Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quantum computer debuts

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 9, 2007 5:13:58 PM

Quote:
In a quantum computer, every quantum bit (or "qubit") is simultaneously both 0 and 1. Put two qubits together, and you have a system whose values are simultaneously every value from 0 to 3. A system with only 300 qubits is in 1090 (one followed by 90 zeros) states simultaneously - more than the number of atoms in the known universe.


However,
Quote:
The trade-off is that an AQC solves only one problem. It takes any set of inputs and settles into the one state that solves that problem for those inputs. Orion solves a theoretical magnetic field problem, called the two-dimensional Ising model, which would take exponential amounts of time on a normal computer. It can solve more useful problems, such as protein folding and financial optimisation, after a conventional computer translates them into the Ising model.

With 16 qubits, it won't do anything a conventional computer can't, but D-Wave hopes to add qubits quickly if the unproven technology works. "The jury is out," says Lloyd. "It's a long shot, but they've gone about it in the best possible way: they've said 'Let's build it and see'."

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2007593,00.html

Probably quite some time before this will be a useful technology - still, it's quite remarkable.

More info:
http://dwave.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/quantum-computing-demo-announcement/
http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197004661
February 9, 2007 9:26:27 PM

A working quantum computer that can actually do something useful would be truly revolutionary. It would also bring some very serious problems potentially though - AFAIK pretty much every form of encryption there is today would be rendered useless overnight.
Related resources
February 9, 2007 9:48:37 PM

IMO, the biggest thing going for quantum computing right now is security and encryption. The laws of physics make it impossible to break a quantum encryption.
February 9, 2007 10:04:26 PM

Quote:
AFAIK pretty much every form of encryption there is today would be rendered useless overnight.


Excellent. I mean, crap!
February 9, 2007 10:39:08 PM

Quote:
AFAIK pretty much every form of encryption there is today would be rendered useless overnight.


Excellent. I mean, crap!

this great no retarded DRM.
February 10, 2007 8:22:32 AM

Well great from that point of view, and from the fact that every governments secret files would be openly available pretty quickly (finally find out if there really are UFOs :) ), but it would also mean that things such as your bank accounts would be vulnerable :?

SEALBoy, I know a bit about quantum computing (I did a module at Uni and didn't understand much of the maths!), we did a bit about key distribution with quantum computers, if this is what your referring to then your pretty much right - it's possible to intercept quantum data and read it, but there is no way of doing that without the sender and receiver knowing about it. I'm sure there will be a workaround someday, but I think the only way you'll break quantum encryption is with a quantum computer.

My bet is that if quantum computers are as dangerous to current crypto algorithms as I suspect, governments will restrict who can buy one, until countermeasures can be developed (hell the US had even banned the textbook to the crypto course I did so who know's what they'd do about this). If quantum computers become readily available, then we'd have internet anarchy!
February 10, 2007 8:29:45 AM

Quote:
AFAIK pretty much every form of encryption there is today would be rendered useless overnight.


Excellent. I mean, crap!

this great no retarded DRM.

Can you imagine how much fun RIAA/MPAA/Gates would have with quantum DRM? As soon as you tried to play a downloaded Pink Floyd tune, they would quantum displace teleport your HD's content to FBI HQ!

Julian33, I don't know whether quantum computing is going to become viable and reliable until such time as the underlying physics is understood. From my standpoint, the quantum computing math can determine how it works but not why. And that is a pretty poor basis for a "new" tech industry.
February 10, 2007 1:05:49 PM

the number of atoms in the known universe is absolutely greater than your 1090, the actual number is 101000000 plus infinity. (that is a 1 with over 1 million zeroes added to it)

you forgot to count exploding stars and avogadro's number.
February 10, 2007 2:36:37 PM

Quote:
the number of atoms in the known universe is absolutely greater than your 1090, the actual number is 101000000 plus infinity. (that is a 1 with over 1 million zeroes added to it)

you forgot to count exploding stars and avogadro's number.


Are you sure? Because that's a lot of atoms, and yes, the universe is huge, but that is still a LOT of atoms. And what's with Avogadro's number and exploding stars? :?
February 10, 2007 3:09:29 PM

Avagadro's number applies to everything that ever existed ever. [/sarcastic]
-cm
February 10, 2007 3:36:53 PM

Quote:
Avagadro's number applies to everything that ever existed ever. [/sarcastic]
-cm


We can do some math about the real number of atoms in the universe.
Lets say , a solar mass star has a mass of 2*10^30 kg. Lets say , it consists of hydrogen(to simplify calculations). This means , that star has m/M = 2*10^33 moles of hydrogen. This corresponds to (2*10^33)*(nAvog) ~ 1.2*10^57 Atoms.
It is estimated that there may be approximately 7*10^22 stars in the Universe.
So , very rough calculations would predict that there may be ~ 8.5*10^79 atoms in stars.Including nebulosities and other space matter this number may increase a few times.
Some sources say that there may be approx 10^80 atoms in the universe , which is very close to the number i have estimated.
February 10, 2007 9:46:07 PM

Thats Niobium :) 

oh and baz, ur calcs are only for hydrogen, but there are over 106 known elements.

plus you forgot about the 6 billion humans we have on planet earth, each person has over 100 billion atoms each and don't forget to add in insects, animals and other non-human entities.

ps i used to be an expert in chem :) 
February 10, 2007 9:52:41 PM

The universe is 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium. The other 104 elements are negligible.
February 10, 2007 10:18:51 PM

Quote:
In a quantum computer, every quantum bit (or "qubit") is simultaneously both 0 and 1. Put two qubits together, and you have a system whose values are simultaneously every value from 0 to 3. A system with only 300 qubits is in 1090 (one followed by 90 zeros) states simultaneously - more than the number of atoms in the known universe.


However,
Quote:
The trade-off is that an AQC solves only one problem. It takes any set of inputs and settles into the one state that solves that problem for those inputs. Orion solves a theoretical magnetic field problem, called the two-dimensional Ising model, which would take exponential amounts of time on a normal computer. It can solve more useful problems, such as protein folding and financial optimisation, after a conventional computer translates them into the Ising model.

With 16 qubits, it won't do anything a conventional computer can't, but D-Wave hopes to add qubits quickly if the unproven technology works. "The jury is out," says Lloyd. "It's a long shot, but they've gone about it in the best possible way: they've said 'Let's build it and see'."

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2007593,00.html

Probably quite some time before this will be a useful technology - still, it's quite remarkable.

More info:
http://dwave.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/quantum-computing-demo-announcement/
http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197004661

I seriusly hope the quantum computer never gets the chance to evolve into an "oracle" computer... where it knows everything that can happen at any time and at all the times x_x
February 10, 2007 10:38:59 PM

hey seal where'd u get ur %'s? made them up?

Recognize this formula? c6 h6

this is the basic formula that most organic chems are based on, that also includes dna, proteins, enzymes, flora, trees, vegetation, etc etc.

the other 104 elements are not neg...they are worthwhile to count.

Know what the C stands for? carbon.

u can count stars... but stars have planets rotating within their gravitation

our milky way galaxy has more than 9 planets and 1 star.

most scientists say that each star has its own galaxy, so dont forget to count the planets too.

in our solar system thats a 9 plus to 1 ratio, of planets to stars.
February 10, 2007 10:42:24 PM

Quote:
in our solar system thats a 9 plus to 1 ratio, of planets to stars.


And our Star makes up over 99% of the matter in our solar system anyway...
February 10, 2007 10:44:44 PM

I took an Astrophysics course in high school. Believe me, besides H and He, everything is negligible when you consider the whole universe. Carbon is abundant in life-forms and even planets, but the mass of these objects dwarfs compared to the mass of the sun.

Sure, there might be more planets than the sun, but they're like ants compared to a human.
February 10, 2007 11:08:45 PM

i dont need to believe u i am twice ur age..who has more experience here?
February 10, 2007 11:34:24 PM

I wonder how being an expert in chem has made you an expert on universe composition. Let me spell it out for you:
Mass of average star = 10^30kg
Mass of Jupiter = 10^27kg

Since Jupiter is 1/1000th the mass of the sun, it makes very little impact on the the overall composition of the solar system. The other 9 or so planets have even less impact. Hence, the mass and composition of the solar system is more or less equal to the sun's. There are an enormous number of stars, but relatively very, very few (known) planets. Hence the composition of galaxies is more or less the composition of their constituent stars.

What are stars made of? Generation 2 stars (older) are made of Hydrogen, Helium, and traces of Lithium. Generation 1 stars (like the sun) are made of Hydrogen, Helium, and traces (less than 1%) of heavier elements up to Fe. Why? Because the Big Bang produced only H, He, and very little Li. The first generation of stars was composed of only these three elements. When these stars exploded/supernovaed, the immense release of energy forced nuclei together and formed heavier elements. When new stars formed from these old stars, the contained very small traces of these heavy elements. Some of the matter didn't go into the star and hence planets/asteroids/other interstellar crap was born. The earth is composed entirely of negligible amounts of trace elements.

I might be a little rusty on the details, but this is the gist of it. Composition of universe = composition of galaxies = composition of stars.

BTW, what you said about all the elements on earth and the billions of atoms in the human body and other life forms is all well and true, but you have to realize that stars have TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS times more H and He than we have C, O, N, etc. You might as well ask yourself, "Does the Sahara have more sand grains than the earth atoms?"
February 10, 2007 11:51:02 PM

ok here's the last word...u and me nor anyone else on planet earth has been outside the milkyway galaxy

no one truly knows whats out there

yes we have telescopes that see space, but u can't put a number on infinite items.

when u are tryijng to count outside our galaxy, infinity is the best number.

next topic.
February 11, 2007 12:00:16 AM

OMG

As a chemist, you of all people should know about about emission and absorption spectra. Guess what? It works on stars. And astronomers know quite a lot about the structure of the universe. We can extrapolate images taken at the known end of the universe, among other things, to put a rough number on the galaxies in the universe. Currently, there are about as many galaxies in the universe as there are stars in a galaxy. Mind you, this is observable matter. Put in dark matter, and all theories of universe composition fall apart (but it doesn't mean that there is carbon, because we would be able to see it).

And we DO know whats out there: lots and lots and lots of stars. If there was something else significant in the universe, we would have picked it up by now.

Regardless of whether or not there are an infinite number of galaxies in the universe, their still made up of stars, so the composition is the same.
February 11, 2007 12:12:55 AM

OMG = O MY GOOBER!!! hehe don't forget raisinette!

this convo started with a 1 and 90 zeroes after it...

the topic is for number of atoms in the universe

one of our forum posters thought he could get away with posting a msg about big numbers..

universe is made up of an infinite number of atoms.

Don't forget the parts inside atoms such as :Gluons protons neutrons electrons and muons and mesons.

ok we are not getting into my theories on Vanderwaals forces!

what mmorg do u play seal?
February 11, 2007 12:16:05 AM

Quote:
I posted this at xbit or something,i forget. :p 

The metal they use is interesting ,nibonium.Nothing more on the cpu metals as far as i could find.Nibonim is a soft metal that melts above 4k f.
Not all the isotopes have been detailed according to the los alamos link that i like so much.

Interesting that it is used in stainless steel welding.


Although it deals more with superconductivity aspects, you might like this link.
February 11, 2007 4:45:42 AM


-cm
February 11, 2007 5:01:33 AM

That's what I wanted to say, but I'm too nice.

@ PC_Side_line: listen, man, you were wrong about one thing and I corrected you. You don't have to start going off on a tangent about how we don't know anything about the universe and it's a useless debate anyways.

And if I was rude to you, I'm sorry.
February 12, 2007 12:12:26 PM

i wonder if this "quantum computer" can play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Let's stick with priorities here.
-cm
February 12, 2007 3:27:35 PM

I wonder if it can help me find my car keys? 8O
February 12, 2007 3:43:26 PM

Nothing can help you. You suck. ;) 
-cm
February 12, 2007 4:17:26 PM

Quote:
The universe is 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium. The other 104 elements are negligible.


If you counted the other elements wouldn't you end up with a smaller number anyway? Or did I get that backwards?
February 12, 2007 4:24:50 PM

Nice. Does it come with Solitaire and Minesweeper?
February 12, 2007 4:36:07 PM

Quote:
Nice. Does it come with Solitaire and Minesweeper?


It comes with Quantum Solitaire. You play it against yourself in the other branes. :lol: 
February 12, 2007 4:38:43 PM

Quote:
The universe is 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium. The other 104 elements are negligible.


I thought the most abundunt element in the universe was helium...
February 12, 2007 4:59:11 PM

Quote:
OMG = O MY GOOBER!!! hehe don't forget raisinette!

this convo started with a 1 and 90 zeroes after it...

the topic is for number of atoms in the universe

one of our forum posters thought he could get away with posting a msg about big numbers..

universe is made up of an infinite number of atoms.

Don't forget the parts inside atoms such as :Gluons protons neutrons electrons and muons and mesons.

ok we are not getting into my theories on Vanderwaals forces!

what mmorg do u play seal?


For being twice his age you sure do type like you're 10... maybe 12. :?
February 12, 2007 5:40:21 PM

if a quantum computer breaks down , how can you fix it?
observing the problem shall cause it to break down into
one state ...
February 12, 2007 5:48:54 PM

Quote:
The universe is 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium. The other 104 elements are negligible.


If you counted the other elements wouldn't you end up with a smaller number anyway? Or did I get that backwards?

Not exactly sure what you mean.

@sweetpants: No, it's hydrogen. Helium (and Lithium, for that matter)requires neutrons, and I believe the ratio of protons to neutrons was (and probably still is) 3:1 when the universe cooled down enough to allow protons and neutrons to exist.
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2007 6:15:59 PM

Quote:
the actual number is 101000000 plus infinity. (that is a 1 with over 1 million zeroes added to it)


Does it really matter what number n equals if n+infinity still equals infinity? By creating a equasion with infinity, you don't actually create a result different than infinity...because you can never theoretically get there. So, infinity and infinity+1 equal the same thing. The same could be said (in reference) as 0=0*1,000,000,000. So, your idea of 101000000+infinity is in fact, the same as infinity, and infinity is not the same as a 1 with a million zeros behind it. I am suprised that someone else didn't catch this.
February 12, 2007 7:16:53 PM

Quote:
the actual number is 101000000 plus infinity. (that is a 1 with over 1 million zeroes added to it)


The same could be said (in reference) as 0=0*1,000,000,000.

If you have nothing why would you want to multiply it? Hey guys look I don't have car, look I won't have a car 1 million times.

Duh. 8O
February 12, 2007 7:22:10 PM

Quote:
the actual number is 101000000 plus infinity. (that is a 1 with over 1 million zeroes added to it)


The same could be said (in reference) as 0=0*1,000,000,000.

If you have nothing why would you want to multiply it? Hey guys look I don't have car, look I won't have a car 1 million times.

Duh. 8O

Because not having one million cars is better than not having one car. Like, duh, and stuff!

Ok, so nevermind. :p 
February 12, 2007 7:43:23 PM

Quote:
if a quantum computer breaks down , how can you fix it?
observing the problem shall cause it to break down into
one state ...


Good opening post, zinger! I'm sure I speak for verndewd as well when we welcome you aboard. We need more "zingers" around here! :D 

Quote:
The great thing about it is there is an infinite level of fixed and broken states of the pc.

What a great adventure for gaming this will be ;you will play against the many other selves you have ;talk about an acid trip gone bad.Insanity is the end reult or absorption into the fabric of absolute oneness. :wink:


Mrs. Schroedinger to Mr. Schroedinger: What the hell did you do to the cat? It looks half dead!

I don't know what's wrong with Heisenberg. He seems so sure of himself lately.

What did Heisenberg say about sex?
If you've got the position you haven't got the momentum and if you've got the energy you haven't got the time!

Q: What's the difference between a quantum mechanic and an auto mechanic?
A: A quantum mechanic can get his car into the garage without opening the door.
February 12, 2007 9:21:13 PM

Quote:
The universe is 75% Hydrogen, 25% Helium. The other 104 elements are negligible.


If you counted the other elements wouldn't you end up with a smaller number anyway? Or did I get that backwards?

Not exactly sure what you mean.



You approximated teh number of atoms in the universe based on the amount of hydrogen in the sun based on the sun's mass and the assumption that the sun is nearly 100% hydrogen and all other elements were of neglible quantities. If you assumed the Sun was made of LEAD and re-run the calculation wouldn't you have gotten a much smaller number? Just pointing out that his argument bringing up atoms with more mass would have resulted in a smaller number, not the larger number he wants to belive is true. So this also means that Jupitor is ~1/1,000th the mass of the sun but contains ~1/20,000th the number of atoms. Unless I'm horribly confused, which I might be, I was just trying to point out that brining up elements other than hydrogen goes completely against his point by factors of up to ~236 (Hydrogen vs. Uranium)... People bringing up arguments that are, in fact, antithesis to their view and presenting them as evidence of how they are right is one of my pet peeves but the atomic composition of the universe is a little outside my area of expertise so I was asking for verification before I became royally annoyed ;) 
February 12, 2007 9:22:58 PM

thanks capt..... great to be onboard .....
time to journey to the abyss ....
February 12, 2007 9:37:49 PM

Well I didn't do any calculations, but you are right. We weren't arguing over the mass of the universe, but over the composition of the universe.

BTW, Jupiter is mostly hydrogen as well. :wink:
February 12, 2007 11:22:37 PM

Quote:
Does it really matter what number n equals if n+infinity still equals infinity? By creating a equation with infinity, you don't actually create a result different than infinity...because you can never theoretically get there. So, infinity and infinity+1 equal the same thing. The same could be said (in reference) as 0=0*1,000,000,000. So, your idea of 101000000+infinity is in fact, the same as infinity, and infinity is not the same as a 1 with a million zeros behind it. I am surprised that someone else didn't catch this.


For the most part, any operation with infinity yields the expected result but there are certain cases you've got to watch out for. These particular operations are called indeterminate because as the name implies one cannot readily solve the equality. The one you typed, 0 * inf is the most common one. Other examples that I remember are inf^0, 0/0 and inf/inf. You need to use L'Hopital theorem to solve further.

-Z
February 12, 2007 11:43:15 PM

Quote:
Well I didn't do any calculations, but you are right. We weren't arguing over the mass of the universe, but over the composition of the universe.

BTW, Jupiter is mostly hydrogen as well. :wink:


...stupid gas planets. *grumble*
February 13, 2007 12:04:50 AM

Earth = pWned. Hell, Milky Way = pWned.
!