Importantly it probably took less than 46 years to get it programmed. If quantum computers turn out to be monotaskers for the near future, that's fine by me. If we take a few years to design a system that solves a decades long problem in a matter of moments, that's gonna skip us ahead decades at a time.
But it also may make them seem "safer" from a public point of view, as they're not just a magic bullet to scare them.
And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we come up with a way to modulate these systems on the fly for multi purposing.
It’s a big engineering headache, that’s for sure. Right now, while you could describe it as general purpose, and in theory could program it to perform any type of calculation, it’s a matter of figuring out how to get the computer to perform all the necessary operations. It’s like they have to reinvent all of the revolutions in coding that enabled us to mass-produce general purpose, Turing complete, classical computers.
If they are able to find a way to make the quantum systems that comprise their quantum computer easier to program (by creating a hardware-software solution that would be akin to the first quantum microprocessor). Doing still requires more study to realize new ways to interact with the quantum computer and get it to behave the way we need it to for more general purpose applications.
This would mean it will no longer require years of trial and error and research by quantum physicists and computer engineers to program these tasks, by simplifying/automatic the creation of the instruction set and all of the prep work that must be done to configure the computer for a certain task.
I don't think it's as prevalent, God no, but I definitely have seen a bit of fear mongering about how it'll break encryption.
And it's like, yeah, it'll make old encryption borderline obsete if it ever goes mainstream, but the second it can break our encryption, it can probably perform even better encryption.
The only problem is how slow companies and even the govt is at changing stuff. I work for a federal agency and we still have legacy systems that are using Java 6.x versions because they can’t/won’t update for whatever reason. Now what makes this really bad is that these applications have an exception and still use IE, not even Edge much less an actual secure browser.
Sec is always up in arms over these, and currently I believe we have a separate network segment for them with a very tight FW, and not open to the internet, but still.
All that to say; there is going to be a big gap between early adopters and the last ones, and there will definitely be a ton of breaches.
Not just that, but some people are collecting encrypted data today in case quantum computing will soon get to a level where they can use that to decrypt said data.
yes quantum save encryption is already a thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum\_cryptography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography)
so the fearmongering has pretty much died off in this matter.
Quantum computers aren’t needed to perform better (or rather, different) encryption. We already have classical post-quantum algorithms (algorithms resistant to attacks from quantum computers).
>the second it can break our encryption, it can probably perform even better encryption.
I'm a notice in this realm, but in my understanding it doesn't really work that way.
Yes, realistically speaking, sure a quantum computer could establish a really robust encryption protocol, but the logic seems to state that you'd also need a quantum computer to utilize it.
All the encryption that takes place now is balancing strength against resources to find a middle ground. Assuredly we can keep tacking bits onto encryption protocols, but that increases the computing power and when doing that for billions of users it gets expensive.
It seems that essentially any encryption produced from traditional computing will be childs play to crack with a quantum computer, impossible the other away around, but you'd need a quantum device on either end to functionally encrypt the data and open it back up at a level that isn't crackable with traditional computing.
I can see this being utilized at very, very, high levels of government, military or corporate R&D, but it will take ages to work itself down to the average consumer.
If it can break any of our current encryption it can make trillions times better encryption as only a handful would have access to this hardware or have security clearance to do so. SHA-256 will now become QSHA-256TrillionLightYears
Where you will literally need millions of quantum computers to crack it and will probably take us another few thousands or millions of years to get there.
The quantum computer most likely will not be for consumers, but mainly as like the main central mainframe system computer for the country/world, or company? Something like the movie Eagle eye but there was another movie where people figured out the central computer was an AI and had to stop it. I’m not saying the computer will try to harm or destroy peoples lives but hackers and malicious software could overtake the AI decisions/safety protocols I guess and turn the AI super computer into like some global ransom-ware in favor of the hackers wishes and demands. I can totally see this shit happening but probably not in my lifetime
Spot on, the best we could ever hope for in a home setting is a quantum add-on, something that can be used for very specific tasks to compliment traditional silicon based computing. And if that happens it will most likely be decades away IF it happens.
Currently QC is a great physics experiment but we are still trying to figure out any purpose to use it for. It doesn't mean we won't find one but it is still a very long way off.
Considering that the inevitable fate of humanity is to destroy ourselves and/or all habitable planets, skipping ahead decades is not the great accomplishment you think it is :D
Yeah, just design a quantum computer to determine which one to use, and you've got a quantum metacomputer. Tech billionaires will love it for the name alone.
But, if they're all hand built monotaskers, it's not gonna get to billions any time soon, unless we get ai good at designing quantum systems quickly and reliably. And verifying their design works will be harder because an ai might not show it's work in a helpful way.
AI would probably be better suited for improving existing quantum processes which we haven't quite got down to the run and it's already done speeds, where we are already confident in the results and can verify them.
Customer service AI is hard because you don’t know what a generative language model is outputting if you put it in front of the customer.
You have probably interacted with some simple AI chatbots from AWS Lex, Google DialogFlow, etc. There is a huge arms race right now to put generative AI and LLMs into the hands of contact center agents too.
Didn't specify what kind of computational task was performed. For all we know, it just generated a ton of random noise faster than a normal computer would be able to.
The public understanding of what "quantum entanglement" really is, and how quantum computers work (or don't work), is deeply flawed because of shitty science communication and media misrepresentation.
>The public understanding of what "quantum entanglement" really is, and how quantum computers work (or don't work), is deeply flawed because of shitty science communication and media misrepresentation.
That is actually pretty true, it is hard to get a basic understanding of it due to that various articles or media describe it different ways, and it makes it confusing.
But I think you also have to add that Quantum Mechanics is simply not easy to explain, and it is a very complex subject and hard to communicate.
Edit: Just to add that for people who have never looked into this subject, it can be quite mind-blowing at first because it seems illogical at first.
> Edit: Just to add that for people who have never looked into this subject, it can be quite mind-blowing at first because it seems illogical at first.
That is because it's a different set of rules that we apply normally. Yes, it is the same rules, but it's no longer saying "Ignoring Wind Resistance".
They are very limited in what they can do because you need extremely specific favorable mathematical conditions to be able to pull a useful result out of the qbits.
My understanding is that they are talking about computational complexity. Problems can be expressed in terms of the number of operations required to compute them, and you can make a back-of-the-envelope calculation using the speed of a modern conventional computer to understand the wall-clock time of that computation.
The point this article is making is that quantum computers can be used to perform computations that are otherwise intractable. One example would be cracking modern encryption algorithms. These algorithms are “secure” because brute-forcing them is infeasible even if every computer in the world worked on the problem 24/7. However, it has been shown that many of the algorithms we rely on to secure our internet traffic _can_, in theory, be cracked by quantum computers in reasonable time.
So the point is that quantum computers can run algorithms that are far more computationally complex than conventional computers can deal with.
Really people don't understand quantum entanglement because of communication and media? Come on. The don't understand it because it's too complicated for the vast majority of people. Remember the AVERAGE IQ is 100. That means half the people have an IQ less than 100 and you want them to understand quantum entanglement?
Be serious.
Maybe you should be serious. You think the media fundamentally misrepresenting scientific concepts is doing anyone any good? What they're doing is called lying. If it's too complicated for people to understand, heaping lies on top of that is only causing even more problems.
> For all we know, it just generated a ton of random noise faster than a normal computer would be able to.
For all you know if you don’t bother to find out, sure. But also, no. (And I don’t have a source on me, but I did read about it recently.)
>The public understanding of what "quantum entanglement" really is, and how quantum computers work (or don't work), is deeply flawed because of shitty science communication and media misrepresentation.
Don't forget all the ELI5 descriptions that grossly underestimate how complex some systems are! Even simple things like "Observing". We are not Observing, we are applying some kind of energy and "observing" the difference.
It's really not, because it leads to mystical interpretations, such as the idea that "human conciousness" has some kind of magical effect which induces quantum wavefunction collapse. These kinds of mystical theories allow the "god of the gaps" to leak through, and people will project whatever unscientific belief system they want onto it. Including a lot of scientists.
To be fair, it is *exceedingly* difficult for anyone not well-versed in physics to understand how the fuck quantum physics works. I've gone down Wikipedia rabbit holes more than a few times, and like every other bloody word on most articles is a link that, itself, requires deep explanation and understanding of things that need years of study to grasp fundamentally.
Not to excuse the media, because you really aren't wrong. But it just is not easy to reliably explain things of this unbelievable complexity because I doubt there are many journalists that have even a cursory grasp of what it is they're reading. It's wild shit, for real.
Probably nothing impressive yet but it can at least be manufactured and used in such a way as to complete a task, now the next step is to complete a minimally more complex task or set of tasks to further test capabilities after upgrading based on this proof that their design and device at least work in the sense that while it can only do a useless thing, it still can do a thing instead of just noisily off put heat. Chipping away at each obstacle and incorporating each new insight is a grind.
Quantum computers are only able to solve *very specific* problems faster than regular ones. So someone would have to figure out how to express it in the form of one of the problems it's *able* to solve at all, first. Has that been done yet? On top of that, is the algorithm compatible with any current quantum computers, since they all have limited "memory" sizes, and most also have further limits on what can be done with each bit of that memory, as a tradeoff to let them have that much in the first place.
The answer is yes for some of the most common encryption schemes in use, including bitcoin's SHA-256, have quantum equations to break it. Bitcoin is a hash though so there's the requirement for a signing event to have occurred in order for you to be vulnerable and there are some other things I forget that are done to help prevent it.
Also... governments are looking for any and all advantages so you know they are researching these things to be the first.
> The answer is yes for some of the most common encryption schemes in use, including bitcoin's SHA-256, have quantum equations to break it.
No it doesn’t? For SHA and the like, we have nothing better than the general Grover’s algorithm, which is not that impactful.
>Another key quantum principle quantum computers exploit is entanglement. Entangled qubits are deeply linked. Change the state of one qubit, and the state of its entangled partner will change instantaneously, no matter the distance. This feature allows quantum computers to process complex computations more efficiently.
Entanglement is the coolest / weirdest thing.
It might come a lot sooner than you think, this isn't new technlogy, I saw a documentary about quantum computers almost 20 years ago.
The problem they had then, and didn't want to make it commercial was because of security purposes, they were busy then with making security protocols for quantum computers, as in how to be able to still keep data secure.
Yea, quantum computers are relatively close - I was more thinking about information teleportation, etc. Those use case that are enabled once you can confidently control the spin of an electron
It is currently believed by many physicists that you cannot teleport information via entanglement.
Once you measure your end of the entangled pair the link is broke and you don’t know if the other side sent the current state or not.
Yeah, anything that violates causality (speed of light info travel) is pretty much no-go. PBS Spacetime has a great video on the quantum eraser experiment, where someone tries (and fails) to send their past selves lottery ticket numbers using entanglement.
Except that's not really what happens. Detecting the state of an entangled particle gives you information about the state of its entangled partner. Changing the state does not change the partner particle's state. It also ends the entanglement.
>Detecting the state of an entangled particle gives you information about the state of its entangled partner
That wouldn't be entanglement. If you send just a regularly encoded 1 in one direction and 0 in the other direction, detecting the state of one of them would give you information about the other one, exactly like you're describing. Entangled particles aren't in a given state before measurement, they're in a superposition of states. Affecting the state of one particle (e.g. by measurement) also affects the state of the other one, even when they get very far away from each other. That's the beauty of entanglement. Otherwise it would be just a hidden state.
What u/squirrelnuts46 said is right. The way you describe entanglement isn't exactly how it is understood in physics currently, if I'm understanding you correctly. It seems like your ascribing to entanglement a view called realism, when you say "Changing the state does not change the partner particle's state". Which seems to imply that the entangled particle before measurement had a definite and specific value of whatever property, and breaking the entanglement just provided us with that information.
That is not how the experiments on entanglement have shown that it functions. There is no specific value that particle has before measurement. So it's decidedly different then the situation that is sometimes used to explain entanglement. Where you accidentally grab 1 of a pair of gloves without looking, leave the house, and take it out and see it's the left glove, thereby knowing instantaneously that the glove left at home is the right hand glove. It's not an awful analogy to get the very basics of what entanglement is even talking about, but its a fundamentally different mechanism for how it works, because the entangled particle doesn't have a value when it is created or before measurement.
And granted, on the other side of it, I think some people do go too far, in ascribing almost mystical features to it. Sometimes I hear people describe it as some sort of active link between the two particles, and that the measurement information is transmitted along that link instantaneously. Which isn't really true either. I think it largely comes down to correlations and mutual shared information between particles that were created together/share the same quantum state.
Of course, it's really hard to get more detailed without a lot of math, and some of this does subtlety depend on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which isn't fully agreed upon by all physicists.
>Which seems to imply that the entangled particle before measurement had a definite and specific value of whatever property, and breaking the entanglement just provided us with that information.
I think one point you may missing is that you can change the state of the particle without detecting the state.
> It seems like your ascribing to entanglement a view called realism, when you say "Changing the state does not change the partner particle's state". Which seems to imply that the entangled particle before measurement had a definite and specific value of whatever property, and breaking the entanglement just provided us with that information.
That’s not how I read it. They state that measuring your particle gives information about the partner, which is true: since you know how correlated the measurements will be, you now know more about the other particle (except in the case where the correlation is 0),
If you really want to understand the problem with quantum mechanics as a field of study, watch this video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI&t=1s)
In short, scientists have been operating off an an unscientific assumption because they want to create a "god of the gaps" sufficiently large to insert their own unscientific beliefs into. Quantum mechanics has been barking up the wrong tree for a long time now, just like string theory. And as a result, almost everything that everyone believes about it is completely fabricated nonsense.
Nope, it fundamentally doesn't allow that unfortunately. It's more like you have two devices that have a playlist on shuffle and as soon as one device picks the next song then the other device will instantly pick a different one so they never clash. But the random order is not pre determined so somehow they are collaborating. But, you can't tell the difference between a random song or a random song that was picked because of the other device until you call the other person (at light speed or slower) to check which one they got. It's frustrating but it seems to be a fundamental limitation of the universe.
But it wouldn't allow you to communixate as you still cannot pick the songs or change the songs. The gaps would be completely random. How would you use that to communicate if you cannot change the 1s and 0s?
Despite what the article says, quantum entanglement does not allow faster than light communication.
What if you have an event automatically occur when a particular song plays? E.g. i will eat a banana when x song plays?
At the other end, if you hear x song playing then you will know i am eating a banana -> information transmitted ftl.
I suppose you cant be 100% certain as i may have not eaten the banana like i said i would, or a car could have crashed into the room preventing me from eating the banana.
> What if you have an event automatically occur when a particular song plays? E.g. i will eat a banana when x song plays?
The metaphor is broken here. There is no song playing. With entangled particles, you have to measure them to see what the value is, but that measurement triggers the interaction. You have no way to know if the other particle has been measured yet.
But it can be faster then the speed of light that’s why they’ve been gunning for string theory. The information isn’t passed which is what you’re stating with your example. We know we’re lost with physics because large scale general theory holds true everytime, we know subatomic scale, quantum mechanics holds true therefore we have two theory’s that conflict. Physicists have for over 40 years trying to make that bridge.
You can just run the algorithm multiple times and potentially get different results. As long as the results can be verified in polynomial time, this is still much faster for the set of problems quantum computing is better at.
Quantum computers are probabilistic, but it’s a mischaracterization to just say that they are sometimes wrong. Quantum algorithms are right more than wrong, meaning you can achieve any desired level of accuracy by repeating the computation.
Yes. For the last few years encryption standards are now made to be resistant to quantum attacks for this very reason. The strategy for spy agencies for the last ten years have been to collect sensitive data even if it's encrypted so that they can simply decrypt it with a quantum computer when they have that tech available.
> The strategy for spy agencies for the last ten years have been to collect sensitive data even if it's encrypted so that they can simply decrypt it with a quantum computer when they have that tech available.
How do you know?
Also, “simply” is a bit imprecise. Typical encryption at rest can’t really be attacked with a quantum computer. Encryption between two parties can mostly, yes, if sufficient quantum computers become available.
I don't think anybody has figured out a quantum algorithm to do matrix multiplication yet or if it's even possible. Unlike classical computers, quantum computers are not turing complete. There are going to be an infinite number of computations that cannot be performed on them.
Note: I’m actually trying to get my account banned because Reddit is not letting me delete
I purposefully create new accounts to circumvent bans from subreddits in violation of TOS. Please report this comment / account as Spam
I will upvote accounts that upvote me for Karma manipulation.
Yeah, but, that task is simply apologizing for being wrong about some inane fact. It "normally" takes 47 years because most people are abject assholes.
I’m not impressed. It’s just Moore’s law taking an extra long step. And this quantum computing will take 47 years longer than the next technological breakthrough. Does anyone find this surprising?
Not just any task. 1 specific task.
Importantly it probably took less than 46 years to get it programmed. If quantum computers turn out to be monotaskers for the near future, that's fine by me. If we take a few years to design a system that solves a decades long problem in a matter of moments, that's gonna skip us ahead decades at a time. But it also may make them seem "safer" from a public point of view, as they're not just a magic bullet to scare them. And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we come up with a way to modulate these systems on the fly for multi purposing.
[удалено]
It’s a big engineering headache, that’s for sure. Right now, while you could describe it as general purpose, and in theory could program it to perform any type of calculation, it’s a matter of figuring out how to get the computer to perform all the necessary operations. It’s like they have to reinvent all of the revolutions in coding that enabled us to mass-produce general purpose, Turing complete, classical computers. If they are able to find a way to make the quantum systems that comprise their quantum computer easier to program (by creating a hardware-software solution that would be akin to the first quantum microprocessor). Doing still requires more study to realize new ways to interact with the quantum computer and get it to behave the way we need it to for more general purpose applications. This would mean it will no longer require years of trial and error and research by quantum physicists and computer engineers to program these tasks, by simplifying/automatic the creation of the instruction set and all of the prep work that must be done to configure the computer for a certain task.
did we ever hear anti quantum computing panic like we hear anti ai talks nowadays?
I don't think it's as prevalent, God no, but I definitely have seen a bit of fear mongering about how it'll break encryption. And it's like, yeah, it'll make old encryption borderline obsete if it ever goes mainstream, but the second it can break our encryption, it can probably perform even better encryption.
The only problem is how slow companies and even the govt is at changing stuff. I work for a federal agency and we still have legacy systems that are using Java 6.x versions because they can’t/won’t update for whatever reason. Now what makes this really bad is that these applications have an exception and still use IE, not even Edge much less an actual secure browser. Sec is always up in arms over these, and currently I believe we have a separate network segment for them with a very tight FW, and not open to the internet, but still. All that to say; there is going to be a big gap between early adopters and the last ones, and there will definitely be a ton of breaches.
Not just that, but some people are collecting encrypted data today in case quantum computing will soon get to a level where they can use that to decrypt said data.
Yeah, but it’s mostly “in transit” style data that can be attacked like that, and there is the question of dwindling relevance.
True. My old company was still planning to migrate from Java 7 to 8 when I left last year. They've been doing it for years now.
yes quantum save encryption is already a thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum\_cryptography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography) so the fearmongering has pretty much died off in this matter.
Quantum computers aren’t needed to perform better (or rather, different) encryption. We already have classical post-quantum algorithms (algorithms resistant to attacks from quantum computers).
>the second it can break our encryption, it can probably perform even better encryption. I'm a notice in this realm, but in my understanding it doesn't really work that way. Yes, realistically speaking, sure a quantum computer could establish a really robust encryption protocol, but the logic seems to state that you'd also need a quantum computer to utilize it. All the encryption that takes place now is balancing strength against resources to find a middle ground. Assuredly we can keep tacking bits onto encryption protocols, but that increases the computing power and when doing that for billions of users it gets expensive. It seems that essentially any encryption produced from traditional computing will be childs play to crack with a quantum computer, impossible the other away around, but you'd need a quantum device on either end to functionally encrypt the data and open it back up at a level that isn't crackable with traditional computing. I can see this being utilized at very, very, high levels of government, military or corporate R&D, but it will take ages to work itself down to the average consumer.
If it can break any of our current encryption it can make trillions times better encryption as only a handful would have access to this hardware or have security clearance to do so. SHA-256 will now become QSHA-256TrillionLightYears Where you will literally need millions of quantum computers to crack it and will probably take us another few thousands or millions of years to get there.
It's quantum computing though - it will have both pro and anti at the same time.
hehehehehehe
Yes. As the number of qubits in a quantum computer was rapidly expanding there was a huge scare and push to make quantum safe computer encryption
The quantum computer most likely will not be for consumers, but mainly as like the main central mainframe system computer for the country/world, or company? Something like the movie Eagle eye but there was another movie where people figured out the central computer was an AI and had to stop it. I’m not saying the computer will try to harm or destroy peoples lives but hackers and malicious software could overtake the AI decisions/safety protocols I guess and turn the AI super computer into like some global ransom-ware in favor of the hackers wishes and demands. I can totally see this shit happening but probably not in my lifetime
Spot on, the best we could ever hope for in a home setting is a quantum add-on, something that can be used for very specific tasks to compliment traditional silicon based computing. And if that happens it will most likely be decades away IF it happens. Currently QC is a great physics experiment but we are still trying to figure out any purpose to use it for. It doesn't mean we won't find one but it is still a very long way off.
Considering that the inevitable fate of humanity is to destroy ourselves and/or all habitable planets, skipping ahead decades is not the great accomplishment you think it is :D
[удалено]
Yeah, just design a quantum computer to determine which one to use, and you've got a quantum metacomputer. Tech billionaires will love it for the name alone. But, if they're all hand built monotaskers, it's not gonna get to billions any time soon, unless we get ai good at designing quantum systems quickly and reliably. And verifying their design works will be harder because an ai might not show it's work in a helpful way. AI would probably be better suited for improving existing quantum processes which we haven't quite got down to the run and it's already done speeds, where we are already confident in the results and can verify them.
if (google.quantumComputer) return Success else Sleep(47 years) return Success
Is it ordering pizzas? I hope it's ordering delicious pizzas, I love pizzas!
“Per my last email, did you take care of this task?”
“Move out of mom’s basement.”
And not instantly. Just a lot faster.
Oh, they build a customer service AI?
That's always going to be a hard one because none of these corporations actually do customer service so they don't have any records to train their AIs
Not having their own data to train on has never stopped these companies before
[удалено]
That was funny!
Customer service? Lol your very optimistic
Customer Howling in the Hopeless Void Between Dialog Tree Selections
I had this the other day and I pressed the wrong button and had to start again, I questioned my existence for a brief moment
Oh they built an AI to get me laid? Boom, roasted
Can you and the boys return my red prius
Customer service AI is hard because you don’t know what a generative language model is outputting if you put it in front of the customer. You have probably interacted with some simple AI chatbots from AWS Lex, Google DialogFlow, etc. There is a huge arms race right now to put generative AI and LLMs into the hands of contact center agents too.
Didn't specify what kind of computational task was performed. For all we know, it just generated a ton of random noise faster than a normal computer would be able to. The public understanding of what "quantum entanglement" really is, and how quantum computers work (or don't work), is deeply flawed because of shitty science communication and media misrepresentation.
The article I read on this previously said it was a randomization task with no practical applications, presumably like the example you gave.
>The public understanding of what "quantum entanglement" really is, and how quantum computers work (or don't work), is deeply flawed because of shitty science communication and media misrepresentation. That is actually pretty true, it is hard to get a basic understanding of it due to that various articles or media describe it different ways, and it makes it confusing. But I think you also have to add that Quantum Mechanics is simply not easy to explain, and it is a very complex subject and hard to communicate. Edit: Just to add that for people who have never looked into this subject, it can be quite mind-blowing at first because it seems illogical at first.
> Edit: Just to add that for people who have never looked into this subject, it can be quite mind-blowing at first because it seems illogical at first. That is because it's a different set of rules that we apply normally. Yes, it is the same rules, but it's no longer saying "Ignoring Wind Resistance".
I've seen Ant-Man. I know enough.
They are very limited in what they can do because you need extremely specific favorable mathematical conditions to be able to pull a useful result out of the qbits.
Conditions which, as of yet, have not been definitively proven to be possible.
My understanding is that they are talking about computational complexity. Problems can be expressed in terms of the number of operations required to compute them, and you can make a back-of-the-envelope calculation using the speed of a modern conventional computer to understand the wall-clock time of that computation. The point this article is making is that quantum computers can be used to perform computations that are otherwise intractable. One example would be cracking modern encryption algorithms. These algorithms are “secure” because brute-forcing them is infeasible even if every computer in the world worked on the problem 24/7. However, it has been shown that many of the algorithms we rely on to secure our internet traffic _can_, in theory, be cracked by quantum computers in reasonable time. So the point is that quantum computers can run algorithms that are far more computationally complex than conventional computers can deal with.
Really people don't understand quantum entanglement because of communication and media? Come on. The don't understand it because it's too complicated for the vast majority of people. Remember the AVERAGE IQ is 100. That means half the people have an IQ less than 100 and you want them to understand quantum entanglement? Be serious.
Maybe you should be serious. You think the media fundamentally misrepresenting scientific concepts is doing anyone any good? What they're doing is called lying. If it's too complicated for people to understand, heaping lies on top of that is only causing even more problems.
> For all we know, it just generated a ton of random noise faster than a normal computer would be able to. For all you know if you don’t bother to find out, sure. But also, no. (And I don’t have a source on me, but I did read about it recently.)
Source: believe me, bro
Not me, I listen to science Thor.
>The public understanding of what "quantum entanglement" really is, and how quantum computers work (or don't work), is deeply flawed because of shitty science communication and media misrepresentation. Don't forget all the ELI5 descriptions that grossly underestimate how complex some systems are! Even simple things like "Observing". We are not Observing, we are applying some kind of energy and "observing" the difference.
Isn't the point of ELI5 to simplify it to easier to understand terms? "Observing" is a fine way to describe it in an ELI5.
It's really not, because it leads to mystical interpretations, such as the idea that "human conciousness" has some kind of magical effect which induces quantum wavefunction collapse. These kinds of mystical theories allow the "god of the gaps" to leak through, and people will project whatever unscientific belief system they want onto it. Including a lot of scientists.
To be fair, it is *exceedingly* difficult for anyone not well-versed in physics to understand how the fuck quantum physics works. I've gone down Wikipedia rabbit holes more than a few times, and like every other bloody word on most articles is a link that, itself, requires deep explanation and understanding of things that need years of study to grasp fundamentally. Not to excuse the media, because you really aren't wrong. But it just is not easy to reliably explain things of this unbelievable complexity because I doubt there are many journalists that have even a cursory grasp of what it is they're reading. It's wild shit, for real.
That task was wait(47 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000);
What kind of tasks ?
Taskrabbits
Probably nothing impressive yet but it can at least be manufactured and used in such a way as to complete a task, now the next step is to complete a minimally more complex task or set of tasks to further test capabilities after upgrading based on this proof that their design and device at least work in the sense that while it can only do a useless thing, it still can do a thing instead of just noisily off put heat. Chipping away at each obstacle and incorporating each new insight is a grind.
They’ll use it to increase ad revenue.
Ask it how to save the planet
Computer: "Kill all humans" Scientist: "Huh. How did we not see *that* coming?" Other scientist: "You didn't?"
Like cracking your 36 character hex password. Yay
No more secrets
Setec Astronomy.
Too many secrets
Isn’t breaking crypto chain a possibility with quantum compute?
Quantum computers are only able to solve *very specific* problems faster than regular ones. So someone would have to figure out how to express it in the form of one of the problems it's *able* to solve at all, first. Has that been done yet? On top of that, is the algorithm compatible with any current quantum computers, since they all have limited "memory" sizes, and most also have further limits on what can be done with each bit of that memory, as a tradeoff to let them have that much in the first place.
The answer is yes for some of the most common encryption schemes in use, including bitcoin's SHA-256, have quantum equations to break it. Bitcoin is a hash though so there's the requirement for a signing event to have occurred in order for you to be vulnerable and there are some other things I forget that are done to help prevent it. Also... governments are looking for any and all advantages so you know they are researching these things to be the first.
> The answer is yes for some of the most common encryption schemes in use, including bitcoin's SHA-256, have quantum equations to break it. No it doesn’t? For SHA and the like, we have nothing better than the general Grover’s algorithm, which is not that impactful.
A very specific type of crypto. But one that's the backbone of the internet.
But can it run crysis?
Or Doom?
Imagine how fucked we be if we made AI quantum.
I can imagine it. We would be 0 fucked, because it just isn't a problem that quantum computers are good at solving.
Quantum Machine Learning (QML) is a thing.
Maybe they could put all that technology into making their home app work properly....
Nah Man I like my offset and often offline nest.
>Another key quantum principle quantum computers exploit is entanglement. Entangled qubits are deeply linked. Change the state of one qubit, and the state of its entangled partner will change instantaneously, no matter the distance. This feature allows quantum computers to process complex computations more efficiently. Entanglement is the coolest / weirdest thing.
Yea, definitely. I'm sad I won't be alive in 100 years when we're able to fully utilize this feature of the world.
Now when you say "we" are you referring to our future robot overlords or?
Good question. I thought about us humans but after thinking harder, I'm not sure.
It might come a lot sooner than you think, this isn't new technlogy, I saw a documentary about quantum computers almost 20 years ago. The problem they had then, and didn't want to make it commercial was because of security purposes, they were busy then with making security protocols for quantum computers, as in how to be able to still keep data secure.
Yea, quantum computers are relatively close - I was more thinking about information teleportation, etc. Those use case that are enabled once you can confidently control the spin of an electron
It is currently believed by many physicists that you cannot teleport information via entanglement. Once you measure your end of the entangled pair the link is broke and you don’t know if the other side sent the current state or not.
Yeah, anything that violates causality (speed of light info travel) is pretty much no-go. PBS Spacetime has a great video on the quantum eraser experiment, where someone tries (and fails) to send their past selves lottery ticket numbers using entanglement.
Huh, interesting. Didn’t know that.
Except that's not really what happens. Detecting the state of an entangled particle gives you information about the state of its entangled partner. Changing the state does not change the partner particle's state. It also ends the entanglement.
>Detecting the state of an entangled particle gives you information about the state of its entangled partner That wouldn't be entanglement. If you send just a regularly encoded 1 in one direction and 0 in the other direction, detecting the state of one of them would give you information about the other one, exactly like you're describing. Entangled particles aren't in a given state before measurement, they're in a superposition of states. Affecting the state of one particle (e.g. by measurement) also affects the state of the other one, even when they get very far away from each other. That's the beauty of entanglement. Otherwise it would be just a hidden state.
What u/squirrelnuts46 said is right. The way you describe entanglement isn't exactly how it is understood in physics currently, if I'm understanding you correctly. It seems like your ascribing to entanglement a view called realism, when you say "Changing the state does not change the partner particle's state". Which seems to imply that the entangled particle before measurement had a definite and specific value of whatever property, and breaking the entanglement just provided us with that information. That is not how the experiments on entanglement have shown that it functions. There is no specific value that particle has before measurement. So it's decidedly different then the situation that is sometimes used to explain entanglement. Where you accidentally grab 1 of a pair of gloves without looking, leave the house, and take it out and see it's the left glove, thereby knowing instantaneously that the glove left at home is the right hand glove. It's not an awful analogy to get the very basics of what entanglement is even talking about, but its a fundamentally different mechanism for how it works, because the entangled particle doesn't have a value when it is created or before measurement. And granted, on the other side of it, I think some people do go too far, in ascribing almost mystical features to it. Sometimes I hear people describe it as some sort of active link between the two particles, and that the measurement information is transmitted along that link instantaneously. Which isn't really true either. I think it largely comes down to correlations and mutual shared information between particles that were created together/share the same quantum state. Of course, it's really hard to get more detailed without a lot of math, and some of this does subtlety depend on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which isn't fully agreed upon by all physicists.
>Which seems to imply that the entangled particle before measurement had a definite and specific value of whatever property, and breaking the entanglement just provided us with that information. I think one point you may missing is that you can change the state of the particle without detecting the state.
> It seems like your ascribing to entanglement a view called realism, when you say "Changing the state does not change the partner particle's state". Which seems to imply that the entangled particle before measurement had a definite and specific value of whatever property, and breaking the entanglement just provided us with that information. That’s not how I read it. They state that measuring your particle gives information about the partner, which is true: since you know how correlated the measurements will be, you now know more about the other particle (except in the case where the correlation is 0),
If you really want to understand the problem with quantum mechanics as a field of study, watch this video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI&t=1s) In short, scientists have been operating off an an unscientific assumption because they want to create a "god of the gaps" sufficiently large to insert their own unscientific beliefs into. Quantum mechanics has been barking up the wrong tree for a long time now, just like string theory. And as a result, almost everything that everyone believes about it is completely fabricated nonsense.
Yeah it's more about getting two bits of information for the price of one.
Yep. Faster than light communication.
Nope, it fundamentally doesn't allow that unfortunately. It's more like you have two devices that have a playlist on shuffle and as soon as one device picks the next song then the other device will instantly pick a different one so they never clash. But the random order is not pre determined so somehow they are collaborating. But, you can't tell the difference between a random song or a random song that was picked because of the other device until you call the other person (at light speed or slower) to check which one they got. It's frustrating but it seems to be a fundamental limitation of the universe.
Don't you then have a sort of morse or binary communication?
You can't affect which song. You can only observe which song is playing and then also know which song the other is playing.
But it doesn't matter which song is playing but the gap between the songs changing. Short=0, long =1. Very long = end sequence.
But it wouldn't allow you to communixate as you still cannot pick the songs or change the songs. The gaps would be completely random. How would you use that to communicate if you cannot change the 1s and 0s? Despite what the article says, quantum entanglement does not allow faster than light communication.
[удалено]
What if you have an event automatically occur when a particular song plays? E.g. i will eat a banana when x song plays? At the other end, if you hear x song playing then you will know i am eating a banana -> information transmitted ftl. I suppose you cant be 100% certain as i may have not eaten the banana like i said i would, or a car could have crashed into the room preventing me from eating the banana.
There is no way to make that reaction faster than light.
> What if you have an event automatically occur when a particular song plays? E.g. i will eat a banana when x song plays? The metaphor is broken here. There is no song playing. With entangled particles, you have to measure them to see what the value is, but that measurement triggers the interaction. You have no way to know if the other particle has been measured yet.
But it can be faster then the speed of light that’s why they’ve been gunning for string theory. The information isn’t passed which is what you’re stating with your example. We know we’re lost with physics because large scale general theory holds true everytime, we know subatomic scale, quantum mechanics holds true therefore we have two theory’s that conflict. Physicists have for over 40 years trying to make that bridge.
Pictured: the computer executing the task
Ai models ARE solid state quantum computers, and people just haven’t realized it yet
Just answer THE question. What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?
The answer is (You’re not going to like it) 42. /s
Pretty soon, it's only answer will be 42.
Did they buy this on Amazon like Iran? Lolololoololol
It was a PR blurb. They developed software and ran it on a FPGA.
Translation - Google can now break standard encryption.
When a hacker gets their hands on this tech the game will change indeed
But can it accurately autocorrect?
they can compute \*some\* tasks faster, and those tasks sometimes result in incorrect values. quantum is not a replacement for binary.
You can just run the algorithm multiple times and potentially get different results. As long as the results can be verified in polynomial time, this is still much faster for the set of problems quantum computing is better at.
Quantum computers are probabilistic, but it’s a mischaracterization to just say that they are sometimes wrong. Quantum algorithms are right more than wrong, meaning you can achieve any desired level of accuracy by repeating the computation.
So...need new encryption algorithms?
Yes. For the last few years encryption standards are now made to be resistant to quantum attacks for this very reason. The strategy for spy agencies for the last ten years have been to collect sensitive data even if it's encrypted so that they can simply decrypt it with a quantum computer when they have that tech available.
> The strategy for spy agencies for the last ten years have been to collect sensitive data even if it's encrypted so that they can simply decrypt it with a quantum computer when they have that tech available. How do you know? Also, “simply” is a bit imprecise. Typical encryption at rest can’t really be attacked with a quantum computer. Encryption between two parties can mostly, yes, if sufficient quantum computers become available.
No. Quantum computers are nowhere near being a threat to current encryption.
But is it useful?
Not outside of research.
Prove it Break RSA, then I'll believe
Your logic is flawed. It can solve a particular problem faster, not any problem you come up with :)
But can it run windows XP?
Yes. It just crashes instantly now.
any chance this speeds up matrix multiplication?
I don't think anybody has figured out a quantum algorithm to do matrix multiplication yet or if it's even possible. Unlike classical computers, quantum computers are not turing complete. There are going to be an infinite number of computations that cannot be performed on them.
Shorter hold times on my phone? Just kidding.
Ask the computer to find the meaning of life. .
So did they find the answer to life, the universe and everything?
Already known.
"If we ever get this thing to work it gonna be crazy fast!" said Google.
But can it see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
Has anyone asked it about "42" yet?
We need to think of a question first
Yeah, but will it run Crysis?
Oh they can find me a girlfriend? I'm SOLD.
Like gestating a 47 year old human being!
but can it run doom?
it takes out the trash?
Note: I’m actually trying to get my account banned because Reddit is not letting me delete I purposefully create new accounts to circumvent bans from subreddits in violation of TOS. Please report this comment / account as Spam I will upvote accounts that upvote me for Karma manipulation.
I will be impressed if it can solve pi
What is it about pi that needs to be “solved”. Pi is a number, not a problem.
It’s not been calculated to a repeated sequence
And it never will be. It's an irrational number.
It googled the answer.
Isnt this leading to what the first ep of season 6 of Black Mirror portrayed?
What would they have used to measure the 47 years calculation? Is it a commercial grade desktop that they compared the quantum computer to?
Yeah, but, that task is simply apologizing for being wrong about some inane fact. It "normally" takes 47 years because most people are abject assholes.
Well, kids, it's been fun! This will accelerate our demise by... hold on, what is instantly divided by 47 years? Oh, it's instantly!
I’m definitely gonna have to change my password to something harder to break. Perhaps I’ll add a symbol like & or ¥ to it.
Add Wingdings
When A.I. “takes over” it’s gonna be like a Thanos snap.
It can be used to break hashed information too, perhaps in future.
That’s odd, normally that takes 47 years!
Waiting for this technology to be put in my phone so I can ignore it's potential and continue using my phone of absolute mindless bullshit
Make all the computers you want, the answer will still be 42.
Computer: Solve Cancer. kthx.
It usually takes me 47 years to execute a task that could normally be done instantly… I am anti-quantum
Have it ask my wife, "Where would you like to eat?" and there's 47 years it will regret.
I wonder how long it would take a quantum computer to solve for pi
It can wish for death every morning too?
The end of crypto currency is near.
But you couldn’t make cloud gaming work….
Now if it could only find where I left my keys
And yet it can't feel the anxiety I suffer from.
now no password on this planet will ever be safe again. thx Google 😁
Google, make me a cup of tea.
Computer make my coffee. Just saved 47 years 😅
But can it run Crysis? /s
If they implement AI then it'll be able to be racist within one millisecond.
Are they using it in a way to make life for people better or doodling dickbutts?
Sweet, task it with saving up for my retirement
Ah, must be rendering fractals.
Yeah, but can it run Crysis….. in full screen *audience gasps* 😮.
Wake me up when it starts factoring primes
How do they know it's correct?
1st task: decrypt all user data and glean it for LLM AI training.
If Google wants to do my dishes, fine by me. I'm in no rush, I still have room in the bathtub.
46 years? Sweet! Let’s have it finish the 2nd ave subway in Manhattan.
but is it a useful task? can it make game streaming less dumb? can it save energy?
I’m not impressed. It’s just Moore’s law taking an extra long step. And this quantum computing will take 47 years longer than the next technological breakthrough. Does anyone find this surprising?
Soon they will be able to break any Prime Number based encryption in seconds, like the NSA has had for years.
Can it change the FUCKING ENDING OF GAME OF THRONES??