
>>47467917
There's a whole section on Wikipedia about what physical systems can be used as Qubits, which probably would be a good resource to look at. In order to demystify things.
>>47467918
Link your post
>>47467798
>>47467831
>lesswrong
