5 ms·
There is a slight difference, that really matters to theoretical computer scientists (as in complexity theory) and physicists working on quantum computing: The
by krastanov 7y ago
There is a slight difference, that really matters to theoretical computer scientists (as in complexity theory) and physicists working on quantum computing: The challenge is to construct a physical experiment that consists of only 50ish "elementary" and "programmable" building blocks that is infeasible to simulate on a classical computer. This "universality" and small number of elements is what is exciting and what makes the task quite nontrivial.
However, you are right that the only thing this device does is "perform something difficult to simulate". The technology still needs a few more generations before that "something" is useful. Given the consistent progress since 1995, I am fairly optimistic that within 10 years we can do that.
- bjornsing 7y agoI get that its cool that it’s quantum and that the circuits are programmable, sure. My point was that the comparison to the classical computer makes little sense.
- abdullahkhalids 7y agoYou can read Feynman's original paper about quantum computers, which is easy to read and makes clear why programmability is important https://catonmat.net/ftp/simulating-physics-with-computers-richard-feynman.pdf https://catonmat.net/ftp/simulating-physics-with-computers-r...
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoThe difference seems to be that if it's just 'simulating itself' as the top level comment described, then it is a really bad demo of the universality that would be so exciting.