Jump to content
Science Forums

Toward Quantum Computers


Recommended Posts

Physicists have employed a version of Maxwell's demon .....  could help speed progress toward quantum computers:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180905131829.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29\

 

So, what is "Maxwell's demon"?  Never mind.  Got it.  :-)

Edited by hazelm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Physicists have employed a version of Maxwell's demon .....  could help speed progress toward quantum computers:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180905131829.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29\

 

So, what is "Maxwell's demon"?  Never mind.  Got it.  :-)

I have to confess to be terribly bored by the subject of quantum computing. I'll sit up when somebody has actually built one and it does something interesting. There seems to be an awful lot of hype and not a lot of achievement to date. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to confess to be terribly bored by the subject of quantum computing. I'll sit up when somebody has actually built one and it does something interesting. There seems to be an awful lot of hype and not a lot of achievement to date. 

Something interesting?  Like put it in his pocket and blow it up to use it?  Then shrink it and put it back in his pocket?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean building a quantum computer and demonstrating something it can do that a conventional computer cannot.

 

Frankly, I agree with you my current binary computer is about the same specs as the current Quantum Computers being the D-wave 1000 being 1000 Qubits @ 30 Mhz , this computer being 900 bits @ 5.0 Ghz being 4.5 Terabits per second which is ruffly equivalent at 30 Terabit per second for the quantum computer, I would just need 7 binary computers which is $14,000 still it seems like another one of those things that you just drop money into, my binary computer being $2,000 versus $15 million Quantum computer with 1000 qubits even if I bought 1000 of these binary ones it would still only be $2 million being 4.5 Petabits per second being much faster than the Quantum computer at a cheaper price, everyone says it will work and it never does like cancer research and Fusion Reactor research. We have been waiting for Fusion Reactors for 50 years and it still isn't here, Cancer cure about 30 years, Quantum Computers 20 years, one of these days they should just abandon project which are "Money Drops" that never have any results. It is one of those things where you say, No tech, No Check.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it, indeed?

Considering that >nanoscale (maximally miniaturized integrated circuitry) optical computing is a candidate for exascale processing and the fact that petascale electronic computers are nearly 400 slower than optical computers yet a nanoscale electronic computer would also have exaFLOPS capabilities, QE doesn't need to be strongly faster than light or beneath the particle-interactions (which I don't believe it is) to be near the yottascale or at the high-end of a zettaFLOPS at least given a nano-ICD hardware platform.

 

The nanoscale is the cutoff point for the miniaturization of circuitry, and V(QE) is the cutoff point for information rates. In essence it's as fast as one can get without having to simulate a cubic meter of the universe to a degree of detail that your smallest pixels are exponentially tinier than an lp qubit where QE is strongly faster than light - hundreds of orders of magnitude higher than yottaFLOPS Warp Factor 9 would be molasses by comparison. But you'd need to network thousands of yottaFLOPS processors to simulate just a cubic meter of the universe to that detail which would require either fusion power or a power-saver such as plasmonic memristers - or both.

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that >nanoscale (maximally miniaturized integrated circuitry) optical computing is a candidate for exascale processing and the fact that petascale electronic computers are nearly 400 slower than optical computers yet a nanoscale electronic computer would also have exaFLOPS capabilities, QE doesn't need to be strongly faster than light or beneath the particle-interactions (which I don't believe it is) to be near the yottascale or at the high-end of a zettaFLOPS at least given a nano-ICD hardware platform.

 

The nanoscale is the cutoff point for the miniaturization of circuitry, and V(QE) is the cutoff point for information rates. In essence it's as fast as one can get without having to simulate a cubic meter of the universe to a degree of detail that your smallest pixels are exponentially tinier than an lp qubit where QE is strongly faster than light - hundreds of orders of magnitude higher than yottaFLOPS Warp Factor 9 would be molasses by comparison. But you'd need to network thousands of yottaFLOPS processors to simulate just a cubic meter of the universe to that detail which would require either fusion power or a power-saver such as plasmonic memristers - or both.

 

Ya, Polymath the scale of circuits in computers are already nano-scale, the processing chip in my computer uses I think 11 nm lithography that is old news and the power of such a binary chip is about 10 Ghz @ 2304 bits currently so about 23 Terabit with Intel's most powerful processor.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, Polymath the scale of circuits in computers are already nano-scale, the processing chip in my computer uses I think 11 nm lithography that is old news and the power of such a binary chip is about 10 Ghz @ 2304 bits currently so about 23 Terabit with Intel's most powerful processor.

Apologies, I meant 1 nm as a maximum concerning the distance that the information has to travel sorry when I said nanoscale. & there are petascale processors with >1nm ICDs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Waters

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't specify the bulkiness of a room sized processor would be implied for a 1nm ICD quantum entanglement processor which could process practically as much information as every human brain on the planet put together. However, single-server AHD variations could only be high-end zettascale. There'd still be exascale Iphones in which one could simulate the human brain. A cybernetic brain transplant would be low-end zettascale whose IQ would make Einstein's IQ mentally impaired, nay, infantile, by comparison.

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't specify the bulkiness of a room sized processor would be implied for a 1nm ICD quantum entanglement processor which could process practically as much information as every human brain on the planet put together. However, single-server AHD variations could only be high-end zettascale. There'd still be exascale Iphones in which one could simulate the human brain. A cybernetic brain transplant would be low-end zettascale whose IQ would make Einstein's IQ mentally impaired, nay, infantile, by comparison.

 

That is what I was thinking that the device you had imagined had to be much larger than the 10 mm chips I use. It is conceivable that you could achieve any amount of processing power given enough space like my video card (GTX 1080 Ti) being Nividia's 2nd most advanced is about 120 mm and is 20 teraflops or 140 Terabit in a cluster of 40 being around 800 teraflops, which takes about half a room.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I was thinking that the device you had imagined had to be much larger than the 10 mm chips I use. It is conceivable that you could achieve any amount of processing power given enough space like my video card (GTX 1080 Ti) being Nividia's 2nd most advanced is about 120 mm and is 20 teraflops or 140 Terabit in a cluster of 40 being around 800 teraflops, which takes about half a room.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2yhtnVJSc9M

 

9/11

Link to post
Share on other sites

Polymath Swarm Robotics has always interested me, It is the future of warfare. They have the potential to be more powerful than any weapon to ever exist, wait until they are self replicating. Self replication for this technology is the bridge between a conventional weapon and the most powerful weapon of mass destruction to ever exist. The destructive force of self replicating Swarm robotics is in the exa to yotta tons, whether organic or inorganic if made properly.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWkjv2Vwvs

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Polymath Swarm Robotics has always interested me, It is the future of warfare. They have the potential to be more powerful than any weapon to ever exist, wait until they are self replicating. Self replication for this technology is the bridge between a conventional weapon and the most powerful weapon of mass destruction to ever exist.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWkjv2Vwvs

A partial Dyson swarm, and ftl qe information panspermia are realistic Star trek era techniques
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...