20 ms·

The math might be beautiful, but I'm very skeptical - practical - quantum computers will ever deliver their promise.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Joel_Mckay 6mo ago
Forever is a long time, but I agree people that assert reality is the model are almost always incorrect eventually. There is some interesting work being done, but it will never match the excessive hype. =3 "The Genius of Computing with Light" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxcd9gaims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxcd9gaims
- DrNosferatu 6mo ago
  I would say optical computing will be practical well before QC is. Time will tell.
rramadass 6mo ago
Not sure what is going on in QC world; With this ACM prize it has become even more murky. As Sabine Hossenfelder (Theoretical Physicist) points out, companies to do with QC are seeing a surge in investments and marketing. It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTS7JZTyZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTS7JZTyZY I don't know enough about the science/technology to form an opinion but have recently started down the path of trying to understand it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599807
- hammock 6mo ago
  Check out Eric weinsteins latest theory about how frontier physics has moved “dark” (with a grain of salt, some of the other things he says might tempt you to discount him completely)
- NooneAtAll3 6mo ago
  > It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't oooorrr - and hear me out - investments are inherently hype-based and irrational and there is too much money flying around to do actual smart decisions
  - rramadass 6mo ago
    Nope. Quantum Computing (QC) is unlike previous technologies which were all mostly "logical structures" (i.e. the underlying Physics/Technologies were well-known). The viability of both the core Physics itself and its realization through Technology for QC are questioned by some Physicists/Technologists themselves. But in 2024/2025 many Govts. and Companies both have started investing heavily in QC. Moreover the advanced countries have implemented export controls on QC technology prohibiting export of QC computers above 34-qubits. And now the ACM prize for something done long ago in quantum information. Finally note that QC algorithms can be simulated (for small size qubits) on conventional computers and the current AI technologies may also play a part here i.e. implement QC algorithms on the "Cloud supercomputer" and using AI technologies. The logical inference is that there has been some technological (one or more) breakthrough in the realization of the QC qubits technologies, QC algorithms running efficiently on the cloud, AI usage for QC etc. Nothing else explains all of the above facts. See also: The Case Against Quantum Computing by Mikhail Dyakonov (Professor of Physics) - https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing
    - NooneAtAll3 6mo ago
      > Quantum Computing (QC) is unlike previous technologies aaand you entered the "hype and irrational" territory. I dare you to reread your own comment, it is funny right now QC is 5 orders of magnitude away from practical systems - there's NO profit to invest for. It's all research that is being hyped and overpromised because there's not enough money in that sector and because established players (like google) don't want to lose their face viability of core physics does not imply immediate creation of product. I'd point to fusion, but that's also currently getting over-hyped 15-20 years too early governments are only investing the same way as into particle accelerators - in form of research grants simulation of QC is both extremely trivial (in "exponentially-slower" way) and existentially impossible (the whole sector would not exist if it was actually possible to use good old normal CPUs fast enough). Bringing in "AI technologies" only shows you as a gullible idiot that still parrots ai bubble without understanding exact details If there is a breakthrough - it is secret government information, and it would not be available to non-government companies, especially those you can invest into. The moment such breakthroughs reach the market, knowledge of the very existence spreads - and yet all current known progress is dull. The only evidence worth anything out of what you brought up is the export controls - and those have been extremely pre-emptive in preparation for geopolitics and far future tech. Error-correction barely started to be useful at 100 cubits, so 34 makes no sense other than to minimize brain drain with base tech

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

Forever is a long time, but I agree people that assert reality is the model are almost always incorrect eventually. There is some interesting work being done, but it will never match the excessive hype. =3 "The Genius of Computing with Light" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxcd9gaims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxcd9gaims

DrNosferatu 6mo ago
I would say optical computing will be practical well before QC is. Time will tell.

rramadass 6mo ago

Not sure what is going on in QC world; With this ACM prize it has become even more murky. As Sabine Hossenfelder (Theoretical Physicist) points out, companies to do with QC are seeing a surge in investments and marketing. It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTS7JZTyZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTS7JZTyZY I don't know enough about the science/technology to form an opinion but have recently started down the path of trying to understand it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46599807

hammock 6mo ago
Check out Eric weinsteins latest theory about how frontier physics has moved “dark” (with a grain of salt, some of the other things he says might tempt you to discount him completely)
NooneAtAll3 6mo ago
> It is as if somebody knows something that the "common public" doesn't oooorrr - and hear me out - investments are inherently hype-based and irrational and there is too much money flying around to do actual smart decisions
- rramadass 6mo ago
  Nope. Quantum Computing (QC) is unlike previous technologies which were all mostly "logical structures" (i.e. the underlying Physics/Technologies were well-known). The viability of both the core Physics itself and its realization through Technology for QC are questioned by some Physicists/Technologists themselves. But in 2024/2025 many Govts. and Companies both have started investing heavily in QC. Moreover the advanced countries have implemented export controls on QC technology prohibiting export of QC computers above 34-qubits. And now the ACM prize for something done long ago in quantum information. Finally note that QC algorithms can be simulated (for small size qubits) on conventional computers and the current AI technologies may also play a part here i.e. implement QC algorithms on the "Cloud supercomputer" and using AI technologies. The logical inference is that there has been some technological (one or more) breakthrough in the realization of the QC qubits technologies, QC algorithms running efficiently on the cloud, AI usage for QC etc. Nothing else explains all of the above facts. See also: The Case Against Quantum Computing by Mikhail Dyakonov (Professor of Physics) - https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing
  - NooneAtAll3 6mo ago
    > Quantum Computing (QC) is unlike previous technologies aaand you entered the "hype and irrational" territory. I dare you to reread your own comment, it is funny right now QC is 5 orders of magnitude away from practical systems - there's NO profit to invest for. It's all research that is being hyped and overpromised because there's not enough money in that sector and because established players (like google) don't want to lose their face viability of core physics does not imply immediate creation of product. I'd point to fusion, but that's also currently getting over-hyped 15-20 years too early governments are only investing the same way as into particle accelerators - in form of research grants simulation of QC is both extremely trivial (in "exponentially-slower" way) and existentially impossible (the whole sector would not exist if it was actually possible to use good old normal CPUs fast enough). Bringing in "AI technologies" only shows you as a gullible idiot that still parrots ai bubble without understanding exact details If there is a breakthrough - it is secret government information, and it would not be available to non-government companies, especially those you can invest into. The moment such breakthroughs reach the market, knowledge of the very existence spreads - and yet all current known progress is dull. The only evidence worth anything out of what you brought up is the export controls - and those have been extremely pre-emptive in preparation for geopolitics and far future tech. Error-correction barely started to be useful at 100 cubits, so 34 makes no sense other than to minimize brain drain with base tech