First ever blueprint unveiled to construct a large scale quantum

it's happening

Finally. Soon we'll be able to simulate the sort of universe we all WANT to live in. Fuck you to whoever simulated this shitty one.

Globalized fetish time.

>>107218

hahaha

love your attitude

>>107192
>It has long been known that such a computer would revolutionise industry, science and commerce on a similar scale as the invention of ordinary computers.

Ok this is debatable *at best*. First, there are few algorithms for which QC is more efficient aside from factoring, critical for cryptography, but many public-key crypto systems already in place at the highest levels that are quantum-resistant. Second, there is still no proof that QC is even inherently more efficient than CC -- that is, that there may not still exist some classical algorithm with the same efficiency as the quantum one.

>>107273
I don't get it?

Why are the greatest experts on these insanely complex subjects always shitposting about them on the internet instead of actually working on them?

>>107304
>Why is someone that is shitposting on 4chan not being productive
HMMM I WONDER

But seriously, it's because quantum computing has potential to be EXTREMELY useful, lots of people are funding it, but no one has yet proved that it will be as great as some thing it will be. Then the media takes this potential and writes headlines sensationalizing it and the public thinks it's a sure-thing (which is pretty much the same with a lot of science journalism)

>>107304
>Why are the greatest experts on these insanely complex subjects always shitposting about them on the internet instead of actually working on them?

Don't think reading different Wikipedia articles made him one of the greatest expert.

It's the hope of the industry that once QC is built, the applications will be emerge. Just like the laser didn't seem very useful when invented.
But there is no guarantee.

>>107304
Not that guy but I literally did a single paper on it in uni and I can tell you he's mostly right. That claim is super exaggerated.

>>107273
That said, I've heard it had some neat potential medical applications in the form of calculating potential molecular structures and the like.

>many public-key crypto systems already in place at the highest levels that are quantum-resistant.
Post-quantum cryptography exists but most popular public domain public key crypto is not resistant. That's significant all by itself.

>Second, there is still no proof that QC is even inherently more efficient than CC -- that is, that there may not still exist some classical algorithm with the same efficiency as the quantum one.
You know there's no singular quantum algorithm right? A quantum algorithm is just an algorithm that uses the unique properties of quantum computing.

The one thing people usually associate with QC is the crypto related stuff, so I assume you're talking about a factoring algorithm. If that's the case, well, no, it's not proven (not particularly proveable) but it's so much better than what we have now that it's a pretty moot point.

>>107311
The claim about the specific benefits, yeah fine. But
>solve some problems that an ordinary computer would take billions of years to compute
I'm not so sure about. That alone would seem to make this well-worth it, whatever the actual benefits of that. And if this bit is way overblown too, what was even the point of trying to do this? I think what's much more unlikely is the idea that this will have absolutely no benefits.

>>107311
>You know there's no singular quantum algorithm right? ... I assume you're talking about a factoring algorithm.

If not otherwise specified, yeah, I generally was, but there is no proof (yet) that *any* QC algorithm is inherently more efficient than what is possible classically.

Now let me give the caveat that I'm 50-50 on whether I *believe* (I have done some grad work that dabbles in this part of theoretical comp sci) that QC will prove (if provable; if not, then is anyway) to be more efficient than CC for a set of algorithms, so it's not like I'm just naysaying for its own sake. What I'm doing is decrying crappy science journalism and sloppy pop-sci writing. Even though phys.org hires professionals who usually a masters in sci journalism, the field has new standards, and frankly I think they can learn a lot from the writing style that has evolved on Wikipedia.

>most popular public domain public key crypto is not resistant. That's significant all by itself.

As for QC breaking the vast majority of public-key systems that are quantum-vulnerable (RSA variants often) it requires now at register of at least 64 qbits, where currently the most qbits that have maintained cohesion is around 10, where adding more gets increasingly harder. Once a functional 16- or 32-qbit quantum computer is announced all the banks will have plenty of time to switch to resistant algorithms, unless you believe that the US government has a classified program that is exponentially further ahead than all the world-class engineering universities in the country whose scientists are all willing to keep quiet not for national security, but for the sole purpose of cracking bank accounts.

The modular system proposed in the article doesn't help with this particular problem, though it will be interesting to see what concepts can be realized with systems of 4-qbit registers, which are now relatively stable.

>>107319
>That alone would seem to make this well-worth it, whatever the actual benefits of that. And if this bit is way overblown too, what was even the point of trying to do this?
That part is true, yeah. It's less useful than it sounds, but it has applications. It's just important to realize that it's still quite limited.

>>107344
>If not otherwise specified, yeah, I generally was, but there is no proof (yet) that *any* QC algorithm is inherently more efficient than what is possible classically.
>Now let me give the caveat that I'm 50-50 on whether I *believe* (I have done some grad work that dabbles in this part of theoretical comp sci) that QC will prove (if provable; if not, then is anyway) to be more efficient than CC for a set of algorithms, so it's not like I'm just naysaying for its own sake.
When it comes to stuff like prime factors I find it difficult to believe a more efficient classical computing exists. Shor's algorithm is so far ahead of any existing classic method that it'd take an absolutely amazing discovery, probably involving some currently unknown mathematical property of prime factors, to create a more efficient classical algorithm. I'll give you that it's certainly possible, but I think going far as to be "50-50" seems unwarranted.

That said, I agree with the rest of your post. Science journalism has a long way to go and so does QC. I'm glad to see real, tangible progress.

>Once a functional 16- or 32-qbit quantum computer is announced all the banks will have plenty of time to switch
I mean, you say that, but remember you're looking at a red tape time scale, not a human one. Not to mention all the smaller business whose current security may be obsoleted and will inevitably be slow to switch (it took me two years of nagging to convince one of my employers to stop storing passwords in plaintext!) if/when QC gets there. I'm not saying it's the crypto apocalypse but it'd certainlh have some significance.

>>107371
>I mean, you say that, but remember you're looking at a red tape time scale, not a human one. Not to mention all the smaller business whose current security may be obsoleted and will inevitably be slow to switch (it took me two years of nagging to convince one of my employers to stop storing passwords in plaintext!) if/when QC gets there. I'm not saying it's the crypto apocalypse but it'd certainlh have some significance.

Aye, the cryptopocalypse will not come from leaked keys nor super hardware but from government regulation and private industry complacency.

>>107192
>a quantum computer, the most powerful computer on Earth.

Sounds like the writer is a drooling moron who doesn't know the first thing about computing.