4 ms·
I don't get what the author is trying to say. It should be obvious to any physicist that his "classical" algorithm for the Bragg grating is complete nonsense (a
by fsh 8y ago
I don't get what the author is trying to say. It should be obvious to any physicist that his "classical" algorithm for the Bragg grating is complete nonsense (as he now admits in the editor's note). Furthermore, he does not show that the problem the annealer is tasked to solve has anything to do with the physics of a Bragg grating. Essentially he is comparing a wrong physics simulation with the result of "quantum annealing" some random Hamiltonian that looks vaguely similar. I don't see how anything can be learned from that.
- drcode 8y agoI think the author deserves credit for an honest attempt to roll up their sleeves and using this opportunity to encode their own attempt from scratch and reporting the results... Requiring an actually meaningful scientific finding from a journalist who is merely reporting on a new programming API seems a bit picky.
- fsh 8y agoIn this case the author should make it very clear that what he is doing with the API doesn't make much sense. Judging from the comments, most readers seem to believe that he is describing a legitimate use-case for the machine. In fact, the question whether quantum annealers can be at all useful at solving any real problem is still very much open.
- 908087 8y agoThe Dunning-Kruger effect is rampant in the comments of "tech news" websites, particularly when it comes to complex subjects that people want to pretend to understand. Objectively false information is often upvoted to the top, while the people trying to point out why that information is verifiably incorrect are buried in downvotes. The fact that quantum computing is something that self-proclaimed "futurists" have latched themselves to guarantees that it will be even worse when that particular topic is being discussed.