Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:12:12 UTC No. 16217643

We will also need genuine artificial intelligence, square circles, and everlasting gob-stoppers. Don't worry; we can store all of that in portable holes.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:18:46 UTC No. 16217671

i would imagine classic computers would still have a place, thinking they are more compact and use less energy than quantum computers

sounds like if asking "why not use nuclear power for cars?"
it could be done but would be overkill for the simple need

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:40:09 UTC No. 16217744

>>16217614
Tell me right now how to physically perform a single information processing operation on a quantum computer. Say one with 2-qbits, using 2 entangled photons as physical realization of the state. Explain how you would do an extremely simple computer operation (like some truth table, or perhaps addition) with said entangled states, using optical equipment. Im not asking you for the math, you can represent all changes with an operator in some representation, im asking you to describe how to build it

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:40:48 UTC No. 16217747

>>16217614
I thought they couldn't do everything a classical computer can do, or if they can they do it much slower because they have to emulate it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:45:38 UTC No. 16217768

>>16217747
they are specialized, built to perform a single type of calculation.
Not so different from original computers that had to be programmed by physically reconnecting the wiring, so its like building a new computer for each program
Its just supposed to be very good at that single operation. We see the same idea with these specialized chips that mine crypto or these AI chips from NVidia

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:46:35 UTC No. 16217769

>>16217744
schizophasia

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:48:51 UTC No. 16217781

>>16217769
You think asking how to perform a computer operation is schizophasia?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:49:53 UTC No. 16217789

>>16217614
id say quantum computing is the biggest scam in tech history but $7trillion chatbots have already surpassed that

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:51:18 UTC No. 16217794

>>16217769
This post perfectly displays the sort of brain dead larping dunning krugerite that has destroyed this board and /g/.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:01:49 UTC No. 16218017

>>16217744
I don't work with photons so idk and doing sum with quantum computers is hard, you'd need a lot of gates. That's also why QC will not useful for every problem, just a limited set of problems. And the classical computing will still remain.
But here's how you do a simple NOT gate with an electron. Since e has spin up or down, you could apply an external magnetic field in say z direction. Then apply an oscillating ac field in y direction. This will cause spin to precess (rabi, larmour). By suitably tuning the B field, you can cause a spin flip, which corresponds to NOT gate. The obvious problem is as you may have guessed, the gate fidelity won't be very accurate.
>>16217794
You're exactly the problem not the other guy. His response is humourous, yours is condescending. You could've posted an answer or kept your whore mouth shut instead of sitting at your Reddit high horse pointing "duunniinnggg kkkruugggeer". Kys asap

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:14:50 UTC No. 16218048

isn't the "quantum computers are limited" line only true because people haven't spent much time on quantum algorithms yet?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:40:14 UTC No. 16218377

>>16217744
Rotation and phase Change operations should be trivial since they are single bit operations, and CNOT has been demonstrated experimentally
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02054
This forms a universal set of quantum gates.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:48:58 UTC No. 16218398

>>16217614
It's wrong to think that "quantum computers" are a thing. It's more correct to think in terms of "quantum coprocessors." There must still be a computer in the loop.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:54:26 UTC No. 16218417

>>16218377
>trivial not operation on a 2-state qubit
>50% chance of reading the correct value
you cant even make this shit up

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:25:20 UTC No. 16219021

>>16217744
Keep looking at the bits until they fall into a state that you want

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:43:15 UTC No. 16219040

>>16217614
its just bruteforce
you will just crack cryptography nothing else

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 10:46:30 UTC No. 16219268

>>16217614
>Can't they do everything a classical computer can do and more? What would be the point of classical computing?

Yeah but they are expensive, hard to maintain, need really specific conditions, ect.Their only real world applications in my eyes will be breaking encryption and possibly future super computers for groups with enough money (maybe).

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 10:50:45 UTC No. 16219274

>>16217614
As far as I understand quantum computers are good for certain types of calculations that have well-defined algorithms developed explicitly for quantum computing. It likely won't be as fast for basic logic and arithmetic.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:15:28 UTC No. 16219326

>>16217614
>Can't they do everything a classical computer can do and more?
No, they can do very specific things and noting else.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:23:21 UTC No. 16220019

>>16218017
>His response is humourous,
Im the gut that asked how to do a quantum computation (any computation, the simples one) with 2-qbits based on photons. I didnt find the answer to be humorous. I expected either vague answers somewhat pointing to the right direction or some kind of attack. Been here long enough to know the behavioral patterns. Its just vexing.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:48:04 UTC No. 16220054

>>16217614
Will they be powered by fusion reactors?

I won't hold my breath.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:51:50 UTC No. 16220065

>>16218017
>Since e has spin up or down, you could apply an external magnetic field in say z direction. Then apply an oscillating ac field in y direction. This will cause spin to precess
the 1960s called, they want their magnetic tape drive back

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:59:12 UTC No. 16221013

>>16218417
better than 0% chance of reading the correct value

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 02:44:48 UTC No. 16221135

>>16218377
schizophasia

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 07:04:52 UTC No. 16221474

>>16218017
>rabi process
Genius, so you apply an oscillating field to your system so it couples and also oscillates, and ends up being in some random state when you measure it. Wow, such computation

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 07:44:17 UTC No. 16221513

>>16221013
if this is a joke, kudos. if not you're a fucking moron

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 10:32:17 UTC No. 16221701

>>16221474
You can flip the spin by selecting ac field frequency. So spin up goes to spin down and vice versa.
If you're still talented, why not come up with your own technique

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 11:34:23 UTC No. 16221736

>>16221701
it oscillates, its not some flip and stays flipped

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:56:50 UTC No. 16222296

>>16217614
We will need classical computers to compute, manage and store the data we get from quantum computers.
Very roughly explained:
Quantum computer is like prophet of God, the one who God will speak to and classic computer is like priest, who write down and translate the jibberish to humans.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:43:17 UTC No. 16222502

>>16217614
>Once there are error free
fundamentally, one has to run a quantum algorithm over and over again to be sure the result is correct
at best, you can make it highly probable that the answer you read out is correct

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:49:58 UTC No. 16222514

>>16217614
Even when sticking to conventional computing bottleneck in most applications is not computing power but code. Moores law held true for computers, meanwhile the code we execute has hardly improved since the 60s in comparisson.
When OP says 'everything' OP doesnt mean hard maths problems like prime factorization.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:54:26 UTC No. 16222523

>>16222514
The code got so much worse that it essentially elliminated the gains from hardware.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:21:31 UTC No. 16222585

>>16217781
you know very well it's the way you write. we can see it too, anon. just take your meds and stop bothering people.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:23:16 UTC No. 16222590

>>16218048
maybe, who knows. there's no great genius behind quantum computers like in your marvel flicks. just a bunch of worker bees doing incremental work and we don't know what we don't know.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:57:45 UTC No. 16222661

>>16217614
>What would be the point of classical computing?
You'll still need it for mundane tasks. But "Quantum Superiority" is the point when a quantum computer equals a top performing classical machine. At that point, all you have to do is add Qubits to increse its performance exponentially...theoretically, anyway. Hopefully*, AI can keep up with the necessary algorithms to facilitate all that thinkin'.

*Skynet, lol

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:00:01 UTC No. 16222666

>>16222585
Not at all. You seem to think that any technical language is schizophasia, no matter how elementary.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:03:17 UTC No. 16222673

>>16222666
He most likely thinks quantum mechanics is fake

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:09:13 UTC No. 16222685

>>16217744
>im asking you to describe how to build it
ask the fellas at IBM. they even let you use their computers and teach you how to write programs for them.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:19:37 UTC No. 16222701

>>16222685
>teach you how to write programs for them

>Glowies crowdsourcing their spyin' antics
Terry tried to warn you. God only needed 16 colors and look what happened to you sheeple.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:21:13 UTC No. 16222704

>>16222701
as I said, take your meds.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:35:56 UTC No. 16222733

>>16222704
Nigger cattle detected.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 20:52:50 UTC No. 16222778

>>16217614
Try using a simulation to do simple stuff. Since the computational requirements to simulate a quantum computer grow exponentially a simulation running in a super computer only handles 4x more qbits than a simulation running in the browser.

https://algassert.com/quirk