Creeping Toward 10 Qbits: Atomic Computing

RetroGeek points to this "New York Times article about a computer using atoms as switches. Give me twenty atoms and I'll break the RC5 contest." Going from 7 atoms to 10 is the order of the year, and if this keeps up maybe soon we'll need some slightly longer encryption keys, thanks.

Comments

Bill Gates is ahead of his time

[selectspec]

Not only does the incredible computational power of quantum computing render current encryption keys useless, but it also will provide enough computing power to run windows 2000.

Re:Best Atomic Encryption Prize

[jeffsenter]

Defeat NYTimes awesome password technology with...
user slashdot2000
pword slashdot2000

thougths

[deran9ed]

Give me twenty atoms and I'll break the RC5 contest."

I'm sure the Czech crew who released the PGP advisory this week would love the same kind of computing. (more historical codebreaking)

Seems entirely over my head (the level of computing obviously) but here would be some nice uses for this level of computing.

An international powerhouse computer to track the DNA mapping databases in one powerful machine. This would help scientists, and their companies to focus solely on those matters as opposed to wondering whether current technology would support them to fullest extent. It may also be networked in order to help assist them in mapping, cataloging information, sorting, etc.

Space Race... Scientists, astronomers, etc., could have a super computer assist them in fully mapping, catalogging the universe, its planets, stars, etc.

I wonder how old I'll be before a computer like this is something like what a c64 is in nowadays. Just think scientists where developing this starting in 1994 (from what I saw on NYTimes), imagine when the level of computing in 20 years, or would it all come crashing down. Scary thought. Anyone care to reply with links to basic quantum computing information you care to share?

Privacy Links

here are some good introductory articles, and btw

[phr1]

you need 64 qubits to break rc5-64.

Introductory articles on quantum computation>

High Hopes, Big Lasers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. I really don't. Its just I think we may be getting a LITTLE ahead of ourselves, here. Contrary to a lot of posts on /., Quantum Computing is not so much a issue of EE as it is of good, old-fashioned AMO Physics - lasers (BIG lasers), nonlinear optics, RF Ion Traps and more lasers. This is not your granddad's transistor (which, even in its original form, probably could be safely operated at Johny and Susie's house in Peoria). From my experience as a research assistant in a quantum computing laboratory at a big academic institution, trapped-ion quantum computing is not the type of thing that'll be running your palm pilot 10, 30 or even 50 years down the road - the (absolutely crucial) electronics of the trap, alone, would make it insanely dangerous to have in your home, let alone your pocket (ions will still require the same EM containment fields 1,000 years down the road as they do now - its what makes 'em ions).

And no one has EVER gotten an Ion-Trap quantum computer to do ANYTHING. Not add two numbers. Not factor a number. Not multiply two numbers. The potential is there - the qubits - its just no one has ever tapped it in a feasible way.

I'm sure people said the same things about transistor based computer back in the day, but I really, really feel that the Ion Trapping method is not going to be the type of QC we'll see in practical use anytime down the road.

Re:Consequences of solving NP probs in P time?

[norton_I]

It is belived, but not (as far as I know proven) that a QC is *NOT* a completely general NDFA (thus capable of solving NP in polynomial time). Thus the question is sort of moot in this context.

Second, I believe an algorithm is known that can do lookups in unsorted, unindexed lists in O(log(n)) time. That is certainly an interesting proposition.

Third, encryption *is* a big deal. You or I are not necessarily worried about someone developing a QC to read our email, but governments are.

Finally, there are a number of protocols in quantum cryptography and quantum information that are not general purpose quantum computers, but might be very useful. Also, we don't really know what a quantum computer might be capable of, and won't until we have one built.

Right now, the reason people are building bigger quantum computers is because they want to study them, not because their computing power (even for "easy" quantum problems like finding large prime factors) is going to be usable any time soon.

practically every combinatorial optimization prob

[phr1]

VLSI design, code optimization, resource allocation, you name it.

For more info on P vs. NP, see the classic Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness by Garey and Johnson.

Note, by the way, that quantum computers are not generally thought able to solve NP-hard problems in P-time. They can solve in P-time a class of problems called QBP, which is believed to sit between P and NP in difficulty. Quantum computing suddenly got a lot of press when Peter Shor discovered that factoring is in QBP. However, factoring is probably not NP-hard.

Windows already uses quantum effects

[wowbagger]

Windows already uses quantum effects. Just looking at it will make it crash....
</Humor>

Factoring "probably" not NP-hard?

[BillyGoatThree]

It ISN'T NP-hard. Remember that an NP-hard problem is one where, even if you had a proposed solution, you can't verify the answer in polynomial time. Verifying a factorization answer is easy: just multiply. That's polynomial time, therefore factoring isn't NP-hard.

That's as opposed to Travelling Salesman where even if you have a proposed path, you'd have to check all possible paths to decide if yours was the minimum.
--