3 ms·

There seems to be lots of forward progress in physics, e.g. in condensed matter physics, quantum computing, etc. Grand unified theories are sort of irrelevant s

There seems to be lots of forward progress in physics, e.g. in condensed matter physics, quantum computing, etc. Grand unified theories are sort of irrelevant so long as there are not measurable phenomena that cannot be explained without them.

sampo 7y ago
> There seems to be lots of forward progress in physics, e.g. in condensed matter physics, quantum computing The theory of quantum computing is based on real physics, unlike string theory. But we have no idea if or when we will be able to build a quantum computer that actually calculates something useful. So far the progress has been only in theory. Edit: To downvoters, let's make a bet: In the next 18 years, no one will have used a quantum computer to break any encryption that hasn't also been broken by traditional computers?
- chrisdirkis 7y ago
  Progress does not mean "Commercial success". Your bet is like hearing "my kid seems to be making lots of progress on their bike", and responding with "I bet he'll never cycle around the world in 18 years".
  - sampo 7y ago
    The bet in the posted news was also about winning the Nobel prize, not about making just lots of progress.
- comicjk 7y ago
  Breaking a cryptosystem is not a good metric for whether quantum computers have become useful. Calculating energy levels of molecules, for example, is a much easier problem in the near term, and is of benefit to humanity. Breaking a cryptosystem takes vastly more and higher-quality qubits, and the end result is just that everyone upgrades to different math. As a computational chemist, I assign 50% probability to the idea that quantum computers will be able to do useful molecular calculations cheaper than classical computers (for large batches) within 18 years. For small batches, classical computers will remain cheapest much longer because of overhead.
- eth0up 7y ago
  If anyone by the name of Crown Sterling takes your bet, don't trust 'em. They've got unified merrygorithms and kwuantum top hats.
- empath75 7y ago
  String theory is 100% based on real physics, and it’s very difficult to make a theory like it which agrees with all known physics — that it doesn’t create any new falsifiable results is certainly a problem, but it could very easily be falsified by making nonsensical predictions about everyday phenomena, which it doesn’t do.

sampo 7y ago

> There seems to be lots of forward progress in physics, e.g. in condensed matter physics, quantum computing The theory of quantum computing is based on real physics, unlike string theory. But we have no idea if or when we will be able to build a quantum computer that actually calculates something useful. So far the progress has been only in theory. Edit: To downvoters, let's make a bet: In the next 18 years, no one will have used a quantum computer to break any encryption that hasn't also been broken by traditional computers?

chrisdirkis 7y ago
Progress does not mean "Commercial success". Your bet is like hearing "my kid seems to be making lots of progress on their bike", and responding with "I bet he'll never cycle around the world in 18 years".
- sampo 7y ago
  The bet in the posted news was also about winning the Nobel prize, not about making just lots of progress.
comicjk 7y ago
Breaking a cryptosystem is not a good metric for whether quantum computers have become useful. Calculating energy levels of molecules, for example, is a much easier problem in the near term, and is of benefit to humanity. Breaking a cryptosystem takes vastly more and higher-quality qubits, and the end result is just that everyone upgrades to different math. As a computational chemist, I assign 50% probability to the idea that quantum computers will be able to do useful molecular calculations cheaper than classical computers (for large batches) within 18 years. For small batches, classical computers will remain cheapest much longer because of overhead.
eth0up 7y ago
If anyone by the name of Crown Sterling takes your bet, don't trust 'em. They've got unified merrygorithms and kwuantum top hats.
empath75 7y ago
String theory is 100% based on real physics, and it’s very difficult to make a theory like it which agrees with all known physics — that it doesn’t create any new falsifiable results is certainly a problem, but it could very easily be falsified by making nonsensical predictions about everyday phenomena, which it doesn’t do.