http://wap.engadget.com/2015/12/09/google-we-have-proof-that-our-quantum-computer-really-works/
>Google announced a breakthrough in the field of quantum computing Wednesday. The company thinks it's found a quantum algorithm that solves problems 100 million times faster than conventional processes. If confirmed, this discovery could not only lead to iRobot-style artificial intelligence but also advance the US space program by light years.
Will we see consumer products with this sort of technology in it within our lifetime? Or, are we doomed to be 1 generation too late to see it?
interesting. i hope we're not too late.
>>7714208
How is this going to advance our space program?
>>7714216
In every single way possible. But, I guess we'd have to actually have a space program to advance in order to actually advance it.
>>7714216
it won't but it will make chrome that much better.
>>7714221
Kek
>>7714208
>quantum computing
>consumer
nope not ever going to happen, only in certain circumstances is quantum faster than todays micron FETS, Google is only interested in quantum because its bell cow, google search, will be exponentially faster as a database search and potentially cut down server cost
A quantum computer is basically a hologram. The indeterminate states can't be used to create a yes/no register without losing the quantum effects. It takes a human or equivalent to convert between the two.
Basically, you have to combine it with a conventional analog or digital computer, at which point the non-quantum computer becomes the weakest link.
Still important, though.
>>7714231
>nope not ever going to happen
Wow, I've heard that before with so many new technologies. lol
>>7714231
That is not to say that PCs won't have use for QC capabilities. It's like how array processing has become so useful that graphics cards became better at simulation scientific problems than processors with more limited array capabilities.
You could conceivably have an architecture that allows for QC computation when needed. Assuming it becomes cheap enough to implement. The marketing alone will probably boost sales enough to make it viable.
>>7714208
>we have proof that our quantum computer really works
Bullshit
How long before Google starts taking over small countries?
Wait so they're just saying that they have a good quantum annealing algorithm? Way to really spin the story "engadget". Christ.
Gunna need science on that pseudoscience so I can finally either refute or accept QM as a truly random system or simply a misjudgement of predeterminism.
of course, there's probably no such adequate explanation in click-bait e-articles
>>7714513
>Says everyone who doesn't understand what a quantum computer is
It's not like you can just install a quantum chip in your laptop and play video games exponentially faster. Quantum computing is made for mathematics and algorithms. It won't make Facebook load faster, sorry.
For anyone wondering, read this to know what's really going on:
http://francis.naukas.com/2015/12/11/tu-pc-le-gana-al-supuesto-ordenador-cuantico-de-google-y-nasa/
Don't fall in OP's bullshit.
>>7714208
>heck even the mundane material sciences could get a boost from this technology
>mundane material sciences
Goddamn normies
>>7714540
fuck off spic retard
>>7714526
this
>>7714540
Thanks, interesting.
GOOD... GOOD....
>>7714208
>but also advance the US space program by light years
you don't measure technological advancement in units of physical distance...
>advance our space program
We achieved more with shit computers 40 and 50 years ago in space than we are with mainframe arrays of 18 core xeons now.
>>7714829
Why is she so cute?
Not necessary true. Black projects and all that ..
>>7714208
>Headline: We have proof that our quantum computer really works
>Text: We've discovered a good quantum annealing algorithm
Doesn't this just mean they have a good algorithm but still lack any proof that D-wave actually provides some speed up through some quantum mechanical process. I remember a paper just last year that showed no evidence across a range of tests.
>>7715305
hyperborean
>>7714834
Back then the program was run by ex-Nazis, now it's all diversity hires.
>>7714645
Have you actually read it, you inbreed retard?
>>7715340
The idea is that since D-Wave outperforms classical computers, it must be quantum. The flaw is that D-Wave is built from the ground up to solve quantum annealing simulations while the classical machines are just off-the-shelf boxes. I thought someone had done a test comparing specially built hardware that was known to be classical and compared the two, but I can't find it.
Anyways, even if D-Wave's machines are using adiabatic quantum computing to solve problems, they are still incredibly limited. For example, you can't run Shor's algorithm on the thing, which is why the NSA and the DOD continue to pour money into things like superconducting qubits.
>>7714523
The problem with quantum computers in PCs is the need for cryogenic cooling. It's not impossible but it's going to be a real challenge.
>>7715864
>The idea is that since D-Wave outperforms classical computers, it must be quantum.
D-Wave DOESN'T outperform a classical computer, it outperforms a quantum computer simulator running a quantum annealing algorithm in a classical computer.
It hasn't even been proved that the qubits inside D-Wave are entangled. D-Wave proved that at least 4 of the 8 qubits inside a module are entangled, but there are 12^2 modules in total. That machine is a scam.
>>7715870
To get something that would work on a domestic scale, it would have to be nitrogen cooled when no one is even hoping for that much improvement since we still can't get it to work well in the milliKelvin range.
>>7715894
Are you sure the classical boxes are running a simulation of a quantum machine? Everything I have seen appears to compare the performance to a classical machine running various algorithms meant to solve quantum annealing problems, like a quantum Monte Carlo algorithm.
>>7715895
It's possible in that a machine could be built without breaking the laws of physics, but engineering such a device would be non-trivial.
>>7714535
Amd seems to think pure computing increases video game performance. Too bad they're too poor to buy into quantum computing
>>7714221
wow we'll be able to simulate 20 more trips to mars we'll never get!
>>7714236
so you're saying that if passing a complex problem in a way so that you only need to get 1/0 once is the key to quantum computing, right?
>>7716041
More or less.
For Grover's algorithm you have a function f(x) which returns 1 if x = X and 0 otherwise, and you want to find what X is.
In a classical system you'd have to test every value of x but in a quantum computer you can calculate the function u(x) = [x, f(x)] and instead of testing different values of x, you basically force the second output to 1.
Conventional logic says that forcing the output of a test won't give you any useful information about the input, but because quantum systems run on fucking magic, this actually forces x to be the value you were looking for.
>>7714236
A quantum computer takes classical input an has classical output. If it did not, it would not be a useful computing machine. The advantage of quantum computing can be fairly accurately described as massive parallelism in that it can test all possible combinations simultaneously. That is why Hadamard gates feature so prominently in many quantum algorithms.
so how is quantum computing better than normal computing? what does a quantum computer look like if its not made of transistors?
>>7714231
>What do you mean, billions of transistors on a circuit board the size of your palm?
>never going to happen, the only people who are interested in more logic gates are the banks, and that's only to cut down on their interest computing costs
Why is this board so terrible and pointlessly contrarian?
>>7714216
artificial intelligence capable of gathering data around it and interpreting 4d vectors on the fly
>>7714208
>The company thinks it's found a quantum algorithm
If it worked, they'd patent it and guard it.
This is just Google being Google, which is a popsci headline generation company that used to specialize in search engines. Nothing to see here...
>>7714208
Of course they will find "proof" so that they won't lose money. topkek
>>7716299
It has the word quantum in it which makes it better. Fuck off pleb. You don't understand quantum mechanics.
>>7717406
Neither do you.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Feynman
>>7717408
Correct, nobody understands quantum mechanics. Therefore fuck you.
Sincerely,
Richard Feynman.
>>7714526
Faggot anon little mad ;(
>>7718705
>The article isn't even about a quantum computer it's about the performance of their quantum annealing algorithm.
Eat a penis.
>>7714208
Aren't quantum computers only good for solving very specific problems anyway?
I'm pretty sure this doesn't put us closer to having better home PC's
>>7717411
You don't get it either, so fuck off.
Sincerely,
Ricky Feynman
>>7714208
>If confirmed, this discovery could not only lead to iRobot-style artificial intelligence
Pretty sure computation power doesn't create strong AI if nobody understands how to write efficient software.
>>7714225
They'll probably find new ways to waste the extra CPU time on transitions AMD animations.
>>7714231
"It's my belief that within 100 years computers will be 10 times as powerful, 1000 times as large, and so expensive as to be only afforded by the three richest kings of Europe, eh-hay-ven!"
>>7714208
I wouldn't bet on it. D-Wave has been full of shit before. Can't believe Google hitched themselves to quantum annealing.
>>7714535
This. Consumers won't need to compute things with quantum computers. At least I presume.
