What do you think of quantum computing?

[smcracraft]

Curious about your thoughts
on the above...

[hgm]

I have always felt that quantum computing is a red herring.

To me it seems basically a form of analog computing, trying to put exponentially much information in the state variables. Counting your machine exponentially more powerful of course makes all problems seem logarithmically more easy, with as a esult that exponentially difficult problems now become only polynomially difficult.

But we know that analog computing does not work, as it runs into noise problems, and that the best way to built computers is to use binary state variables. those trying to do actual quantum computing crash into that noise limit as well (and then call it 'decoherence').

[rjgibert]

One tendency of human nature is to throw rocks at what one does not understand instead of simply admitting not understanding. This is something difficult for anyone to avoid 100% of the time. I don't understand it, but there appears to be something to it. As for your analogy, I doubt whether it has any validity. I would expect that, if one really wants to understand it, that your way of going about it is not the best way.

[hgm]

It might help you to know that I used to be a professor teaching quantum mechanics, then...

[Rolf]

http://www.esi-topics.com/fbp/comments/ ... uller.html

[Richard Allbert]

One tendency of human nature is to throw rocks at what one does not understand instead of simply admitting not understanding. This is something difficult for anyone to avoid 100% of the time. I don't understand it, but there appears to be something to it. As for your analogy, I doubt whether it has any validity. I would expect that, if one really wants to understand it, that your way of going about it is not the best way.

The hypocrisy in your post is amazing.

The two replies are rather good though

[mhull]

One tendency of human nature is to throw rocks at what one does not understand instead of simply admitting not understanding. This is something difficult for anyone to avoid 100% of the time. I don't understand it, but there appears to be something to it. As for your analogy, I doubt whether it has any validity. I would expect that, if one really wants to understand it, that your way of going about it is not the best way.

I would trust Dr. Muller on this one, though I understand very little about it. From what I have understood, I get the same impression as his remarks indicate.

[smrf]

Suppose the universe is a big simulation. Its quantum structure seems to be a fine trick to have its myriads of states much easier to be calculated. Linking of atoms sometimes at quantum level seems to be another trick to have some state changes delayed up to a later moment of unavoidable interaction.

If we start to build quantum computers e.g. to calculate huge prime numbers in a fraction of a second, the huge universe simulator engine finally has to do that task for us instead. Maybe its operator will do a restart or cancel the running program, while watching us making that nonsense.

Whether we would survive seems no to be sure ...

[MattieShoes]

Best laugh I had all day

For clarification though, I'm curious what you mean by "red herring".

Do you think they'll ultimately be completly useless?
Or do you think they'll only prove useful in a small specific subset of problems?

[Bill Rogers]

Although I don't understand the principles behind Quantum computers as in all other areas of science and computers I believe that once they build such machines someone will find ways to improve them and maybe do away with whatever shortcommings they might have. It is my understanding that the human brain is somewhat like a quantum computer.
Bill