Slashdot Mirror


First 'Quantum Computer Chips' Demonstrated

holy_calamity writes "The first quantum computer chips have been made by two US groups, New Scientist reports. Both NIST and Yale have demonstrated chips where information was transferred between two superconducting qubits using a 'quantum bus'. The bus is made from a cavity that traps a single microwave photon as a standing wave — the NIST group also managed to use the bus to store data from one qubit for a short time. 'After encoding information in one qubit, they transferred it into the cavity for 10 nanoseconds before transferring it to the other qubit. Yale's chip used qubits around 1-micron square built on silicon, while NIST used larger 10-square-micron qubits on top of sapphire. In both prototypes, the bus between the qubits was between five and seven millimeters long.'"

171 comments

  1. First... Or not by Lectoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    maybe I'm first, maybe I'm not.

    --
    Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
    1. Re:First... Or not by dapyx · · Score: 3, Funny

      In some of the universes, you are the first, in other universes you are not.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    2. Re:First... Or not by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Or you were first and NOT at the same time?

    3. Re:First... Or not by StarfishOne · · Score: 1
    4. Re:First... Or not by NeilTheStupidHead · · Score: 1

      You sir, win the best sig of the day award

      --
      Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
  2. Argh! by Cleon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Must...Not...Imagine....Beowulf...Cluster....

    --
    Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
    1. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What if you put a cat inside that Beowulf cluster you're not imagining?

    2. Re:Argh! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      It may or may not be...ARRRGGHHH! *head explodes*

    3. Re:Argh! by domatic · · Score: 1

      It's Cleon's Quantum Beowulf Cluster. It either is or isn't in the server room until someone opens the door and takes a look.

    4. Re:Argh! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I understand it correctly, a Quantum Computer already is a Beowulf Cluster of possibilities.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    5. Re:Argh! by tinkertim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it things like this never have pictures? I wanna see pictures. Its no fun to read about things that you don't (quite) understand unless you can ooh and ahh at pictures while you pretend to understand. Then you can point at your screen and say "See? Its THAT piece. That's what makes it work. Its the, err.. umm, thing that makes it work!"

    6. Re:Argh! by nschubach · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or at least a fancy lab with blue under desk lighting and neon plexiglass walls with blacklights. I mean, seriously.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:Argh! by somersault · · Score: 1

      So creating a Beowulf cluster of these.. would be like a Beowulf Squared! Do you think you could then produce a Beowulf Cube of them?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Argh! by somersault · · Score: 1

      There is a picture, it's just that you need a quantum nanoscope to view it. And when you look at the picture, it changes anyway.. just like those damn flash adverts

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Argh! by cabazorro · · Score: 1

      here is a picture for you

      2

      --
      - these are not the droids you are looking for -
    10. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they're using metaphor. They're basically telling you what they did at their last frat party.

    11. Re:Argh! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You watch way too many movies. Real labs look like messy garages, with the occasional cylinder with lots of bolts and wire thingies sticking out. There are drawers, hopefully labeled, filled with miscellaneous equipment, and perhaps a scarred work-table, stained from chemicals and charred from solder misses. If there is a desk, it's piled high with notes, books, and papers (to be written or read).

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There was a picture. You must have a dead pixel on your display.

    13. Re:Argh! by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      It either is or isn't in the server room until someone opens the door

      Nope, that's simultaneously ambiguous and insufficiently ambiguous. The CQBC simultaneously is and is not in the server room until observed.

      Excuse me don't excuse me, Ah Clem, you have made the doctor unhappy happy and will be asked to leave the future immediately.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    14. Re:Argh! by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      It would be a Grendel cluster of course(with apologies to Kelly McCullough)

    15. Re:Argh! by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      What if you put a cat inside that Beowulf cluster you're not imagining? The cat would likely chew through wires and electrocute itself to death. Or it may not.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  3. The Universe by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    Howdy. I don't claim to understand all of this. However, the more I read, the more I am convinced the universe makes no sense. I am waiting for the guy who is dreaming all of this to wake up and for all of us to stop existing.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:The Universe by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Actually, YOU are the only sentinent being in existance, the world you live in and just about anything else is pure imagination (if you're a solipsist anyways), so wake up already ;)

    2. Re:The Universe by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      # "And anyone who thinks they can talk about quantum theory without feeling stinky hasn't yet understood the first thing about smell."

      # "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

            --Neils Bohr

    3. Re:The Universe by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      How about let's hope the Wind Fish doesn't wake up?

      Damn kids in green tunics, showing up on your perfectly good dream universe and ruining everything...

    4. Re:The Universe by joto · · Score: 1

      Shut up. You don't exist.

    5. Re:The Universe by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Funny

      the more I am convinced the universe makes no sense

      Congratulations. You're starting to understand. ;)

    6. Re:The Universe by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one.

      http://www.simulation-argument.com/

      This guy has "proof" that we are living in a simulation.

      This could explain where the aliens and time travelers are. They're just not part of the simulation.

      Ok, you self described hackers. Find the bugs in the universe and viola, you can do anything you want.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    7. Re:The Universe by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Actually, both of you exist. It is I that does not exist.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:The Universe by joto · · Score: 1

      No, it's probably just your imagination

    9. Re:The Universe by wronzki · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

    10. Re:The Universe by TexVex · · Score: 1

      However, the more I read, the more I am convinced the universe makes no sense.
      It all comes down to what entanglement demonstrates about the nature of reality. In order for it to fit into a consistent framework, you have to choose between a deterministic universe or a universe full of temporal paradoxes. This is why you get quasi-religious philosophical crap like Many Worlds (Seriously -- there are entire other universes constantly splitting off from "this" one that we'll never be able to interact with in any way, ever? And this is different from flying spaghetti monsters how, exactly?).

      As for me, I'm pretty sure that the universe is deterministic and so I must simply try to enjoy my illusion of free will.
      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    11. Re:The Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy's a crackpot. There's no point in simulating something that didn't exist in the first place. Occam's razor applies here.

    12. Re:The Universe by alexj33 · · Score: 0

      I wanted to type this message. Impressed?

    13. Re:The Universe by rvqbl · · Score: 1

      I think not!!

    14. Re:The Universe by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not hard to find the bugs in the universe. Indeed, earth is full of them. However I've yet to find out how to exploit a cockroach to get rich ... :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    15. Re:The Universe by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think not!! Be careful! When Descartes said that, he suddenly disappeared.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    16. Re:The Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy if you're an exterminator

    17. Re:The Universe by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Since I can't see you, you simultaneously exist and do not exist.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    18. Re:The Universe by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      I dont think you are grasping the philosophy. One of two things is true we will simulate humans or we will not.

      The issues with not running a simulation run in to a lot of speculation (1) is a given, extinction is a possibility. However, his (2) is far, far too simplistic for my liking as it is attempting to guess the mind set of a vastly advanced human. Its tantamount to assuming how an entirely alien race would be thinking. Though its conclusion is still valid, at some point there is a shift that means that for some reason we do not wish to run such simulations.

      The interesting part of the paper though is (3) should we gain the ability and still poses the inclination to run a simulation then it is impossible to avoid the idea that we are not the first generation to be doing so.

      Assuming that much means that we are exceptionally likely to be simulations ourself. He is not giving an answer to how the universe began he is simply stating the logical follow through to our civilisation gaining the technology to begin it all again.

      Or to put it another way,
      Someone has a magic chain letter that anyone who recieves it _has_ to follow. (This is just the part demonstrating the assumption that we will eventually simulate ourselves.)
      Upon the chain letter he writes "This is the first copy. Copy this 100 times and send each one to a person who has never recieved a copy." (This is the logical assumption that the simulations will present far more humans than currently exist.)

      As long as you have no problem with things up till now, pick a chain letter at random even after a single generation. Remember only the original chain letter equates to a real human. What are the chances you hit the original? 1 in 101. All 100 other letters are fakes (Though not even the person holding it knows that fact, after all it said "This is the first copy.")

      Or in short, if we eventually have the power to simulate the universe it is obvious that someone may have had the power to simulate us. There is some interesting pondering you can do on just that simple idea.

      (As with a lot of philosophy it is a rather pointless conclusion it speculates about every possibility and doesnt even consider our simulation the most likely outcome. Even if we were simulated it wouldn't really change our overall situation.)

    19. Re:The Universe by fractoid · · Score: 1

      As for me, I'm pretty sure that the universe is deterministic and so I must simply try to enjoy my illusion of free will. Ah, but what does 'try' mean in a deterministic universe? You'll enjoy your illusory free will, or not, regardless of any effort you think you're making. :P

      Here's an interesting third option - suppose the sum-of-all-universes that we live or could live in is a static, 'finished' if you like, multidimensional object, that can be read like a CD. Your point of view is simply like a read head that allows 'you' (assumed to exist separate from this universe) to inspect any given point in space/time/wherever, is constantly moving through time, and can (under the influence of aforementioned external consciousness) alter its direction to view whichever timeline it wishes, as they branch. That would allow free will while maintaining a deterministic universe.
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    20. Re:The Universe by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      But that guy, well... he's you!

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    21. Re:The Universe by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      interesting idea, I like it. I wish I had mod points!

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    22. Re:The Universe by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      I think not!! Be careful! When Descartes said that, he suddenly disappeared. Oh, I get it! (replies quantum Descartes)
    23. Re:The Universe by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Someone has a magic chain letter that anyone who recieves it _has_ to follow. (This is just the part demonstrating the assumption that we will eventually simulate ourselves.) Upon the chain letter he writes "This is the first copy. Copy this 100 times and send each one to a person who has never recieved a copy." (This is the logical assumption that the simulations will present far more humans than currently exist.)
      As long as you have no problem with things up till now, pick a chain letter at random even after a single generation. Remember only the original chain letter equates to a real human. What are the chances you hit the original? 1 in 101. All 100 other letters are fakes (Though not even the person holding it knows that fact, after all it said "This is the first copy.") Yes, but, if every letter has an address of the sender and the receiver and you give me any two such letters, I will immediately know the following:
      (1) If both letters have the same sender, the sender is the one who received the letter at the beginning.
      (2) If the letters have different senders, exactly one of those two senders is the one who sent the very first letter. In this case, if you give me yet another letter, I will now for sure who started the whole chain.
    24. Re:The Universe by kayditty · · Score: 0

      You have just invoked the age old concept of "soul."

    25. Re:The Universe by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'if every letter has an address of the sender and the receiver'
      but they don't

      It was only an analogy. For a simulation to be acurate the people within it would have no idea of those who were running it. Or as far as the analogy goes, no one has any idea where the letters came from.

      Even if you did know for a fact you were in a simulation,
      (1) two letters with the same sender is just the equivalent of two people in the same simulation, that gives you very little. They can discuss who the original sender was, who created the simulation but you don't know how far down the line you are the original sender could have had letters sent to them.
      (2) is completely wrong, first of all to have two different senders you would have to communicate with someone in a different simulation. A different universe. Assuming you pass that boundary all that tells you is that there are two senders on the next level. Or on your level its the equivalent of you passing on 100 more letters and someone else passing on 100 more letters. Neither of you are the first so im not sure how you have come to the conclusion that one on the previous generation are the first. (Thats even assuming the uniervse you contact is even on the same level as your simulator...)

      Perhaps my chain letter analogy was a little poor it seems to just be adding more confusion. Though its difficult to come up with a succinct explanation, the idea is more complicated than it first appears. I am not even fond of the paper itself im sure there is a less long winded, theasaurus word riddled, way of expressing the ideas.

    26. Re:The Universe by Blackjax · · Score: 1


      I like your theory but I'd offer one modification. *God* is the read head and we are simply part of what is being read.

    27. Re:The Universe by lazyl · · Score: 1

      'you' (assumed to exist separate from this universe)


      You can come to any conclusion that you want if you start with the necessary assumptions. This one is way out there.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
    28. Re:The Universe by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1
      You might have notice that I was replying to your "magic chain letter" analogy in my post. Did you notice that? Did you actually read my post? Let's see. You wrote:

      Someone has a magic chain letter that anyone who recieves it _has_ to follow. (This is just the part demonstrating the assumption that we will eventually simulate ourselves.) Upon the chain letter he writes "This is the first copy. Copy this 100 times and send each one to a person who has never recieved a copy." (This is the logical assumption that the simulations will present far more humans than currently exist.)
      As long as you have no problem with things up till now, pick a chain letter at random even after a single generation. Remember only the original chain letter equates to a real human. What are the chances you hit the original? 1 in 101. All 100 other letters are fakes (Though not even the person holding it knows that fact, after all it said "This is the first copy.") to which I replied:

      Yes, but, if every letter has an address of the sender and the receiver and you give me any two such letters, I will immediately know the following:
      (1) If both letters have the same sender, the sender is the one who received the letter at the beginning.
      (2) If the letters have different senders, exactly one of those two senders is the one who sent the very first letter. In this case, if you give me yet another letter, I will now for sure who started the whole chain. Is this clear enough to you? Should I explain this further? What is "completely wrong" (your words!) about this?
      Now, let's see where we are now: You wrote:

      'if every letter has an address of the sender and the receiver'
      but they don't You wrote "But they don't". Now let's think for a brief moment about brief. Have you ever seen a letter, e-mail, fax, whatever, without any address of the sender or the receiver? Just think about it for a moment.
      But you say that none of the 101 letters has neither the address of the sender nor the receiver. (So, there is only 101 letters in your analogy, do we communicate this fact? That there might be more iterations of the same process is not important for what I am demonstrating here.)

      So, what we have is this: in the magic chain analogy, all the letters that anybody received are exactly the same. No difference whatsoever, right? But you insist that one of these letters is the original letter, whose content is the correct one, and, at the same time, all the letters are exactly the same. Since they are exactly the same, that means that nobody, not even the original sender, could possibly tell which letter was the first one sent.

      Perhaps my chain letter analogy was a little poor it seems to just be adding more confusion. Though its difficult to come up with a succinct explanation, the idea is more complicated than it first appears. I am not even fond of the paper itself im sure there is a less long winded, theasaurus word riddled, way of expressing the ideas. I like the chain letter "analogy", but if it is indeed so complicated, maybe we should figure it out completely? We have already considered two cases:
      (1) when there is address of the sender and the receiver in each letter.
      (2) when there is neither address of the sender nor of the receiver in the letter.
      Now there are two other cases... If you would care to give them some thought, you would end up with Bible.. Bible, my man! Is that why you wrote "completely wrong"? Ok, that's enough for today, I won't read you any more, I promise...
  4. Take that Harvard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nyah, nyah, nyah.

  5. Whizzer by telchine · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'm holding out for the first Quantum Whizzer.

    1. Re:Whizzer by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm holding out for the first Quantum Whizzer. Yes, eliminate the worry. When I get up in the middle of the night, I'd feel more comfortable whizzing in the dark if I know it's hitting the bowl and floor at the same time until I turn on the light to look. In that case, I figure I can go to bed immediately since I'm the one who gets up first. Why waste time since I'm going to be the one to clean it up anyway.

    2. Re:Whizzer by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      I hope they are better that their hard drives.

  6. Whatever you do by Daimanta · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Don't let your cat get inside it!

    He may or may not survive it.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Whatever you do by wbren · · Score: 1

      Don't let your cat get inside it!
       
      He may or may not survive it.
      He will do both.
      --
      -William Brendel
    2. Re:Whatever you do by rvw14 · · Score: 1

      Only if you can stand not looking at it.

    3. Re:Whatever you do by Skevin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure the IT department in my office has done this many many times. I keep hearing whispers of pulling out all the "Cat 3" that's been "running behind our walls". What happened to the first two cats? And how did Cat 3 escape? We've hired a group of what looks like construction guys, who must really be specialist exterminators because their job is "get rid of any trace of Cat 3". Hmm, I wonder what my company is trying to hide? I overheard my boss tell them that he wants to replace it with "Cat 5". It must be a very stealthy cat, because it's going to "go into every cubicle and every office"! Those strange exterminators suggested "Cat 6", but my boss rejected the idea, saying the Cat 6's plastic core made it very difficult to work with. Now, while I'm already concerned with the idea of zombie ninja cats prowling the office, I certainly will not stand for *bionic* zombie ninja cats!

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
  7. Shit... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was going to tell you, but I changed the outcome by reading it!

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  8. Sure sounds nice... by darthflo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... but will it run Linux? (Or will it run and not run Linux at the same time?)

    1. Re:Sure sounds nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe

    2. Re:Sure sounds nice... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 3, Funny

      (Or will it run and not run Linux at the same time?) You mean just like Microsoft Virtual PC?
    3. Re:Sure sounds nice... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Who cares? I want to see this thing run Windows.

      That might just disprove quantum theory altogether. One wold expect that it would be both stable and unstable, as well as secure and insecure. This simply is not possible with Windows, as it can not be stable or secure in any state.

      Now, someone mod me -1 (Troll or Flamebait) and 6 more mod me +1 Underrated.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:Sure sounds nice... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      "... but will it run Linux? (Or will it run and not run Linux at the same time?)"

      Yes to both questions

    5. Re:Sure sounds nice... by Aetuneo · · Score: 1

      Who cares about Linux? It might be able to run Vista in real-time. Now that would be impressive ... Just think about what it could do with Linux on it! Oh, wait ...

      --
      Everything is subjective.
    6. Re:Sure sounds nice... by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Vista in real-time?
      We're talking about ONE quantum proc, not a beowulf cluster of 'em.

  9. Neat things about the quantum bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can't know how many cats wide it is or fast it is until you transfer data over it.

    1. Re:Neat things about the quantum bus by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      Libraries of Congress, Volkswagens.. and now cats?!?

      I'm telling you, I am detections signs of a revolution being started right here at ./ ;D

  10. Talk about Nerd Heaven... by lottameez · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This has got to be an awesome project to work on...I'm jealous.

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
    1. Re:Talk about Nerd Heaven... by bughunter · · Score: 1
      Well, 24 years ago, right out of high school, I worked at NIST Boulder (then NBS) in the quantum cryoelectronics lab, where they were first starting to play with Josephson Junctions and SQUIDs that are the building blocks of quantum electronics.

      Yes, it was nerd heaven. It was fascinating work, in a pure research environment that I haven't seen since I left CU. But at the time, it didn't seem rewarding, because I was being given "educational" projects, and I wanted to contribute. I did not know that the director was groom ing me for a career there...

      I left after just four months. It was probably the worst career mistake I ever made. By now, I could have had a secure, rewarding laid-back GS-17 job in one of the most beautiful cities in the country... but no, I was an idiot. [facepalm]

      (At least I recovered from the error. I get to build rockets now. Or, after 20 years, I now manage those who do.)

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    2. Re:Talk about Nerd Heaven... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Josephson Junctions! Now that's a name I've not used for ... mmm, well, since before you were Bourne.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  11. does anyone else worry.. by wtfpgh · · Score: 2

    that stuff like this is the "glue" behind the universe, and someday, some scientist in a lab is going to have an experiment go horribly wrong?

    .. know anybody in Hollywood?

    --
    Every time you ________ in Soviet Russia, kitten kills God!
    1. Re:does anyone else worry.. by darthflo · · Score: 1

      I don't worry about such nonsense because I know that if such an experiment should go horribly wrong, the haze of quarks that used to be my body won't care :)

    2. Re:does anyone else worry.. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Hah. That's what I was thinking...No point in calling Hollywood; the movie would end like the last Soprano's episode. "And when we push this button it should..." *Blackness* *Credits begin to roll*

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:does anyone else worry.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I work in a physics lab, and a few days ago the unimaginable happened.
      A quantum experiment had gone horribly wrong, going completely out of control and destroying itself in the process.

      The devastation was unimaginable.
      All that was left of the experiment was a crater, almost a nanometre across.
      As soon as we get the electron microscope on it, I'll have more details of what went wrong.

    4. Re:does anyone else worry.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > I don't worry about such nonsense because I know that if such an experiment should go horribly wrong, the haze of quarks that used to be my body won't care :)

      As a subscriber to the many-worlds model, I don't worry about such nonsense because so long as my body isn't a subquark haze, I know the experiment must have gone well, at least in my universe!

    5. Re:does anyone else worry.. by brunascle · · Score: 1

      you mean like the decay of the false vacuum?

      that would kinda suck.

  12. Encryption? by bucky0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once quantum computers become mainstream, what will we use for encryption? Are there algorithms that are computable by standard computers but are also unbreakable using quantum computers?

    --

    -Bucky
    1. Re:Encryption? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I think you asked that backwards. Let me fix it:

      Are there algorithms that are computable by standard computers but are not also unbreakable using quantum computers?

      There ya go.

      Why do you think they're magic and will be able to just run encrypted stuff through them and it's broken with no effort?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Encryption? by lakiw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there's always one time pads...

    3. Re:Encryption? by BlowHole666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think what he was getting at is factoring a number quickly is very slow (np-complete) on todays hardware. With Quantum computers the problem does not take as long just like the NSA and some research groups try and break current encryption with a grid of computers because they just brute force their way past the encryption. The reason your average joe does not do this is because most people can not afford a large grid of computers. Well with quantum computers your average joe may not need a large grid of computers.

      --
      I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    4. Re:Encryption? by krog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because, in theory, quantum superposition can be exploited to provide keys of arbitrary length; since each qubit can be 0 and 1 simultaneously, put enough qubits together and you ALWAYS have the right key.

      The quantum chips TFA references are not designed around this principle, so this is all a little unrelated, but there is a reason why people expect widespread quantum computing to bring about the end of the useful life of today's ciphers.

    5. Re:Encryption? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Most encryption is just based on large prime numbers. So if quantum computing lives up to it's promises, it'll be able to eat common 128 and 256 bit keys for breakfast. Is this a problem? Not really.

      They'll just increase the key size to the point where it won't be easy for even a quantum computer to decrypt...Since there is no theoretical limit to the size of the key, and the only practical limit is processing power, this is almost trivial.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:Encryption? by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      Might be a good time to buy P&G and Kimberly Clark.

    7. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barring unexpected developments like P == NP or BQP >= PP, all symmetric ciphers will be safe (you just have to double the key length, due to Grover's algorithm).

      As for public key algorithms: Lamport signatures will work, at least for signing documents.

    8. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Encryption? by carleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To clarify both sides, unless I've missed something in the last couple of years, AES was designed[1] with the possibility of quantum computing in mind and the solution is to use double the bit length you'd otherwise need (which is the same for at least some elliptic curve-based Public Key algorithms but for different algorithmic reasons). Is this still computable by standard computers? Yes. Does it make it harder to use "strong" crypto in limited hardware, a little. Could there be improved algorithms down the road that push it to the point that it takes the same order of time to decrypt on standard computers algorithms knowing the key as it does to decrypt (break) on quantum computers without knowing the key? Possibly (in the sense that I don't know of any proofs showing limits on efficiency gains etc.).

      [1]Designed is probably not the right word, but basically, brute force searching of 128bit symmetric keys is believed to be secure in the sense that using all atoms as non-quantum computers would find it some point after expected heat death of universe. However, quantum computers can (being lazy, start at wikipedia's entry on cryptoanalysis, look for grover algorithm) do a brute force search in quadratic time (so 128bits would take on the order of 2^64 steps which is much more tractable... however, using 256bit AES keys (which would otherwise be overkill for most things) now take on the order of 2^128 steps which again hits that whole heat death thing, unless either a better algorithm comes out or someone comes out with some sort of hyper-quantum-computing idea)

    10. Re:Encryption? by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They'll just increase the key size to the point where it won't be easy for even a quantum computer to decrypt...Since there is no theoretical limit to the size of the key, and the only practical limit is processing power, this is almost trivial.


      If encryption doesn't scale better than decryption, then there is a problem, since then (at best) someone with K times your processing power (for some value of K that is independent of key size) will be able to decrypt your transmission as easily as you encrypt it, no matter how many bits you use for the key.
    11. Re:Encryption? by Rhaban · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because, in theory, quantum superposition can be exploited to provide keys of arbitrary length; since each qubit can be 0 and 1 simultaneously, put enough qubits together and you ALWAYS have the right key.
      But enven if you find the right key with this method, you can't use it because it would change the key the file was encrypted with.
    12. Re:Encryption? by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      tick... tick... ewwwww.

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    13. Re:Encryption? by krog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're referring to the fact that observing the quantum register will destroy its state, you're right. But the part you're not mentioning is that there is a high probability you just observed the right answer. Measure it a few times -- or a few hundred or thousand, hell with it, that part's still O(1) -- and you can poll for the right key.

      If you think that trying to crack the key with which a file was encrypted will re-encode the file with a different key, I can't help you there.

    14. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has always been a problem for brute forcing keys though; for example, a file that could only just be decrypted by a 1950's mainframe could probably easily be forced by a modern cell phone. The new change in technology will just mean that any file that needs to be decrypted by a non-quantum computer could probably be fairly trivially forced by a third quantum computer (due to quadratic time, et al). The most simple solution I can think of is probably continually changing the key at intervals within the data (eg, the last kB's key is different from the first kB's key within the one piece of data) based on an algorithm known to both parties but not to the listener. This is basically impossible to arrange without sending the algorithm through a different channel, but as long as the listener does not monitor every single action of the target, then this should be possible.

    15. Re:Encryption? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Generating the key is work, but encryption is relatively easy...You know the key, so it reduces to simple math. Decryption is the exact same process if you have the key.

      Otherwise you have to do that same math with every possible key, which means that every bit that is added to the length of the key doubles the key space, and drastically increases the number of computations a computer would need to try to brute force the key.

      In that sense, encryption scales far better than brute force decryption. The question is whether or not a non-quantum computer would be capable of generating a key large enough to make decryption inefficient on a quantum computer. Right now it's really impossible to say; I don't know anyone who has ever bothered with more than a few thousand bit keys, because those are effectively impossible to break with existing technology. We'd have to have a working quantum computer, and run it against arbitrarily large cyphers.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    16. Re:Encryption? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      There are -way- more computational problems that we cannot (and will not) solve via quantum computers (or even computers that come after quantum computers). Just base the encryption scheme on one of those. ie: SAT will still be NP-Complete, even with quantum computers. Though if we -could- solve any sized SAT in an instant, we'd truly have godly powers over matter and energy (though by that time, security is unlikely to matter).

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    17. Re:Encryption? by bucky0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem with one time pads is that you have to have a way to securely transmit the pad.

      --

      -Bucky
    18. Re:Encryption? by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      Ok, next time I'll include a couple smileys when trying to be funny.

    19. Re:Encryption? by rjh · · Score: 1

      A complete answer to this question requires a solid (graduate-level) grounding in computational theory.

      However, I would point you to Lamport signatures as an example of a digital signature algorithm which is secure even against quantum computation.

      Most symmetric algorithms are also secure against quantum computation. Using Grover's algorithm we can reduce the total symmetric keyspace we have to search by an exponential factor of 0.5. This means that a 256-bit keyspace becomes equivalent to a 128-bit keyspace--still totally infeasible.

      RSA, DSA and Elgamal are all in serious trouble if superpositional computation comes to pass--and that's a very big if--but we are not without alternatives to those three old warhorses.

    20. Re:Encryption? by dintech · · Score: 1

      Modern DNA analysis has enabled the police to solve 'cold' cases recently. I would think this kind of technology would allow them to examine evidence in cases where forensics couldn't break encypted data. Think organised crime, peadophilia, data theft and so on. On the minus side, all you political dissidents should watch your back. :)

    21. Re:Encryption? by kmac06 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, this is not correct. While it's true that if you put N qubits together in the correct superposition, you can make a state that is "equally spread out" over all 2^N possibilities, you cannot make the computer "favor" the correct one (at least not in the sense you are implying). Using Shor's algorithm you can factor a number in O((log N)^3), which is an exponential improvement to crack RSA. And yes, I am a physicist working on quantum computing.

    22. Re:Encryption? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Otherwise you have to do that same math with every possible key, which means that every bit that is added to the length of the key doubles the key space, and drastically increases the number of computations a computer would need to try to brute force the key.


      Well, assuming that you need to do a brute force attack, that's true even for quantum computers (though the "drastic" increase is far less than for traditional computers, where brute force is O(N) in size of the key space, since for quantum computers Grover's Algorithm, assuming Wikipedia is correct, is O(N^1/2).)

      OTOH, the speedups quantum computing offers against at leastmany common forms of public key encryption are even more devastating, and I don't know of any form of public key encryption that seems to be safe (I'm not an expert, I'd welcome hearing of one that isn't clearly at extreme risk!). Even if quantum computer just makes public-key encryption worthless, that's a pretty serious blow.
    23. Re:Encryption? by krog · · Score: 1

      Great, thank Christ someone knows what's going on here. I'm an analog electrical engineer working on web applications.

    24. Re:Encryption? by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      I saw a lot of replies, but no answers. It's a bit lengthy of a discussion, but this is pretty accurate: Quantum Crypto

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    25. Re:Encryption? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      A quantum computer doesn't need to use brute force, which is exactly the advantage given by quantum computing in the first place. Read about Grover's algorithm.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    26. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, the SAT problem just keeps getting worse. I don't think it will ever be solved.

    27. Re:Encryption? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      Nope - he had it right, you have it backwards.

      He wants to know if there are encryption algorithms that ordinary computers can run that are UNBREAKABLE by quantum computers, i.e. normal encryption that's safe from quantum computers.

      And yes, there is. Quantum computers are good at breaking encryption that relies on a simple mathematical transformation using a big key. This applies particularly to public key ciphers (e.g. RSA). Block and stream ciphers on the other hand rely on doing complex serial, arbitrary and iterative transformations of the data, so you can't parallelize the algorithm.

      In fact, most encryption algorithms out there can't be broken by quantum computers. Just the public key ones we use all the time right now. I believe there are already public key algorithms that can't be broken by quantum computers, but I'm not quite sure which ones.

    28. Re:Encryption? by NightOath · · Score: 1

      Your basically right in saying that the current (RSA) algorithms would be rendered rather useless, though as I currently understand it there would need to be more work done to the refining of the answer, because using a quantum computer will effectively try every possible code simultaneously, working out which was the correct one is a different matter entirely. As far as quantum encryption goes an idea I found in Simon Singh's 'The code book'using polarisation is relatively (as far as quantum is concerned) straightforward, which i will not attempt to explain now but is well documented at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography#Polarized_photons_-_Charles_H._Bennett_and_Gilles_Brassard_.281984.29/

    29. Re:Encryption? by lakiw · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's no problem. You just encrypt your one time pad with another one-time pad. Then you can transmit it anyway you want. What, you want to know how to get the second one time pad? Oh, that's no problem. You just encrypt your one time pad with another ................ Heh, or just do what my boss said, and encrypt everything with the same one-time pad.... Personally though, I encrypt everything with ROT26.

    30. Re:Encryption? by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      Grover's algorithm is the "worst case" scenario in terms of how a quantum computer could search for the solution, but that doesn't mean a faster algorithm can't be found (i.e., Grover's algorithm could be used to factor large numbers, but Shor's algorithm is faster).

      Also, and more importantly, AES is not public-key cryptography, so it can't be used to send encrypted information unless the two parties already have a shared key.

    31. Re:Encryption? by arrrrg · · Score: 1

      you cannot make the computer "favor" the correct one (at least not in the sense you are implying)

      In case anyone's interested, making the computer "favor" the correct one is essentially how Grover's algorithm works (IIRC). The problem is that you can only increase the probability of the correct answer(s) by a small factor per iteration, so it can still take 2^(N/2) steps to get an answer ("quadratic speedup"). Moreover, it's been proven that this is the best a QC can do with any similar "general-purpose" algorithm.

    32. Re:Encryption? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Ima steal that as my new sig, it was about time I had a new one. ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    33. Re:Encryption? by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the SAT problem just keeps getting worse. I don't think it will ever be solved. Yeah, just imagine: a high student makes a quantum computer to solve SAT and then she can get to any college she wants!
  13. obligatory Bill Cosby quote: by British · · Score: 1

    "What's a cubit?"

    1. Re:obligatory Bill Cosby quote: by kcallera · · Score: 1

      A cubit is an ancient greek unit of length which is now commonly used to denote any small unit of information. I do not understand how this is a quantum computer. A quantum computer uses the states of an electron to store data. However, no published research group has been able to create coherent electron states which are measurable and that last longer than a few nanoseconds. If this is not using the states of an electron, it is not a quantum computer. This kind of misinformation is really detremental to the field and is probably a marketing ploy intended to prey upon those who do not know what the word quantum means but think that it sounds cool.

    2. Re:obligatory Bill Cosby quote: by robvs68 · · Score: 1

      Bugger! You beat me to it. Now build me an arc...

    3. Re:obligatory Bill Cosby quote: by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      A quantum computer uses the states of an electron to store data. However, no published research group has been able to create coherent electron states which are measurable and that last longer than a few nanoseconds. If this is not using the states of an electron, it is not a quantum computer. A quantum computer is any computer which takes direct advantage of a superposition of quantum states to store or process information. It doesn't matter whether these are states of electrons in atoms, or nucleons' internal states (or coupled to an external field) or what. They could be composed of a BEC for all I care. Electrons are just the easiest (for large -- small? -- values of "easy") things to work with at the moment.
    4. Re:obligatory Bill Cosby quote: by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2

      I've had enuff - I'm going Ohm.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    5. Re:obligatory Bill Cosby quote: by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 1

      Right!

      What's an ark?

      --
      3. Profit!
      2. ???
      1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
    6. Re:obligatory Bill Cosby quote: by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      how long can you tread water?

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
  14. 7 adult cats or 42 kittens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the number of cats that will fit in my trash compactor before it won't compact anymore.

    1. Re:7 adult cats or 42 kittens by fractoid · · Score: 1

      So you run 7 kits per kat? How do you deal with special karacters?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  15. Sounds practical... by indigest · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...until you read this:

    The whole apparatus was cooled to a few thousandths of a degree above absolute zero to make the circuits superconducting.
    Still stuck at square zero.
    1. Re:Sounds practical... by Nilych · · Score: 2, Funny

      A few thousandths of a degree above square zero. Progress!

  16. Why the need for a buss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bus on a quantum computer is like jet engines on a cloth-covered wooden airplane.
    Why not use quantum entanglement ("spooky action at a distance") instead of an old fashioned bus.

    1. Re:Why the need for a buss? by Selfbain · · Score: 3, Informative

      My understanding is quantum entanglement cannot be used to transfer information.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    2. Re:Why the need for a buss? by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      Just pure speculation on my part - but I believe you need a "common carrier" of some sort of wave to setup entanglement. It makes sense to build this into a chip so that you can alter the setup at run time.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    3. Re:Why the need for a buss? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Two reasons:
      * You need a bus, because even with quantum teleportation, you need to transmit (classical) information,
      * You need a quantum bus, because you need entanglement for quantum communication, and that can only be transmitted through quantum channels (and quantum teleportation consumes entanglement).

      Now since you have to transmit quantum states anyway, it would be silly to first transmit unrelated quantum states and then quantum-teleport the actual states using those, instead of just directly moving the real thing.

      Note that the situation is different for large-distance transmission, where the errors in quantum transmission might be too high. In that case, it makes sense to send many particles carrying entanglement, which will partly decohere away, but you can distill perfectly entangled pairs from the remaining entanglement in order to transmit your actual quantum information through quantum teleportation using them (which only needs a robust classical channel). Note that even then you need a quantum channel for sending the entanglement, although it may be low-quality (you just have to transmit more entanglement then).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Why the need for a buss? by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      My understanding is quantum entanglement cannot be used to transfer information. It can be used for transfer of information: for that it is enough to transfer entangled q-bits.
    5. Re:Why the need for a buss? by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

      ... instantaneously. It can't be used to transfer information faster than the speed of light. This is different from not being able to transfer information.

      --
      snig
  17. Why have a bus on a quantum chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely you should be researching having instantaneous data transfer across the chip using quantum entanglement? No bus required...

    1. Re:Why have a bus on a quantum chip? by TexVex · · Score: 1

      Entanglement can't be used to communicate useful information.

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    2. Re:Why have a bus on a quantum chip? by Peaker · · Score: 1

      I asked a few people about this, and none of them could explain:

      If entanglement allows me to control whether another remote particle is in a "simple" position or a "super position", why is that not measurable?

      The two-slit experiment, for example, is a measurement of whether the photons being shot are in a superposition of being in both slits, or if they are just in one of them.

      So why can't the fact a particle is in a superposition or not be measured? A single result is not enough, ofcourse, but if you repeat the same measurement on multiple particles, you can see a bias, if they were in a superposition, can't you? Or, alternatively, if there is no way to measure the difference between a simple position or a superposition, in what sense do "super positions" exist at all?

    3. Re:Why have a bus on a quantum chip? by TexVex · · Score: 2, Informative

      A superposition of states simply means that that the particle has an unknown value for the property being discussed. If you pick any random electron up off the street, its spin along any axis you choose to measure is in a superposition of states such that it might be up or down with equal probability. You can't measure this condition of being in a superposition of states because it is not a property of the electron. Rather, it is a condition of the information that you know about the electron. To use a bad coin flipping analogy, if you flip a coin and cover it before looking, you can say it is in a superposition of states between heads and tails with equal probability of each, not because there is anything special about the coin but because you simply don't know the definite answer.

      Entanglement does not allow you to control anything at all about a distant particle. When particles are entangled, that means that measurements taken on both members of an entangled pair will correlate more often than our current understanding of the universe says should be possible. The measuring is a passive thing -- it gets information about the state of the particle. The correlations imply that somehow the entangled particles are linked over distance, or that the future of the pair of particles was predetermined at the time the entangled particles were created.

      It cannot be exploited for communication because in order to even detect the strange correlations, you have to compare measurements, which requires getting information about those measurements to a common location. Suppose I'm doing an experiment with entangled photon polarization, and Alice is trying to send a message by modulating the angle of her polarizer. At Bob's detector, he's getting a 50% hit/miss with each photon that comes his way, no matter what angle Alice sets her polarizer to, and his measurement results are completely random.In order for Bob to decode the message, he has to know what Alice's measurements were. This is actually why photon entanglement is useful for encryption -- but it ain't gonna let us talk faster than light.

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    4. Re:Why have a bus on a quantum chip? by Peaker · · Score: 1

      I believe I read in multiple sources about Quantum mechanics that a superposition is more than just a description of what we know about a particle.

      The reason the 2 slit experiment has the result it has, is because each particle is in a superposition of being in both slits. If it passes through a single slit, but we don't know which, the cancellation pattern ceases. It must be in a superposition.

      If this particle was entangled with some remote particle, and that remote particle had been measured, then the particle would have to choose a single slit to pass through, and would not create the pattern on the wall behind the slits.

  18. 1um channel by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    Intel Core 2 Duo die size is 143mm^2, so that's 143 million devices. That is somewhere between Barton and the K-8 (also above the Itanium, but nowhere near the I2). Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count If you truely can do parallel processing then I suppose it could replace Si.

  19. Re:Why the need for a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, that totally makes sense. you can transfer bits of data through the void instantaneously. But then, what we really need is a computer that gives you the answer to any question just by observing it.

  20. Uncertainty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In both prototypes, the bus between the qubits was between five and seven millimeters long"

    So that would be six mm then? Or is the length of the bus a matter of quantum uncertainty?

    1. Re:Uncertainty by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Well, there were two devices. I was assuming one had a bus 5mm long, and the other had a bus 7mm long.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  21. dumb question by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    This doesn't make sense to me cuz I'm not a quantum physicist. If the qubits are in two states at the same time, how do you determine that the data was transfered and stored on the second qubit like that said? Wouldn't it always appear the same because it's always in both states at once?

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:dumb question by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the problem with those popular descriptions. The qubit isn't really in two states at once, but in a single quantum state, which happens to be a so-called superposition of both states. Actually, a single qubit state isn't anything mysterious; if you take an electron spin, and encode "0" as "spin in negative z direction" and "1" as "spin in positive z direction", then one possibility to have "both 0 and 1" is to have the spin in positive x direction (which is just halfway between positive z and negative z direction). It's obvious how you'd measure correct transmission in that case: Just look if the spin still points in positive x direction.

      Where quantum mechanics gets complicated is when the qubits get entangled. Then indeed the single qubits individually don't have any defined state. Now, how do you check correct transmission of an entangled state? Well, since quantum operations are always reversible (except for measurements), the simplest way is to just remember how exactly you entangled the qubits, and use the reverse procedure to detangle them again. If the transmission worked correctly, you get your original unentangled states back, which you can easily measure. If that's not an option (e.g. bringing them back together in order to reversably detangle them is not possible or not practicable), you could e.g. make Bell type measurements to check that they are still entangled, or you could use them to quantum-teleport another, known state (which should fail if the state is damaged by the transmission).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  22. Does reading this post by netglen · · Score: 2, Funny

    change the outcome of the story?

    1. Re:Does reading this post by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      change the outcome of the story?

      Maybe... maybe not.

  23. YES! Quantum Computing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Let me be the first to say:

    WOOT! Now we can finally run Vista.

  24. Not the first by TheCount22 · · Score: 0

    As I recall this is not the first quantum computer chip. Didn't a company called D-Wave Systems of British Columbia demonstrate a 16-qubit quantum computer a while back? It's the first quantum bus maybe... But surely not the first chip.

    1. Re:Not the first by imakequbits · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, D-Wave's device is on a chip, but there are others long before that, too. I am not sure what the first solid-state qubit experiment was, but such experiments have been going on since the late 90's. The claim of these experiments is that they demonstrate the first quantum bus on a chip.

  25. Yale group's press release by imakequbits · · Score: 3, Informative

    Readers may find the Yale group's press release interesting.

  26. The NSA will probably be the first customer by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

    In other news, the NSA is partnering with NIST and University of Maryland to form the Joint Quantum Institute.

    1. Re:The NSA will probably be the first customer by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      In other news, the NSA is partnering with NIST and University of Maryland to form the Joint Quantum Institute. Are they smoking quantum joints there?
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  27. One time pad is still safe by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The one time pad, where the key length = message length is still safe as long as you never reuse the key. (the "one time" in one time pad.

    As simple proof of this is that for any encrypted text of length N, there exists a key also of length N that will decrypt the etext to any plain text of length N. Therefore there is no way for an attacker to determine if an attempted key is valid or not. There if an attacker were to try every single key of length N, which is possible on some super large future quantum computer, all he will get out is every single decryption of length N, with no way to determine which is correct.

    Suppose the plain text was "attack at dawn" and the etext was "xbdhgfhwteriur". After the attacker used his q-computer he'd have "attack at dawn", "attach at noon" and "attack at fred", along with 64 quintillion other combinations.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:One time pad is still safe by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The one time pad, where the key length = message length is still safe as long as you never reuse the key.


      The one time pad is always going to be secure, but it is of limited utility, since it requires a method of securely communicating at least as much information as you are trying to protect. There are certainly things that one-time pads are very good for, but there are lots of applications of encryption for which a one-time pad is never going to be a practical solution,
    2. Re:One time pad is still safe by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Just a nitpick. OTP key transmittion just needs to be tamperproof, not completely secure. i.e. You can send a courier with a briefcase full of keys handcuffed to his wrist and no key to the case. If the courier is accosted along the way, you just discard those keys, and send another batch. Imagine what kind of bandwidth you can get with a briefcase full of BluRay disks.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    3. Re:One time pad is still safe by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      OTP key transmittion just needs to be tamperproof, not completely secure.


      Good point; the distinction is important.
    4. Re:One time pad is still safe by glwtta · · Score: 1

      The one time pad, where the key length = message length is still safe as long as you never reuse the key.

      Provided that the pads you generate are truly random.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    5. Re:One time pad is still safe by fractoid · · Score: 1

      And truly one-time.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:One time pad is still safe by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I've heard of several cases where folks have been caught reusing the pads. The Soviets were caught by the British when they started to reuse their pads after a year. Who would have thought that your attacker would keep data over a year and compare it with new data?

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  28. Yeah but... by ZiggyStardust1984 · · Score: 1

    Does it runs Halo 3?

  29. Forget my reply (parent post) by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    Forget what I said in my , I misread your post. But for RSA and other public key algorithms, the speedup is exponential, so they're effectively defeated by QC. Grover's algorithm is just a quadratic speedup, so it can be defeated by doubling the key size.

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  30. Doesn't make my computer go faster... by bradbury · · Score: 0

    If there are no current real world applications that are programmed for or depend on quantum computers, the proper response is "so what?"

    I do not care about quantum computing.
    There are perhaps a bunch of nerds in the basement of buildings in Virginia that may.
    There may also be a few people in skyscrapers in Manhatten that may.
    But for hundreds of millions, perhaps pushing a billion of other computer users around the world this is meaningless noise.

    1. Re:Doesn't make my computer go faster... by benow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because new things should have existing applications. They're new, they enable new. It might not have applicability now, but it might do when google offloads your search to a qbit coprocessor.

    2. Re:Doesn't make my computer go faster... by Nextraztus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there are no current real world applications that are programmed for or depend on quantum computers, the proper response is "so what?"
      It's a good thing Tesla didn't feel the same way about A/C electricity.
    3. Re:Doesn't make my computer go faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The funky thing about fundamental and 'useless' physics research is that from time to time extremely interesting things come out of it.

      Imagine if people could produce things as hard as diamond as easily and costless as they produce things of metal today. But that the material you use is rather a random pile of wood chips rather than ore mined out of the ground. Without fundamental research it is never ever going to happen, with it - it's more likely to than not.

    4. Re:Doesn't make my computer go faster... by FictionalAccount · · Score: 1

      Old Man Bradbury had been a fixture on the block for years. Every day he sat on his porch, rocking back in forth, idling smoking his pipe, and glaring at the world as it passed him by.

      "So what?" he'd used to say when his neighbors would get a new car, "Is that going to get you anywhere any faster in this traffic?"

      "So what?" he'd say when they put a man on the moon, "Am I going to live on the moon now? No? Then so what?"

      New trends and fashions would pass him by, always receiving the two word response "So what?" There wasn't much that escaped his scoffing attitude, even his children.

      "So what?" he said when presented with a flower from his daughter Noreen. "I can get those at the store, what, are you a florist now?"

      "So what?" he told his son Billy as he brought home the second place trophy from little league, "someone else did a better job. Why even have a trophy for second?"

      His work, his life, and his family dulled him. Nothing impressed him. The news was always the same, the new miracles of the modern age changing nothing other than how people waste their time. To Old Man Bradbury the world was a cold, static place, and if anything mattered to him it was making sure that everyone knew nothing did.

      And so he lived on, rocking in place and watching the world from his porch, until one day the rocking stopped for good.

      Billy called his sister that day: "He's gone Noreen. Doctor's say he went pretty quiet...but...he's gone. Dad's dead Noreen."

      She sighed into the receiver, rolled her eyes back, and pushed a tear away:

      "So what Billy....so what?"

      --
      Like what you read? Read more here.
  31. But the information in the qubit was lost when... by bi$hop · · Score: 1

    ...it was transferred to Q*bert and he jumped on one of those purple snakes.

  32. even then you don't have to worry by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    What's wrong about being the first sentient subquark haze?

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  33. Doesn't exist by IamWasabi · · Score: 1

    As long as this computer is in an enclosed case it doesn't exist, happily, if you've got one of those cases with a plexi-glass side, it DOES exist.

    --
    [/war] "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players."
  34. Very nice, but... by ihope127 · · Score: 1

    ...can it factor the number 16 yet?

  35. this reminds me of.... by datapharmer · · Score: 1

    Does this remind anyone else of the short fiction story I don't know, Timmy, Being God is a Big Responsibility?

    --
    Get a web developer
  36. What a "real" lab desk looks like: by Neuticle · · Score: 1

    In the case of my workstation in a college lab, it's next to the radioactive waste.

    ...From immuno-assays. It was so low-level it barely registered on the Geiger counter. But it was in a 55gal drum.

    True story

    --
    "Cheeze it!" - Bender
  37. Quantum Entanglement by Thangalin · · Score: 0

    A site that explains quantum entanglement in terms even your grandparents could (almost) understand:

    http://www.davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/

  38. Use quantum systems to generate one time pads... by Sploff · · Score: 1
    You can buy commercial Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) systems that you just hook up to a fiber, and they will start spitting out provably secure keys in either end. QKD was actually one of the first hot proposals in quantum information science.

    Using novel schemes, such as decoy states (very weak pulses that would let you spot any eavesdropper. Roughly), QKD has been demonstrated over 10km in commercial fibers.

  39. Re:Use quantum systems to generate one time pads.. by bucky0 · · Score: 1

    That would work great for the government or other large organizations, but how could ordinary users protect, for instance, their online banking transactions once quantum computing becomes mainstream? How could you, for instance, access your banking information over routed networks (since QKD relies on a single unbroken fiber for photons to travel down in order to maintain coherance)

    --

    -Bucky