Call me when there's a Quantum Laptop that can play minecraft.
[QUOTE=Reader;40607009]Current ASICs work like normal chips do, they don't take advantage of quantum entanglement or whatever it is.
Wouldn't quantum be much faster?[/QUOTE]
if you found a quantum bitcoin algorithm sure
the question is if one exists
[QUOTE=gman003-main;40606457]One of the fundamental elements of quantum physics is something called "superposition". At a quantum scale (meaning at or below the level of atoms) when an event happens that could have multiple outcomes, that outcome isn't "fixed" until it is observed.
Say you flip a coin, except a coin so small quantum physics applies to it. Until you look, the coin is in a superposition of states - it is both heads-up and tails-up. And you can do things to that coin while it is in a superposition, as long as you don't actually look at the face.
Quantum entanglement is an extension of that. Let's use an actual example - a decay happens that produces two photons with opposite phase. Until you observe the phase of either one, both are in a superposition of phases. But when you observe one, the other one immediately drops out of superposition. The two were entangled.
The way you use that for computing is to have "bits" that can be in a superposition of their 1 and 0 state. You can use this to run certain problems in parallel, on the same "circuit". So instead of needing 10,000 cores to test various possible solutions to the problem, you run it once using qubits, and the only correct answer will be what you see when you finally observe it.
As a bit of a side note, other quantum effects already happen in traditional processors, as we're getting them to a scale where quantum effects can be significant. That's the main reason Intel had to switch to 3D transistors - quantum tunneling (where, because the position of particles is "fuzzy") was allowing too many electrons to "tunnel" through transistors they shouldn't have been able to go through. Some are actually trying to exploit these effects, most notably to make 1-transistor SRAM. But these are not quantum computers, as they don't use the superposition of states as a computing tool. They merely use quantum effects to help make more efficient circuits.
There is one other "quantum" computer that I wish more research was done on - rapid single-flux quantum computing. It essentially exploits certain quantum effects in superconductors to make faster and more efficient transistors. And by faster, I mean "early computers would be in the 50GHz range, scaling into the 100GHz range, and single transistors have been tested to terahertz frequencies". Sadly, between "superconductors need to be cooled with liquid nitrogen or helium" and "we can't design circuits that run at 10GHz, much less 50GHz" everyone seems to have given up on it.[/QUOTE]
(before people start getting ideas about "stuff doesn't happen unless you observe it" this is a very handwavey and somewhat inaccurate account of quantum physics.)
investing in 3d printing and quantum computers now will guarantee your wealth for a long time coming
[editline]11th May 2013[/editline]
i wish d-wave had public stock options, they're showing that this shit is entirely viable commercially and they stand to make a huge profit off of it
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40607867](before people start getting ideas about "stuff doesn't happen unless you observe it" this is a very handwavey and somewhat inaccurate account of quantum physics.)[/QUOTE]
Can we get it explained like i'm Calvin, aged 5?
[QUOTE=kenji;40607938]Can we get it explained like i'm Calvin, aged 5?[/QUOTE]
do you understand complex numbers?
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;40607562]if you found a quantum bitcoin algorithm sure
the question is if one exists[/QUOTE]
Quantum bitcoin algorithm?
Hashes are there, you need processing power to solve them.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;40605805]But can it run crysis [sp] im so sorry [/sp][/QUOTE]
Steady 11 fps on low!
One of my professors talked about that D-wave quantum computer a few months back. He was skeptical because they claim to have a 128 qubit computer whilst many top scientists are struggling to keep more than 10 qubits coherent for long enough.
"Unlike classical bits, quantum bits, or qubits, can take the values 0 and 1 at the same time"
Oh boy, programmers gonna hate, confusion to the max. :tinfoil:
So probably towards the end of my life time, we'll see Desktop Quantum PC's, which will have migrated into Video Cards in some way as well, and we'll be seeing games taking 10 years to create, but will be nearly perfect 1:1 in photorealism. Stuff that we normally see rendered in 3DSmax over an hour, rendered 60 times a second for our gaming pleasure
[QUOTE=TheTalon;40609665]So probably towards the end of my life time, we'll see Desktop Quantum PC's, which will have migrated into Video Cards in some way as well, and we'll be seeing games taking 10 years to create, but will be nearly perfect 1:1 in photorealism. Stuff that we normally see rendered in 3DSmax over an hour, rendered 60 times a second for our gaming pleasure[/QUOTE]
sooner than you think
unless you're like 60 right now in which case that sucks and why are you on an internet forum shouldn't you be playing suffleboard or something
[QUOTE=dat website]The D-Wave computer found the best solution every time within half a second. The three regular algorithms struggled to keep up for problems with more than 100 or so variables. The best of the three, CPLEX, had to run for half an hour to match D-Wave's performance on the largest problems.[/QUOTE]
I found this mighty impressive.
don't we also need quantum memory storage capabilities before quantum computers can really take off?
you can't store quantum information in a classical system, can you?
From what I'm understanding about superposition, you can 'push' the probability of a qubit falling upon one state over another, I'm confused on how you can apply algorithms to these systems besides several inputs.
Also, I'd see quantum computers having problems in irradiated environments, you'd have more bit (qubit) flips and errors compared to current electronics without proper shielding.
Quantum computers require among other things quantum algorithms, which I would say is the largest detriment to quantum computing at the moment, it's advancing far slower than the field of quantum physics, specifically if we look at quantum mechanics applications.
It's not about doing more in less time, that comes within the field of classical mechanics, it's about doing less to spend less time computing an algorithm. We wouldn't be looking at higher frequency processors, we would be looking at what would by classical standards be slow processors essentially skipping steps and producing probabilistic results with significantly less operations (For example, Shor's Algorithm factors integers in polynomial time [it grows linearly over time] while the fastest deterministic algorithm does that in exponential time). At the moment there isn't a quantum version of many important deterministic algorithms, but the ones that exist are quite promising, like Grover's algorithm which is able to search a unsorted database in less than linear time.
You all need to wait about 20 years or so before quantum computing actually starts to set in into the mainstream.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;40606457]One of the fundamental elements of quantum physics is something called "superposition". At a quantum scale (meaning at or below the level of atoms) when an event happens that could have multiple outcomes, that outcome isn't "fixed" until it is observed.
Say you flip a coin, except a coin so small quantum physics applies to it. Until you look, the coin is in a superposition of states - it is both heads-up and tails-up. And you can do things to that coin while it is in a superposition, as long as you don't actually look at the face.
Quantum entanglement is an extension of that. Let's use an actual example - a decay happens that produces two photons with opposite phase. Until you observe the phase of either one, both are in a superposition of phases. But when you observe one, the other one immediately drops out of superposition. The two were entangled.
The way you use that for computing is to have "bits" that can be in a superposition of their 1 and 0 state. You can use this to run certain problems in parallel, on the same "circuit". So instead of needing 10,000 cores to test various possible solutions to the problem, you run it once using qubits, and the only correct answer will be what you see when you finally observe it.
As a bit of a side note, other quantum effects already happen in traditional processors, as we're getting them to a scale where quantum effects can be significant. That's the main reason Intel had to switch to 3D transistors - quantum tunneling (where, because the position of particles is "fuzzy") was allowing too many electrons to "tunnel" through transistors they shouldn't have been able to go through. Some are actually trying to exploit these effects, most notably to make 1-transistor SRAM. But these are not quantum computers, as they don't use the superposition of states as a computing tool. They merely use quantum effects to help make more efficient circuits.
There is one other "quantum" computer that I wish more research was done on - rapid single-flux quantum computing. It essentially exploits certain quantum effects in superconductors to make faster and more efficient transistors. And by faster, I mean "early computers would be in the 50GHz range, scaling into the 100GHz range, and single transistors have been tested to terahertz frequencies". Sadly, between "superconductors need to be cooled with liquid nitrogen or helium" and "we can't design circuits that run at 10GHz, much less 50GHz" everyone seems to have given up on it.[/QUOTE]
Well technically what happens with that superposition is not very well defined yet, either one state collapses once it is measured and the other is true (copenhagen interpretation) or they both happened and exist in parallel universes (many worlds) or hell, maybe it collapsed long before we even observed it.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40607867](before people start getting ideas about "stuff doesn't happen unless you observe it" this is a very handwavey and somewhat inaccurate account of quantum physics.)[/QUOTE]
Yeah pretty much, Shcrodinger's Cat and Einstein's EPR paradox both showed that the interpretation isn't complete
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40607867](before people start getting ideas about "stuff doesn't happen unless you observe it" this is a very handwavey and somewhat inaccurate account of quantum physics.)[/QUOTE]
i always thought "observe" in that context meant something more specific than looking at it
[QUOTE=TheHydra;40611927]i always thought "observe" in that context meant something more specific than looking at it[/QUOTE]
The proper word was "measure"
Holy shit.
At last, we will be able to run Civ games with 10000 AIs civs with almost no delay in between turns.
The true turn based gamer dream come true...
Oh, and all those Sim City/Simulation games.
JUST FINISH IT FUCKING FAST FFS.
I never read once an actual measurement of speed.
I wanted to see something like *The equivalent of a traditional 5tHz processor.* or something.
[QUOTE=Walrus Viking;40612873]I never read once an actual measurement of speed.
I wanted to see something like *The equivalent of a traditional 5tHz processor.* or something.[/QUOTE]
Comparisons don't work that way. This "quantum computer" acts, in many respects, like an ASIC, or even a dedicated analog circuit. It can only do one thing, so the only comparison that you can make is how fast it can do that one thing.
But even a general-purpose quantum computer will perform vastly differently at certain tasks compared to a transistor-based computer. You might get, at best, parity between the quantum and transistor computers at linear tasks (or more likely, the transistor chip runs far faster), but then feed it a "find the optimal path on this map that visits all of these locations in any order"-type problem and it runs it several billion times faster.
It's like comparing CPU and GPU performance, except the architectures are even more radically different.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;40605805]But can it run crysis [sp] im so sorry [/sp][/QUOTE]
It will, and will not, run crysis at the same time.
[QUOTE=Walrus Viking;40612873]I never read once an actual measurement of speed.
I wanted to see something like *The equivalent of a traditional 5tHz processor.* or something.[/QUOTE]
that's exactly what you won't get, because it doesn't work like that, mainly because speed is a very relative measurement which for most computation involves a large amount of components (AKA why it isn't all about the clock rate of the processor).
what you'll get is a reduction in algorithm complexity (ironically by using very complex concepts of quantum physics and applied mathematics), i would suggest familiarizing with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation]big O notation[/url] to kind of understand what this is about. the impressive thing about quantum algorithms is the ability to make algorithms that are able to skip steps that used to be considered elementary or even mandatory to classic algorithms and produce results in time that defies classic logic.
problem is, the results that it yields aren't necessarily deterministic, which adds an additional complication with using it on modern day computing, added on top of the fact that maintaining entanglement is quite complicated. we're still too damn far for this to be comparable to modern day hardware.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;40612969]Comparisons don't work that way. This "quantum computer" acts, in many respects, like an ASIC, or even a dedicated analog circuit. It can only do one thing, so the only comparison that you can make is how fast it can do that one thing.
But even a general-purpose quantum computer will perform vastly differently at certain tasks compared to a transistor-based computer. You might get, at best, parity between the quantum and transistor computers at linear tasks (or more likely, the transistor chip runs far faster), but then feed it a "find the optimal path on this map that visits all of these locations in any order"-type problem and it runs it several billion times faster.
It's like comparing CPU and GPU performance, except the architectures are even more radically different.[/QUOTE]
you're confusing a couple of things. you can indeed have a quantum turing machine, therefore you can have a general purpose quantum computer that uses quantum gates, essentially a parallel to a deterministic computer. it's not about the transistors or nothing, it's literally on how it operates considering it's basic unit of calculation (the qubit). quantum computing is still int it's infancy, and we still don't know if every P or NP algorithm can be transformed into a quantum algorithm, there's no metric for that yet.
what makes quantum computers so fast isn't how they're made, but how you could effectively have 2^n (n being the amount of qubits) different probabilistic states at any given time as long as superposition is maintained within just n qubits.
Got a picture of the two scientists.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LSRsVgA.png[/img]
Room temperature superconducters would make quantum computing development progress much faster.
[QUOTE=Xieneus;40605782]The future is here.[/QUOTE]
My e-Anus is ready.
Both Mac and Pc at the same time..?
Finally, I was hoping for something like this, I mean how long does silicon have left before they reach a brick wall. I assume if they hadn't developed this, in 20 years Intel would be telling us how great a .0001 performance increase was over the last chip.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;40605805]But can it run crysis [sp] im so sorry [/sp][/QUOTE]
Better question: Can it run Crysis slow enough for someone to comprehend what is going on? I mean, hell, your average gaming-tier PC has to run older games like Deus Ex with a framerate cap set in order for the game not to run unplayably fast (Yes, that's a real thing), now imagine playing Deus Ex with uncapped framerate on a quantum computer.
But anyway, I'm off to go hyperinflate bitcoin.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
