Pleaseeee!!!

It's just a meme.

File: knorke.png (190KB, 576x606px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 576x606px

>>59437183
Essentially, if you stop observing your PC it will teleport to a random XYZ coordinate in the universe.

It's a meme you dip

look up isaac arthur, he just posted a pretty good vid about the basics of it.

>>59437195
It is for a work

>>59437183
encrypted.google.com/search?q=quantum+computing

Why people thinks that quantum computing is a meme?

>inb4 typical 'hurr durr quantum computing is overrated trust me I'm an expert' posts

>>59437330
Prove them wrong.

>>59437183
Normal computers have bits which can be only zero or one. Quantum computers use Qubits, have two completely separate probabilities that it will be zero or one. In groups of qubits, the probabilities can be manipulated individually

because a group of qubits is a mix of all possible states rather than just one, you can perform 2^n calculations in the time it would take to perfom 1

However, quantum computers have two main issues:
>1: the algorithms are insanely complex and unintuitive, render the most basic laws of computer science irrelevant and require at minimum a working knowledge of linear algebra and complex mathematics just to figure out how to add two numbers
>2: qubits have an insane rate of corruption and may require a completely new state of matter that we only discovered in the past week just to slow it down to the level of a classical chinese knockoff hard drive

>>59437509
>qubits

How is this physically achieved? Or is it some kind of philosophical bullshit.

>>59437550
>qubits
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qubits

>>59437550
It's very real, and not easy to explain, since it requires an explanation of quantum physics

Most particles the size of an atom or smaller are spinning with a fixed angular momentum. When you measure a regular spinning object, it can be spinning in any direction, but if you measure a spinning particle the direction of it's spin will always be clockwise or counterclockwise around the axis of measurement. Which one it is is random, but measurably so, and by bumping particles into each other we can fuck with the chances, and make them go to 0% or 100%.

art of the difficulty is creating complete certainty for these particles while also having them be completely certain of the right answer

>>59437772
/v/ doesn't have dubs, it skips over them

>>59437229
Holy shit. This stuff is complicated. Now, who's my wifu?

File: 2017-03-17-003454_188x267.png (72KB, 188x267px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 188x267px

>>59438015
Nice on senpai.

>>59437509
>2^n calculations in the time it would take to perfom 1
yea how bout no

>>59437738
What does a quantum cpu look like? I bet they are insanely small. Like, 1 atom small?

Quantum computing is order out of chaos.

>>59437183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eak_ogYMprk

There you go bud

FYI, "observed" in quantum mechanics is physics speak for "being measured".

>>59438348
That is not hyperbole

>>59438429
not really, 1 atom would only be a single qubit. Right now they're about the same size as regular cpus, but much weaker, and require a a metric fuckton of liquid helium cooling. quantum processors are even more temperature sensitive than regular ones since even a bit of heat can upset the quantum state.

Right now technology all progress is being devoted to overcoming corruptions issues, because until those are solved we won't even know if quantum computers will be usable.

Possibly one of the biggest advancements was just announced in the past week with the creation of a state of matter in in which the spins of a group of atoms fluctuate periodically and resist alteration by outside conditions.

Unfortunately the guy who first hypothesized this state of matter in 2012 called them "time crystals" because of their ordered structure over time but not space so now idiots are going to misuse the idea to sell shiny rocks to gullible white women who smoke too much weed

If audio is more your thing:
http://nodogmapodcast.bryanhogan.net/68-michael-biercuk-quantum-computing/

worst meme threads in a while

>>59437509
> you can perform 2^n calculations in the time it would take to perfom 1
Not in general. Its really only a few things where this works or half works, and thats so far the case even in theory, never mind actual computers.

Quantums have many limitations and specific features only - we will basically be using them as co processors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP

>>59438454
>linear
One does not simply control KEK YOU FOOL

>>59437550

"if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"

unless you plan on beating Einstein just stop now

>>59438560

that was the most cringeworthy shit I've ever seen, he's visibly nervous, the lady in the back is visibly pleased her 10 minute explanation to him worked and all he said was 'its more complicated than 1 and 0'

this is the shit liberals are spooning over? holy fuck what a bunch of retards

>>59440614

It's not a meme. They told Alan Turing that 'computers' were a meme before he cracked Enigma too.

>>59437271
because they are stoopid

File: furby.png (356KB, 572x380px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 572x380px

>>59444622
Wtf there's no 22

>>59437183
/sci/ would probably give you a better explanation

>>59437550
Traditional computers use an electron and it goes through a nor or boolean logic type thing to determine if it is 1 or 0, except now that transistors are getting so small the bridges to stop an electron can't adequately seal an electron off it can quantum tunnel past that if the chip nm die is too small.
Quantum computers rather than giving a 1 or 0 value run the electron through filters to try and figure out if it is a 1 or 0 since it can be both. My understanding is determining from this filter if it is a 1 or a 0 gives multiple equations to determine it. This is the part that gets a bit sketchy to my understanding, that it's these equations give multiple answers where a regular cpu would have to run them consecutively one at a time the quantum computer generated them trying to come up with the right number.

>>59445566
What the point if i have to pick one. Reroll.

xd

>>59437183
Example
"The answer is Yes"
Then you 10 seconds later, I wonder if it is raining in New Yor...oh."

A) Use google
B) Quantum computing exists mainly for cryptography, making it nearly impossible to decrypt data since qbits contain way more data to encrypt than current bits
C) unless you're the NSA or Microsoft quantum computing is practically useless. There is no other use beyond cryptography anyone has come up of using cryptography for.

>>59437183
Quantum computers basically process data in a different way. Instead of seeing all data as either A or B, they see it AB, A, B, and BA, or any other combination. They're not going to be for consumers, and they will have no value to you. In fact, they'll probably be slower than a 10 year old laptop since they're not meant to run anything but an extremely small operating system which will most likely be written in assembly. Quantum doesn't mean faster, it doesn't mean magical. It's simply a description of the type of computations it'll be able to do. Fuck off back to /v/ or whatever now.

>>59437183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl5Xb5XoGTU

>>59437183
It's going to break all our cryptography algorithms. Pray it doesn't happen too soon!

>>59448405
>Quantum computers work with combinations of 2 states
>Any other combination
>Permutations of 2 states.
>2 state permutation = 4 different states
Sorry mate, but that's utter horse crap.

>>59448444
It breaks discrete logarithm and factoring primes (both are the same fundamental problem). It also MIGHT reduce block ciphers bit-strengths by half (AES256 becomes as strong as AES128) however this isn't known for sure.
Post-quantum algorithms like lattice based public key encryption are thought be resistant to quantum attacks because no one can currently think of an algorithm that will give a majority probability of the correct answer when run by a quantum computer trying to break them. There is no definite proof of security yet, but most think there are many algorithms that cannot be solved by quantum computers.

>>59448309
Quantum encryption is a very different application than quantum computing. Also I dislike the term "quantum encryption" since its more about guaranteeing physical integrity of information. Its based on the fact that if you observe quantum information, then that observation will change the information. Therefore if you design the information to only be readable once, then alice and bob can tell if eve intercepted the information, because she won't be able to replicate the initial state of the particles that alice sent to bob.

basically the gist is as follows
instead of binary 1's and 0's, a quantum computer would have ternary 1's, 0's, and a superimposed 1-0 hybrid

>>59451678
No. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Why is it that when it comes to quantum computers everyone suddenly has a degree in physics and claims to totally understand them, then totally fails to understand the concept?
This is what we get for making science accessible to the unwashed masses.

>>59450818
But how can alice send particles to bob? Since when do people have hardware to teleport particles?

>>59451778
where in that post did you infer that the poster claims to totally understand quantum computers?
I think maybe the problem is with your expectations and not with the accessibility of science.

also how did that poster fail to understand the concept? its clear, superposition and other quantum uncertainties can allow for more complex data in the same number of bits

>>59451804
There is no teleportation. Its just careful measurement of quantum state based upon entangled pairs pre-shared between alice and bob. Alice can add state to the particle without disentaglement because she does not measure it. Any measurement of the entangled particle by eve will disentangle it. Bob then measures it and compares it with his own supposedly entangled particle and ensures that no other measurement has occurred.

kek I don't get it

>>59437183
it's just another way to turn a string of 0's and 1's into another string of 0's and 1's

>>59451851
Its not ternary. Its probabilistic. There is no single 1-0 hybrid. You could just as easily have an .8*1 probability making it 80% likely to get 1 and 20% likely to get 0 as a 50%/50% probability. There's an infinite number of superpositions.

>>59451778
I've been following this for at least half a decade and I've yet to see anyone mention a few failed attempts at a quantum device that I've observed while others have proceeded.
There are a lot of independent attempts at this and mistaking who is making what chip act in a specific way is a mistake. It's all misleading enough that there could be multiple approaches.

>>59451804
>>59451873

MinutePhysics, a nice video explaining that : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxQK1WDYI_k

>>59452737
A lot of this is being complicated assuming alg0rithims can't determine these things in computation after all this has successfully been done and people know how to organize it