4 ms·

Disclaimer: I'm near the end of a PhD in experimental quantum computing. I'm not sure what he means very little progress... we're entangling over long distance

by gaze 8y ago

Disclaimer: I'm near the end of a PhD in experimental quantum computing. I'm not sure what he means very little progress... we're entangling over long distances, we're doing practical error correction, we're reaching really long coherence times. More importantly, we've seen exponential progress in coherence times over time. Moore's law-like progress. Quantum computing has also had the side benefit of generating obviously practical results like ultra wide bandwidth, high dynamic range quantum limited amplifiers, and debatably practical but stunning fundamental results like reversing a quantum jump in real time by feedback. This is all recent. Quantum computing research has exploded in the last 10 years. The blog post just sounds like some dude that doesn't really understand physics, didn't do a thorough literature search, didn't really even look at recent news articles, who pats himself on the back for being a real practical business guy instead of a Quantum Physics PhD, because some Quantum Physics PhD served him food or something and thus they must all be floundering. He then goes on to poorly explain why quantum computing is really really hard and therefore we shouldn't be spending money on it. Poorly I say because he can't even seem to explain properly one of MANY proposed implementations of a quantum computer. One that isn't even particularly popular anymore. I really think he just woke up angry and wrote this. Nearly having finished a PhD in quantum computing, I wouldn't say the skills I'm most proud of I picked up are my understanding of quantum mechanics... I'm now an expert in low noise microwave electronics, high speed feedback control, cryogenics. Some of which are practically useful skills, some of which are highly applicable towards better understanding of the natural world in ways that I think the author would even agree are worthwhile. So no, my life hasn't been wasted and my career hasn't been ruined.

scottlocklin 8y ago
"my life hasn't been wasted and my career hasn't been ruined" Talk to me in 10 years when you're not bringing me a steak for a living. FWIIW I went to a Gordon conference on this in the 90s, and literally, the capabilities of quantum computers have not changed since then. Zero. None. There has been no "Moore's law like progress." There hasn't been any! That's the point! There's been more progress in interstellar space flight than quantum computing (I dunno, White-Juday is at least a good try), but at least warp drive creators aren't trying to convince people like you to ruin your lives.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  >Talk to me in 10 years when you're not bringing me a steak for a living. This comes off as an incredibly hostile sentence, though I suspect you may have not meant it as just an attack.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    Dude, some guy with a Ph.D. in quantum computing from MIT brought me a steak for a $10 tip; does that not concern you?
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      Dude, some guy with a Ph.D. in quantum computing from MIT brought me a steak for a $10 tip; does that not concern you? Dude, your n=1 anecdote isn’t as amusing or compelling as you seem to think. Your entire argument seems more like a thinly veiled excuse to rant than it resembles an intellectual exercise. That’s hardly an inspiring argument from a self-styled empiricist. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961731
      - scottlocklin 8y ago
        I thought it was hilarious, personally, as we were discussing at the dinner table why quantum computing is probably nonsense. My interlocutor (who was more or less going along with the conventional opinion that QC is about to "change everything") thought I bribed the waiter to say this.
    - z3t4 8y ago
      If you only sleep 4 hours you can have two jobs and still work on quantum computing. Then when you make a break-though someone steals your idea. Science is only for the privileged.
- gaze 8y ago
  https://imgur.com/a/HCJ7hLq https://imgur.com/a/HCJ7hLq Again, exponential progress in coherence time.
bassman9000 8y ago
He then goes on to poorly explain why quantum computing is really really hard and therefore we shouldn't be spending money on it I think it read more like We're still ages away from the ancilliary technologies that will allow us to tackle quantum computing The whole XVIII century vs SR-71 example was pretty clear
- gaze 8y ago
  But what technologies are needed to make quantum computing work with say superconducting qubits? High speed room temperature processors? FPGAs and fast DACs/ADCs will do it. Low loss cables? Got that. Low noise amplifiers? Got it. Idk what people want. It’s a good time to start throwing money at it to iron out the problems that nobody wants to do a thesis on. It’s not riskfree but it’s a reasonable bet.
  - bassman9000 8y ago
    Indeed, you gotta risk to win. But at which threshold you stop, and reconsider, given the lack of results? 1B? 10B? 1T? I'm not an expert on the matter, but I understand "cut your losses".
    - gaze 8y ago
      What “lack of results?”
      - scottlocklin 8y ago
        I very clearly pointed out that no QC researcher has created, for example: 1) An actually error corrected qubit 2) A quantum factorization of the number 15 You can set yourself artificial goalposts of "hey my entanglement lasted a little longer on architecture X this year, therefore Moore's law means it is inevitable" -but you still can't factor the number 15. Please factor the number 15. No "pre compilation" where you leave out the number of gates needed to get the answer -just factor the number. Show me this, and then I will proceed to make fun of the idea that you can factor, say, a 3 digit decimal number. This is the only demonstrated interesting use case for QC, and the only reason anyone is funding the topic. Yes, yes, "modeling quantum systems" -OK, go model an interesting quantum system for me.

by gaze 8y ago

scottlocklin 8y ago

"my life hasn't been wasted and my career hasn't been ruined" Talk to me in 10 years when you're not bringing me a steak for a living. FWIIW I went to a Gordon conference on this in the 90s, and literally, the capabilities of quantum computers have not changed since then. Zero. None. There has been no "Moore's law like progress." There hasn't been any! That's the point! There's been more progress in interstellar space flight than quantum computing (I dunno, White-Juday is at least a good try), but at least warp drive creators aren't trying to convince people like you to ruin your lives.

happytoexplain 8y ago
>Talk to me in 10 years when you're not bringing me a steak for a living. This comes off as an incredibly hostile sentence, though I suspect you may have not meant it as just an attack.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  Dude, some guy with a Ph.D. in quantum computing from MIT brought me a steak for a $10 tip; does that not concern you?
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    Dude, some guy with a Ph.D. in quantum computing from MIT brought me a steak for a $10 tip; does that not concern you? Dude, your n=1 anecdote isn’t as amusing or compelling as you seem to think. Your entire argument seems more like a thinly veiled excuse to rant than it resembles an intellectual exercise. That’s hardly an inspiring argument from a self-styled empiricist. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961731
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      I thought it was hilarious, personally, as we were discussing at the dinner table why quantum computing is probably nonsense. My interlocutor (who was more or less going along with the conventional opinion that QC is about to "change everything") thought I bribed the waiter to say this.
  - z3t4 8y ago
    If you only sleep 4 hours you can have two jobs and still work on quantum computing. Then when you make a break-though someone steals your idea. Science is only for the privileged.
gaze 8y ago
https://imgur.com/a/HCJ7hLq https://imgur.com/a/HCJ7hLq Again, exponential progress in coherence time.

bassman9000 8y ago

He then goes on to poorly explain why quantum computing is really really hard and therefore we shouldn't be spending money on it I think it read more like We're still ages away from the ancilliary technologies that will allow us to tackle quantum computing The whole XVIII century vs SR-71 example was pretty clear

gaze 8y ago
But what technologies are needed to make quantum computing work with say superconducting qubits? High speed room temperature processors? FPGAs and fast DACs/ADCs will do it. Low loss cables? Got that. Low noise amplifiers? Got it. Idk what people want. It’s a good time to start throwing money at it to iron out the problems that nobody wants to do a thesis on. It’s not riskfree but it’s a reasonable bet.
- bassman9000 8y ago
  Indeed, you gotta risk to win. But at which threshold you stop, and reconsider, given the lack of results? 1B? 10B? 1T? I'm not an expert on the matter, but I understand "cut your losses".
  - gaze 8y ago
    What “lack of results?”
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      I very clearly pointed out that no QC researcher has created, for example: 1) An actually error corrected qubit 2) A quantum factorization of the number 15 You can set yourself artificial goalposts of "hey my entanglement lasted a little longer on architecture X this year, therefore Moore's law means it is inevitable" -but you still can't factor the number 15. Please factor the number 15. No "pre compilation" where you leave out the number of gates needed to get the answer -just factor the number. Show me this, and then I will proceed to make fun of the idea that you can factor, say, a 3 digit decimal number. This is the only demonstrated interesting use case for QC, and the only reason anyone is funding the topic. Yes, yes, "modeling quantum systems" -OK, go model an interesting quantum system for me.