Scientists Create Quantum Computer in a Diamond

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Scientists at the University of Southern California have created a computer within a diamond to test quantum computing theories. This research could lead to super computer speeds, but for the present is still in the experimental stage. A gratuitous tip of the hat to The Weazmeister for the linkage.

A qubit can represent a 0 and a 1 at the same time. This is thanks to the quantum property of superposition, and it’s the property that may one day make quantum computers insanely fast.
Click to expand...
 
This complex idea about using quantum states to encode algorithms is being projected down to one metric, speed. And the general public that reads this gains in ignorance because they believe it is accurate to describe quantum computers as "fast."
 
1 said:
This complex idea about using quantum states to encode algorithms is being projected down to one metric, speed. And the general public that reads this gains in ignorance because they believe it is accurate to describe quantum computers as "fast."
Click to expand...

What it will eventually equate to is "faster" computing. Everything aside, one day it will mean faster computers.
 
stop!theradio said:
What it will eventually equate to is "faster" computing. Everything aside, one day it will mean faster computers.
Click to expand...

If by "faster" computing you mean higher fps for video games, or super fast boot times or ...well just about anything that the average user will use his or her computer for, then no.

Other wise if you mean certain specific algorithms (certainly more and more as the subject matures) being able to compute what would take traditional digital computers longer than the existence of the universe to compute, then yes.

Are those two meanings of faster the same? I certainly hope you don't think so...but whatever...:rolleyes:
 
TheWeazmeister said:
How many work-units can it fold at a time? That's what I want to know!
Click to expand...

Solving a problem with a quantum computer involves using quantum gates to encode the problem. Then it pretty much just takes a single go and the problem is solved if you did it right.

Quantum gates are sort of like traditional logic gates, but a lot more complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gate

For more complete details

http://www.ams.org/samplings/feature-column/fcarc-quantum-one
 
1 said:
If by "faster" computing you mean higher fps for video games, or super fast boot times or ...well just about anything that the average user will use his or her computer for, then no.

Other wise if you mean certain specific algorithms (certainly more and more as the subject matures) being able to compute what would take traditional digital computers longer than the existence of the universe to compute, then yes.

Are those two meanings of faster the same? I certainly hope you don't think so...but whatever...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In its current state - obviously not. But that's no secret. My suggestion: quit acting like you know something about quantum computing that others don't. It makes you seem like one of the many weekend physicists that the internet is so populated with. At the most basic level - one day, the gains of computing with a "transistor" being able to be both on AND off at the same time will be HUGE.
 
I really think this is going to be big.

Of course, to credit the author: anything that can be a 1 and a zero at the same time...is either right (or wrong) at the same time. Makes complete sense to me now...

Do you think someone with a little less confusion could have written that article and explain how it really works?
 
What I don't understand is why and how they managed to use a neutron and electron instead of the usual method of using Cooper pair electrons.
 
stop!theradio said:
In its current state - obviously not. But that's no secret. My suggestion: quit acting like you know something about quantum computing that others don't. It makes you seem like one of the many weekend physicists that the internet is so populated with.
Click to expand...

All I said was that I don't see think it is right to state the two ideas of faster is accurate. We have a lot of cores, but that does not mean "faster" just because it has more cores.

I would say that it is an accurate description of the current state of affairs. If you want to let me know why that may or may not be true, I am more than interested.

At the most basic level - one day, the gains of computing with a "transistor" being able to be both on AND off at the same time will be HUGE.
Click to expand...
Now you are making claims that you seem to know nothing about at all. Are you just another one of those internet weekend physicist?

My suggestion: Do not make suggestions to others that are really more applicable to you.
 
pelo said:
What I don't understand is why and how they managed to use a neutron and electron instead of the usual method of using Cooper pair electrons.
Click to expand...

No idea what you are talking about....

I hope they get to work, but I am rather certain the impacts will be purely for the advancement of the scientific community. I do not every see this kind of computing as replacing (perhaps augmenting) digital computers. It certainly will not make my Windows X boot any faster, but it might help to solve the mysteries of the universe or model weather systems more accurately.
 
1 said:
All I said was that I don't see think it is right to state the two ideas of faster is accurate. We have a lot of cores, but that does not mean "faster" just because it has more cores.

I would say that it is an accurate description of the current state of affairs. If you want to let me know why that may or may not be true, I am more than interested.


Now you are making claims that you seem to know nothing about at all. Are you just another one of those internet weekend physicist?

My suggestion: Do not make suggestions to others that are really more applicable to you.
Click to expand...

You keep putting words in my mouth. No one is talking about cores. Are you meaning the simultaneous on/off state of a quantum pair? So you are saying my assumption is wrong; that one day we will not see quantum computing devices being used at large that will be much faster than what we have today? My only claim is that one day quantum computing WILL be huge and it WILL be making the average persons life much easier, just as traditional computing does now.

Obviously I can't know for sure - but neither can you. I have a really good feeling about it and to tell me I'm wrong is ignorant since you, yourself, know no better.
 
stop!theradio said:
You keep putting words in my mouth. No one is talking about cores. Are you meaning the simultaneous on/off state of a quantum pair?
Click to expand...

No...I was (rather poorly) talking about the fact that having multiple cores does not necessarily mean faster computing. Parallelism applies to a lot of algorithms, but not all of them. To say more cores means your applications will run faster is misleading and false. The same thing (only to a much greater degree) is true of quantum algorithms.

So you are saying my assumption is wrong; that one day we will not see quantum computing devices being used at large that will be much faster than what we have today? My only claim is that one day quantum computing WILL be huge and it WILL be making the average persons life much easier, just as traditional computing does now.
Click to expand...

I am saying that it is wrong and misleading to simply say it is "faster." It is an overloaded term that leaves the reader with the potential of believing quantum computers will make more life like games or faster boot times...or whatever. That only adds to the ignorance of the reader.

Obviously I can't know for sure - but neither can you. I have a really good feeling about it and to tell me I'm wrong is ignorant since you, yourself, know no better.
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure what will come of course, but I know that quantum algorithms are not going to be useful for everything and probably not most things that typical people using modern computers would care about. At least not directly (there maybe indirect benefits)

I am not saying I am expert and there is a lot more that I don't know about than I do know about. But I have worked through some pretty lengthy algorithms in a special topics class on quantum computing and I do not ever see these being useful as general purpose computers. I don't know the future, but I just do not see fitting a square peg into a round hole.

There are a lot of algorithms out there are if a fully functional quantum computer was working would make for some interesting math and computer science. I am excited about the possibilities too. I just don't think it is correct to call it "faster" without better qualification of the term.

Good day sir.:p
 
First, it's a computer built into a diamond.

The next thing you know, Sean Connery is running around in a red diaper.

zardoz.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top