3 ms·

I understand your point, jessriedel, but my contention remains that there's a marked distinction between quantum sensing and quantum computing. As we're discuss

I understand your point, jessriedel, but my contention remains that there's a marked distinction between quantum sensing and quantum computing. As we're discussing, quantum sensing has yielded tangible, applicable results, which is the physical manifestation I was alluding to earlier. In terms of computing, we have seen many new paradigms materialize within decades, even centuries, of their conception. Babbage conceived of the Analytical Engine in the 1800s, but we saw programmable computers by the mid-1900s. The transition from electromechanical to electronic computing occurred within a few decades. Every instance of these examples are real physical examples that were able to be used and demonstrated as a physical device providing utility. We can even go back to the early computation devices of the loom or even analog computing calendar/clock systems. Quantum computing is an ambitious concept, and while I respect the academic rigor that goes into its development, the lack of concrete, physical outcomes, even in a rudimentary sense, after four decades is notable. Theoretical advancements are important, but the inability to materialize them in some substantial form, especially when juxtaposed against the timeline of prior computing paradigms, can warrant skepticism. Don't get me wrong, I value innovation and the pursuit of new technological frontiers, but I also believe in questioning, and when the physical evidence is wanting, I'll voice my concerns. This is not to discredit the work being done but rather to keep the discussion grounded and accountable.

jessriedel 3y ago
Real physical quantum computers exist, they just can't do anything useful yet, and in particular they haven't achieved fault tolerance. Quantum sensing took 46 years before there was an application. The idea of quantum computers has only been around for 38 years (Deutch's paper was 1985). They seem highly analogous to me and I don't see what distinction you're trying to point to.
- pyinstallwoes 3y ago
  I see where you're coming from, jessriedel, but I must respectfully disagree with the assertion that "real physical quantum computers exist." In the common parlance, a "computer" is a device that can perform a set of operations or computations independently following programmed instructions. For a "real physical quantum computer" to exist by this definition, it should be able to carry out such operations using quantum phenomena, without any reliance on classical computing architecture for function, error correction, or result verification. What we currently have in the field of quantum computing doesn't fit this bill. The quantum systems we have today are not independent "computers" but rather more like "classical computers conducting quantum experiments." They're akin to people playing an MMO and running an imaginary computational architecture that only exists within the confines of the game rules. In this sense, they're creating and operating within an entirely simulated environment. This isn't to diminish the value of the research being conducted or the strides that are being made. But I would argue that the statement "real physical quantum computers exist" is, at this stage, a significant overreach. We may have precursors or tools that can manipulate quantum phenomena in interesting ways, but we're still a considerable distance from having an operational, standalone quantum computer in the full sense of the term.
  - jessriedel 3y ago
    > For a "real physical quantum computer" to exist by this definition, it should be able to carry out such operations using quantum phenomena, without any reliance on classical computing architecture for function, error correction, or result verification. Nope, wrong. Plans for quantum computers have always included assistance from classical computers. This is like saying for a nuclear weapon to exist, it must have no conventional explosives, but in fact all nuclear weapons contain conventional explosives to initiate the nuclear reactions. You've made a number of incorrect claims here without admitting error, so I won't continue the conversation.

jessriedel 3y ago

Real physical quantum computers exist, they just can't do anything useful yet, and in particular they haven't achieved fault tolerance. Quantum sensing took 46 years before there was an application. The idea of quantum computers has only been around for 38 years (Deutch's paper was 1985). They seem highly analogous to me and I don't see what distinction you're trying to point to.

pyinstallwoes 3y ago
I see where you're coming from, jessriedel, but I must respectfully disagree with the assertion that "real physical quantum computers exist." In the common parlance, a "computer" is a device that can perform a set of operations or computations independently following programmed instructions. For a "real physical quantum computer" to exist by this definition, it should be able to carry out such operations using quantum phenomena, without any reliance on classical computing architecture for function, error correction, or result verification. What we currently have in the field of quantum computing doesn't fit this bill. The quantum systems we have today are not independent "computers" but rather more like "classical computers conducting quantum experiments." They're akin to people playing an MMO and running an imaginary computational architecture that only exists within the confines of the game rules. In this sense, they're creating and operating within an entirely simulated environment. This isn't to diminish the value of the research being conducted or the strides that are being made. But I would argue that the statement "real physical quantum computers exist" is, at this stage, a significant overreach. We may have precursors or tools that can manipulate quantum phenomena in interesting ways, but we're still a considerable distance from having an operational, standalone quantum computer in the full sense of the term.
- jessriedel 3y ago
  > For a "real physical quantum computer" to exist by this definition, it should be able to carry out such operations using quantum phenomena, without any reliance on classical computing architecture for function, error correction, or result verification. Nope, wrong. Plans for quantum computers have always included assistance from classical computers. This is like saying for a nuclear weapon to exist, it must have no conventional explosives, but in fact all nuclear weapons contain conventional explosives to initiate the nuclear reactions. You've made a number of incorrect claims here without admitting error, so I won't continue the conversation.