3 ms·
I expect informative new physics data will come out of the failure of quantum computing devices. Actual quantum supremacy would be a nice consolation prize, tho
by AlexCoventry 8y ago
I expect informative new physics data will come out of the failure of quantum computing devices. Actual quantum supremacy would be a nice consolation prize, though.
- garmaine 8y agoWhat do you mean? There are working devices today.
- AlexCoventry 8y agoThere's no clear path from today's devices to quantum supremacy.
- garmaine 8y agoActually there are. But in any case, it's not the same as "the failure of quantum computing devices." Maybe you meant market failure?
- AlexCoventry 8y agoNo, I mean failure to achieve the anticipated speed up.
- garmaine 8y agoThat's like saying quicksort will fail to achieve O(n log n) sort times. The processes underlying quantum computers doesn't exist in isolation. It's not some unique property of some untested physical theory (that string theory or quantum gravity) that might end up being totally wrong. It's the same physical processes you can test in any college physics laboratory, even your garage if you're willing to put in some work, and which underlie basic chemistry and material science. The computer or phone you're reading this on works by the same underlying physical properties as quantum computers are built on. The only reason we don't have quantum supremacy today is because they require atomic precision in their construction, something we lack the ability to do now but for which there is nothing preventing us from doing in principle. We will get there, eventually.
- AlexCoventry 8y agoIt's exactly that necessary precision which makes me skeptical. It's a different regime than we've been able to test, so far. Anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible it'll work out that way, just that I think it's unlikely, and the less interesting possibility. I definitely think the attempts to make it work are worthwhile.