5 ms·

I sometimes wonder why the so-called quantum computing field is not considered fringe science by the mainstream media. It is, in my opinion, not much more cred

I sometimes wonder why the so-called quantum computing field is not considered fringe science by the mainstream media. It is, in my opinion, not much more credible than perpetual motion or free energy, and less credible than cold fusion...

dang 5y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  I respectfully disagree with your disapproval of my comment here, I agree that my opinion is quite strong but I don't think it is offensive. Given that Quantum Computing has yet to deliver on its promise after decades of work and huge investment, I think it is safe to compare the field to other fringe science that once occupied some of the best minds on the planet (like Newton and his obsession with Alchemy).
  - ThePhysicist 5y ago
    Quantum computing isn't fringe science and almost no one in the physics community questions the validity of the underlying theories. It is a large engineering challenge so it's unclear whether a working large-scale quantum computer will be realized anytime soon, but that doesn't make it fringe science.
  - v37p 5y ago
    Serious question for you. Have you read any recent papers? Some quantum computing applications have outperformed classical computers already[0] and will get better with more qubits and less noise. This stuff is in its infancy and making small baby steps. The phone in your pocket didn't get here without punch card programming or computers the size of rooms. This is that and you're around to witness it. Have some patience! [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02860 http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02860
  - dilawar 5y ago
    I share the sentiment that quantum computer folks hasn't delivered but I dont feel its a fringe science. Its just hard to deal with noise at that level. To me, string theory feels like a fringe science; and irritating one at best.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 5y ago
    It's not that it was offensive, it's that it was too generic to be interesting. The problem with generic comments (like, e.g., "quantum computing is fringe science") is that they don't contain any specific information—they just make grand, empty claims. These nearly always cause discussion to go in a further generic direction (e.g. "no it isn't", "yes it is"). This is basically the arrow of entropy applied to forum threads. There's another aspect too: the more generic comments are, the more predictable they are. Since they don't contain much actual information, there's nothing really new to say, which means people repeat the same things over and over. Often they get angry as they do it, since indignation usually fills the vacuum when curiosity is absent. All of this is the opposite of what we're looking for on HN. What we want: specific, unpredictable, curiosity-gratifying conversation. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=diffs%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rafale 5y ago
I found this dude he seems to understand how it works pretty well: https://youtu.be/Eak_ogYMprk https://youtu.be/Eak_ogYMprk
targafarian 5y ago
Quantum computing has already been demonstrated, but on a small scale. The challenge in achieving all of what we know quantum computing can achieve (as well as the things we have yet to discover) is in scaling it up, for which error correction is one of the key missing ingredients. There are various applications. Some that you hear about most might be a little overblown (but still maybe not). For example, quantum simulation is an application within the physics field that already makes these systems worthwhile to pursue, without any mention of breaking encryption and the other things mentioned. Quantum logic, i.e. quantum computing on the smallest scale, has been employed to make cutting-edge atomic clocks (which are undeniably a worthwhile pursuit, with countless applications in the real world). Putting "scaling up quantum computing, the pieces of which have already been demonstrated" in the same sentence as perpetual motion and free energy (known to be in violation of laws of physics) is completely unjustified.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Perpetual motion and free energy is in violation of known laws of physics. My intuition is that large scale quantum computing is also in violation of laws of physics, but we don't have good models/theory about those yet. What I am calling for is a reality check on this field. Pretty much like string theory I am ready to bet it won't go anywhere.
  - birktj 5y ago
    Quantum computers aren't that powerful, in my understanding there should be no reason that a large quantum computer couldn't exist. [1] is a fun paper that discusses if efficiently solving NP-complete problems should be considered impossible in physics. In it it is also discussed why this does not exclude quantum computers. [1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    QC is a direct consequence of the known laws of physics. To discover QC doesn't work would be proof the QM is fundamentally wrong - not that there is some more fundamental theory, but that we have been accidentally getting the most accurate predicitons of any theory in the history of science. That possibility alone is worth all of the investment in this field. In contrast, String Theory is just an extension of QM, motivated by nothing except some cool looking math. It doesn't even make any definite predictions (supersimmetry is possible in string theory, but not required, at least not at any particular energy level).
Causality1 5y ago
Because it functions? It may never be the behemoth researchers expect it to someday be but it actually does function and produce results.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Where? I've been following this field for almost 30 years now, and I have yet to find a single publication where the produced result is useful in any way. Why do we think it is more valid than Alchemy?
  - Causality1 5y ago
    https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031015 https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031...
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      Quoting from that paper’s summary: More work is needed to turn quantum enhanced optimization into a practical technology. The design of next- generation annealers must facilitate the embedding of problems of practical relevance. Like fusion, current progress is promising, but practical results lie in the future?
      - Causality1 5y ago
        "Not working as well as alternatives we already have" is a lot better than things which do nothing at all. There is no promising progress for cold fusion or alchemy.
cevi 5y ago
Unlike perpetual motion or free energy, the math and physics behind quantum computing is rock solid - the possibility is baked into the framework of quantum mechanics at an absolutely fundamental level. Even if it turned out that all of quantum field theory was completely bogus, I would still expect the basic framework of quantum mechanics (i.e. unitary evolution, the Born rule for converting amplitudes to probabilities, density matrices describing mixed states) to be correct. If quantum computing was not possible, that would mean that everything we thought we knew about physics was hopelessly wrong. Physics would have to be much stranger - we'd have to give up on either locality (i.e. causation being limited by the speed of light), reversibility (closely related to conservation of energy), or nondeterminism in order to make the math work out. There are several papers in the literature that derive quantum mechanics from these or related assumptions (often together with some extra technical detail, that differs between approaches): https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012 https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451 https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451 https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695 https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  I think that quantum mechanics is a useful model and there is a lot of truth in it, but it is not the truth. Using rock-solid math and physics I think you can do time travel and speculate about parallel universes, but I don't think we should blindly believe the models. We should never confuse the map and the territory.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Then how do you explain the extraordinary predictive power of QM, and why do you believe that the same maths that gives us measurements accurate to 23 decimals is completely inaccurate in its predicition of QC? 30 years is nothing given how complex the engineering problem is of actually building a working QC. Fusion is much simpler and very well understood and yet it has been more than 50 years since research into fusion power plants has started, and the most optimistic estimates say we'll have the first ever research power plant 30 years from now, if everything goes well (EUfusion's DEMO plant).
  - 5y ago

dang 5y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

stephc_int13 5y ago
I respectfully disagree with your disapproval of my comment here, I agree that my opinion is quite strong but I don't think it is offensive. Given that Quantum Computing has yet to deliver on its promise after decades of work and huge investment, I think it is safe to compare the field to other fringe science that once occupied some of the best minds on the planet (like Newton and his obsession with Alchemy).
- ThePhysicist 5y ago
  Quantum computing isn't fringe science and almost no one in the physics community questions the validity of the underlying theories. It is a large engineering challenge so it's unclear whether a working large-scale quantum computer will be realized anytime soon, but that doesn't make it fringe science.
- v37p 5y ago
  Serious question for you. Have you read any recent papers? Some quantum computing applications have outperformed classical computers already[0] and will get better with more qubits and less noise. This stuff is in its infancy and making small baby steps. The phone in your pocket didn't get here without punch card programming or computers the size of rooms. This is that and you're around to witness it. Have some patience! [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02860 http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02860
- dilawar 5y ago
  I share the sentiment that quantum computer folks hasn't delivered but I dont feel its a fringe science. Its just hard to deal with noise at that level. To me, string theory feels like a fringe science; and irritating one at best.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 5y ago
  It's not that it was offensive, it's that it was too generic to be interesting. The problem with generic comments (like, e.g., "quantum computing is fringe science") is that they don't contain any specific information—they just make grand, empty claims. These nearly always cause discussion to go in a further generic direction (e.g. "no it isn't", "yes it is"). This is basically the arrow of entropy applied to forum threads. There's another aspect too: the more generic comments are, the more predictable they are. Since they don't contain much actual information, there's nothing really new to say, which means people repeat the same things over and over. Often they get angry as they do it, since indignation usually fills the vacuum when curiosity is absent. All of this is the opposite of what we're looking for on HN. What we want: specific, unpredictable, curiosity-gratifying conversation. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=diffs%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rafale 5y ago

I found this dude he seems to understand how it works pretty well: https://youtu.be/Eak_ogYMprk https://youtu.be/Eak_ogYMprk

targafarian 5y ago

Quantum computing has already been demonstrated, but on a small scale. The challenge in achieving all of what we know quantum computing can achieve (as well as the things we have yet to discover) is in scaling it up, for which error correction is one of the key missing ingredients. There are various applications. Some that you hear about most might be a little overblown (but still maybe not). For example, quantum simulation is an application within the physics field that already makes these systems worthwhile to pursue, without any mention of breaking encryption and the other things mentioned. Quantum logic, i.e. quantum computing on the smallest scale, has been employed to make cutting-edge atomic clocks (which are undeniably a worthwhile pursuit, with countless applications in the real world). Putting "scaling up quantum computing, the pieces of which have already been demonstrated" in the same sentence as perpetual motion and free energy (known to be in violation of laws of physics) is completely unjustified.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Perpetual motion and free energy is in violation of known laws of physics. My intuition is that large scale quantum computing is also in violation of laws of physics, but we don't have good models/theory about those yet. What I am calling for is a reality check on this field. Pretty much like string theory I am ready to bet it won't go anywhere.
- birktj 5y ago
  Quantum computers aren't that powerful, in my understanding there should be no reason that a large quantum computer couldn't exist. [1] is a fun paper that discusses if efficiently solving NP-complete problems should be considered impossible in physics. In it it is also discussed why this does not exclude quantum computers. [1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  QC is a direct consequence of the known laws of physics. To discover QC doesn't work would be proof the QM is fundamentally wrong - not that there is some more fundamental theory, but that we have been accidentally getting the most accurate predicitons of any theory in the history of science. That possibility alone is worth all of the investment in this field. In contrast, String Theory is just an extension of QM, motivated by nothing except some cool looking math. It doesn't even make any definite predictions (supersimmetry is possible in string theory, but not required, at least not at any particular energy level).

Causality1 5y ago

Because it functions? It may never be the behemoth researchers expect it to someday be but it actually does function and produce results.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Where? I've been following this field for almost 30 years now, and I have yet to find a single publication where the produced result is useful in any way. Why do we think it is more valid than Alchemy?
- Causality1 5y ago
  https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031015 https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031...
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    Quoting from that paper’s summary: More work is needed to turn quantum enhanced optimization into a practical technology. The design of next- generation annealers must facilitate the embedding of problems of practical relevance. Like fusion, current progress is promising, but practical results lie in the future?
    - Causality1 5y ago
      "Not working as well as alternatives we already have" is a lot better than things which do nothing at all. There is no promising progress for cold fusion or alchemy.

cevi 5y ago

Unlike perpetual motion or free energy, the math and physics behind quantum computing is rock solid - the possibility is baked into the framework of quantum mechanics at an absolutely fundamental level. Even if it turned out that all of quantum field theory was completely bogus, I would still expect the basic framework of quantum mechanics (i.e. unitary evolution, the Born rule for converting amplitudes to probabilities, density matrices describing mixed states) to be correct. If quantum computing was not possible, that would mean that everything we thought we knew about physics was hopelessly wrong. Physics would have to be much stranger - we'd have to give up on either locality (i.e. causation being limited by the speed of light), reversibility (closely related to conservation of energy), or nondeterminism in order to make the math work out. There are several papers in the literature that derive quantum mechanics from these or related assumptions (often together with some extra technical detail, that differs between approaches): https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012 https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451 https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451 https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695 https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0695

stephc_int13 5y ago
I think that quantum mechanics is a useful model and there is a lot of truth in it, but it is not the truth. Using rock-solid math and physics I think you can do time travel and speculate about parallel universes, but I don't think we should blindly believe the models. We should never confuse the map and the territory.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Then how do you explain the extraordinary predictive power of QM, and why do you believe that the same maths that gives us measurements accurate to 23 decimals is completely inaccurate in its predicition of QC? 30 years is nothing given how complex the engineering problem is of actually building a working QC. Fusion is much simpler and very well understood and yet it has been more than 50 years since research into fusion power plants has started, and the most optimistic estimates say we'll have the first ever research power plant 30 years from now, if everything goes well (EUfusion's DEMO plant).
- 5y ago