4 ms·

Sure, tube based transmitters had been, in a lab, "worked out". But we're talking about 20 years before commercial use really happened: https://en.wikipedia.o

by b112 4y ago

Sure, tube based transmitters had been, in a lab, "worked out". But we're talking about 20 years before commercial use really happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio#The_first_vacuum_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio#The_first_vac... Radio existed (as you say) before the tube, but it took time to get the tube into real-world use. I guess this is somewhat like computing ; computing has existed in many forms, mechanical through to IC designs we have now. But quantum? It's in a lab, and real-world applications are being worked out. Paralleling back to radio again, people knew tubes would be useful, but it took 20+ years to make them mass producible, and make tubes usable, and redesign radios to use them. This, to me, sounds like quantum computing. We can think of things I suppose to use them for (perhaps I was hasty on this point in my prior post), but we aren't there yet. And really, looking at the tube -- did anyone think they'd be used to make massive computers even? I bet quantum computing will be the same way -- uses we're not aware of now.

mdorazio 4y ago
You need to get your information from places other than Wikipedia. The vacuum tube was invented in 1904 and entered mass production by RCA in 1920 after several rounds of improvements. D-Wave started demonstrating its QC product in 2009 and here we are 13 years later with basically nothing. Are you going to tell us that QC will be commercially viable in three years?
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  It's honestly just a really bad analogy. Evacuated tubes were not pursued en-masse as an end unto themselves the way quantum computing is being pursued. Their development was as a side fascination for a handful of researchers or they were advanced because they were directly applicable to some goal of a researcher with maybe some mild tweaking. They were not a moonshot and they developed along similar lines as most useful "inventions" of today. Quantum computing isn't even really comparable to ENIAC. Because the fundamental parts of ENIAC were known to be capable of doing what was required before the machine was built. There were analogus precursors to basically all the parts of the machine. The engineering challenges came with integration and at scale but fundamentally there wasn't a question of whether it could be done or not. We can't say the same yet of quantum computing. IMO, quantum computing is more like space travel ca. the 1950s. We've got a lot of information: rockets look promising, we've learned a lot about the environment pilots will need to operate in up there, etc but no one really knows how far this can go and certainly we can't say if it will ever be profitable.
  - YetAnotherNick 4y ago
    > It's honestly just a really bad analogy. Evacuated tubes were not pursued en-masse as an end unto themselves the way quantum computing is being pursued No, it's not. The Vacuum tube was sold for commercial and industrial use starting from 1915 for rectification. And most of the research spending went into it after it shown some promise from commercial application. Not arguing though if pursuing something just for research is bad, just saying vacuum tube research was nothing like quantum computer research.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      > just saying vacuum tube research was nothing like quantum computer research. That's what I'm saying. Vacuum tubes had various evacuated tubes as their precursors which had uses in experimentation and industrial applications. This led to a step by step development process with continuous subsequent innovations building on each other. Quantum computing on the other hand is kind of an all or nothing proposition with many problems that must be solved which only produce value when functioning as part of the whole. I don't think the development of classical computing is a good analogy either as the shared memory computer had various electromechanical precursors that had utility all of their own.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    To clarify the analogy: Quantum computing with todays technology :: Classical computing in the early era of vacuum tubes The point of the analogy is to communicate that we are at an early stage of development. Also, I just like vacuum tubes.
    - oldgradstudent 4y ago
      > Quantum computing with todays technology :: Classical computing in the early era of vacuum tubes There's still a big difference. Even in the earliest era of computing with vacuum tubes (and even before), they were building machines that produced useful results: artillery tables, H-bomb simulations, cryptanalysis, etc. Most things these machines were used for were simply impractical without them. There's nothing even remotely analogous with quantum computing.

by b112 4y ago

mdorazio 4y ago

You need to get your information from places other than Wikipedia. The vacuum tube was invented in 1904 and entered mass production by RCA in 1920 after several rounds of improvements. D-Wave started demonstrating its QC product in 2009 and here we are 13 years later with basically nothing. Are you going to tell us that QC will be commercially viable in three years?

DubiousPusher 4y ago
It's honestly just a really bad analogy. Evacuated tubes were not pursued en-masse as an end unto themselves the way quantum computing is being pursued. Their development was as a side fascination for a handful of researchers or they were advanced because they were directly applicable to some goal of a researcher with maybe some mild tweaking. They were not a moonshot and they developed along similar lines as most useful "inventions" of today. Quantum computing isn't even really comparable to ENIAC. Because the fundamental parts of ENIAC were known to be capable of doing what was required before the machine was built. There were analogus precursors to basically all the parts of the machine. The engineering challenges came with integration and at scale but fundamentally there wasn't a question of whether it could be done or not. We can't say the same yet of quantum computing. IMO, quantum computing is more like space travel ca. the 1950s. We've got a lot of information: rockets look promising, we've learned a lot about the environment pilots will need to operate in up there, etc but no one really knows how far this can go and certainly we can't say if it will ever be profitable.
- YetAnotherNick 4y ago
  > It's honestly just a really bad analogy. Evacuated tubes were not pursued en-masse as an end unto themselves the way quantum computing is being pursued No, it's not. The Vacuum tube was sold for commercial and industrial use starting from 1915 for rectification. And most of the research spending went into it after it shown some promise from commercial application. Not arguing though if pursuing something just for research is bad, just saying vacuum tube research was nothing like quantum computer research.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    > just saying vacuum tube research was nothing like quantum computer research. That's what I'm saying. Vacuum tubes had various evacuated tubes as their precursors which had uses in experimentation and industrial applications. This led to a step by step development process with continuous subsequent innovations building on each other. Quantum computing on the other hand is kind of an all or nothing proposition with many problems that must be solved which only produce value when functioning as part of the whole. I don't think the development of classical computing is a good analogy either as the shared memory computer had various electromechanical precursors that had utility all of their own.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  To clarify the analogy: Quantum computing with todays technology :: Classical computing in the early era of vacuum tubes The point of the analogy is to communicate that we are at an early stage of development. Also, I just like vacuum tubes.
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    > Quantum computing with todays technology :: Classical computing in the early era of vacuum tubes There's still a big difference. Even in the earliest era of computing with vacuum tubes (and even before), they were building machines that produced useful results: artillery tables, H-bomb simulations, cryptanalysis, etc. Most things these machines were used for were simply impractical without them. There's nothing even remotely analogous with quantum computing.