Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Opening Quantum Computing To the Public

Posted by Soulskill on from the take-two-they're-small dept.

director_mr writes "Tom's Hardware is running a story with an interesting description of a 28-qubit quantum computer that was developed by D-Wave Systems. They intend to open up use of their quantum computer to the public. It is particularly good at pattern recognition, it operates at 10 milliKelvin, and it is shielded to limit electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions across the whole chip. Could this be the first successful commercial quantum computer?"

16 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. 28 Qubits ought to be enough for everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's only a market for at most 10 of these computers, and only big companies will need one.

    1. Re:28 Qubits ought to be enough for everybody by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No encryption key cracking. Bigger than a PDP-7. Lame.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:28 Qubits ought to be enough for everybody by Geldon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your statement is ironically close to the truth. Quantum computers actually function in parallel to conventional devices when it comes to the simple tasks that they perform, such as rendering intricate scenes, or estimating series values. What quantum computers are better at is taking advantage of quantum effects to exponentially outperform conventional computers at things such as factoring immense integers. They will most likely be used for decryption and quantum simulations, or other mathematically novel applications. In other words, it benefits businesses and scientists the most. They will most likely have commercial value in the future, but that is when they develop more uses for it, such as emulating the human mind to make ultra-realistic (if not realistic) AI. At the moment however, it is still in the computer equivalent stage of useless behemoth. Someone in some field will most likely make a huge discovery similar to the silicon transistors of the past, win a Nobel prize, and set the stage for a new revolution. Feels like a long way from now, but I'll probably be proved wrong.

      I actually am inclined not to agree with you. Back when people were making similar statements about the computer in general, they weren't small enough, powerful enough, or cheap enough for anyone to afford them who wasn't going to set up some sort of business unit around them. But I say give it 20-30 years. What will probably end up happening is that they'll be making quantum processors that run along side traditional processors, working much like today's GPUs, or yesterday's "Math Co-processors." Programmers will take particularly complex mathematical tasks and offload them to the quantum processor. My money says that 50-60 years from now, you'll be running a hybrid quantum/traditional computer on a mobile device you carry in your pocket.

      Don't believe me? Try going to someone in the 1950's and explaining to them that in 50-60 years, people will have computers that fit in their pockets and instead of solving the world's mathematical problems with these computers, we've created MySpace... *shutter*

    3. Re:28 Qubits ought to be enough for everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > *shutter*

      Click!

    4. Re:28 Qubits ought to be enough for everybody by lenski · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have just received the ancient reference of the day award!

      Well played! :-)

  2. Was I the only one? by f2x · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm going to have to turn in my geek license once and for all...

    "operates at 10 milliKelvin"?

    "...electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions..."?

    Throw in a few universal phase detractors and you've got one heck of a retroencabulator!

    --
    Blessed with all the brains that God gave a duck's ass, and twice the charisma.
  3. Re:Qbert vs. Qubit by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 4, Funny

    ^%$#@!

  4. Re:But does it work? by Glonoinha · · Score: 5, Funny

    All I know is that every time I even mention quantum computing my cat gets nervous and absolutely refuses to get in the box.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  5. Re:What does this mean for encryption? by gweihir · · Score: 1, Funny

    No impact on encryption, unless you use ROT-13.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. Re:What does this mean for encryption? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hah! I just switched over to ROT-26. Twice the security of ROT-13, and I hear it's quicker, too!

    Yeah; I sleep well at night knowing my secrets are safe.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  7. 1st thing I'd get it to compute... by dos4who · · Score: 4, Funny

    "What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?"

    --
    "Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
  8. Re:What does this mean for encryption? by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, their device is *NOT* a universal quantum computer. So far as I know, no reputable quantum physicist not in their employ has been allowed to examine what they actually do.

    Duh, of course you can't examine what a quantum computer is doing. That would change the outcome.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  9. Quantum computer tech support by yorkshiredale · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hello, Quantum Computer Tech Support"

    "My new QC is not working, I'd like a replacement under the warranty"

    "What makes you think it's broken?"

    "It keeps giving wrong results"

    "But it's giving the right results in lots of nearby parallel universes. The computer is not broken - you're not observing from the recommended viewing position. This is user error." CLICK.

    --
    The opinions expressed here are those of this individual, and may not reflect the policy or practice of the collective
  10. Re:The real question is... by laejoh · · Score: 3, Funny

    It does, and does not!

  11. Re:Qbert vs. Qubit by laejoh · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's Perl, isn't it?

  12. You must build it by Jayemji · · Score: 2, Funny

    Almost got it, but not quite. We're looking for 300 qubits, by 80 qubits, by 40 qubits.