Slashdot Mirror


First Electronic Quantum Processor Created

ScienceDaily is reporting that the first rudimentary solid-state quantum processor has been created by a team led by Yale University researchers. "Working with a group of theoretical physicists led by Steven Girvin, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics & Applied Physics, the team manufactured two artificial atoms, or qubits ('quantum bits'). While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states. These states are akin to the '1' and '0' or 'on' and 'off' states of regular bits employed by conventional computers. Because of the counterintuitive laws of quantum mechanics, however, scientists can effectively place qubits in a 'superposition' of multiple states at the same time, allowing for greater information storage and processing power."

205 comments

  1. Most Excellent by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 2, Funny

    The possible applications for this technology are an exciting prospect. Handheld supercomputers, true real-time physics simulations for research and gaming, maybe even time travelling phone booths...

    --
    Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    1. Re:Most Excellent by Abreu · · Score: 1

      It's "time travelling police booths"

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    2. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Parent is correct (assuming he was making a Bill and Ted reference).
      It would be a time travelling "Police Box" if he'd botched a Doctor Who reference.

    3. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "time travelling police booths"

      If you want an excellent adventure it's a phone booth.

    4. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want an excellent adventure it's a phone booth.

      Otherwise it'll be a bogus journey.

    5. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With apologies for my tardy response,
      why can't it be both a police booth and a phone booth... at the same time? ..ahem.

    6. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

    7. Re:Most Excellent by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      On slashdot I'd bet on Dr. Who rather than Bill and Ted.

      But thats just me...

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    8. Re:Most Excellent by G-forze · · Score: 1

      I want a time travelling suicide booth.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    9. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a time "traveling police box"

    10. Re:Most Excellent by joranbelar · · Score: 1

      He's talking about this, not that.

    11. Re:Most Excellent by joranbelar · · Score: 2, Funny

      The "Most Excellent" post title kind of gives it away. But I'll take the bet if you're still offering.

    12. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all the phone booths could time travel back to when people actually used them.

    13. Re:Most Excellent by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      whoa, bogus...

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    14. Re:Most Excellent by skine · · Score: 1

      Okay, Okay.

      But he uses "opposite" instead of "contrapositive" in his sig.
      Can we deride him for that?

    15. Re:Most Excellent by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      i wanted to name my WoW gnome fire mage 'linacontrapositive", but it wouldn't fit, so i had to go with "linaconverse"

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    16. Re:Most Excellent by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      time travelling phone booths

      That would be awesome! We could call them Telephone And Restrooms Designed for Intelligent Species!

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    17. Re:Most Excellent by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Totally bogus catching of the reference dude.

    18. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill & Ted, dumbass. Note the header. Doctor Who, pfffff.

    19. Re:Most Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Judging from the subject, the OP is referring to Bill and Ted... *Air Guitar*

  2. Re:Love by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Honey, I got you these two solid-state qubits that hold their quantum states for a microsecond and can be used to perform rudimentary algorithms.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  3. Lab Site & Papers by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can find the lab site here with several papers freely available in pre-publication form on arxiv from the researchers. I'm trying to find the "basic algorithms" the article alludes to that these rudimentary processors can perform. I thought only a handful were applicable (Shor's algorithm) to quantum computing. Anyone know?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Lab Site & Papers by immakiku · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a bunch. Shor's is not the only quantum algorithm. For the search the article mentions, maybe they mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm

    2. Re:Lab Site & Papers by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      According to the first paragraph of the paper (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature08121.html), the algorithms tested are Grover's search and the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.

    3. Re:Lab Site & Papers by adavies42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Grover's algorithm

      on a quantum computer, Grover can go over, under, around, and through all at the same time?

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
  4. Simulating? by immakiku · · Score: 2, Informative

    While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states.

    Does this sound like they're using real atoms to simulate qubits? Perhaps I'm misinterpretting, but it looks like it's still going to take an exponential amount of resources to "make" each additional qubit.

    1. Re:Simulating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what?

    2. Re:Simulating? by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      Why would it take an exponential amount of resources? One of these qubits only amounts to around 1.66 Ã-- 10e-14 percent of a mole of aluminum. For every mole of aluminum they can create 6 quadrillion qubits. I'm not sure how many qubits would be needed for a quantum computer but I'm doubting it's much more than that.

    3. Re:Simulating? by Freetardo+Jones · · Score: 1

      That should be "1.66x10e-14 percent".

    4. Re:Simulating? by immakiku · · Score: 1

      Well that's my question. Does it scale linearly with the number of qubits? The article is not very clear about that.

    5. Re:Simulating? by dlenmn · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no simulation -- the large group of atoms forms one qubit. That's why this is interesting. Normally, only very small things (like one atom) exhibit quantum behavior. This system is large for something able to exhibit quantum behavior. All the parts effectively join together to act like one quantum system.

    6. Re:Simulating? by billcopc · · Score: 4, Funny

      640K qubits ought to be enough for anybody

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Simulating? by SUB7IME · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, that is true.

    8. Re:Simulating? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Well that's my question. Does it scale linearly with the number of qubits? The article is not very clear about that.

      I see no indication that the number of atoms per qubit will scale at all in relation to anything but time spent in a quantum state. It's purely speculation (given a single data point) to assume that this number will scale at all just because qubits are added. It's also speculation to assume they won't, but it seems the more logical guess. The obvious correlation would be between number of atoms and ease of reading them.

      As for being only 2 qubits, that's just to make the prototype simpler to create.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    9. Re:Simulating? by OldSoldier · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yea... as I understand it, since a qubit can represent 0 and 1 simultaneously. In a sense a single qubit represents 2 bits, one bit in a 0 state and one bit in a 1 state. Ten qubits, can represent all 2^10 states simultaneously, so in that same sense 10 qubits can represent 1024 normal bits. 640K qubits can represent a HUGE number of classical orientation of bits. (This is about 10^800 times the larger than the number of atoms in the universe)

      That said... I'd be curious to get some more expert feedback on this. I would not be surprised to learn that the above calculation only applies to certain aspects of quantum computing and that a more classical usage could come up in certain circumstances. For example, the above analysis assumed you only need to store a single "qu-number". I would not be surprised to learn that some problems would need to store 2 or more "qu-numbers"... For the sake of discussion let's assume a qu-byte and a qu-word. A qu-byte can represent all 256 states and a qu-word can represent all 65536 states, but if you need 2 qu-bytes you've just restricted yourself to 2 different sets of 256 states. What you can do with those 16 qu-bits in that configuration is MUCH smaller than 65536.

      Either way 640k qu-bits (or qu-bytes) should be enough.

    10. Re:Simulating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qubits do not allow any more representational power classical bits. Think about it. A classical bit can be 0 or 1, or it can be a probability distribution over {0,1}. A qubit can be |0> or |1> or a superposition over |0> and |1>. The normalization is different---a probability distribution must have nonnegative entries that add up to one, while a quantum state can have positive or negative entries whose sum of squares adds up to one.

      But the power of quantum computers absolutely does not come from the ability to work on multiple paths simultaneously. You can do the same thing by flipping a coin (or many coins) to have your randomized computer act on multiple paths simultaneously. The difference is that the classical paths cannot interfere with each other, while the quantum ones can, because they have negative numbers.

    11. Re:Simulating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would feel much better knowing I had 768k qu-bits even if I only ever use 640K or even 64k qu-bits at max. I also have a 3.3GHz overclocked quadcore, 3 GB RAM @ 1600MHz, Dual 1,792 MB GeForce GTX 295 and two 10,000 RPM HDD in RAID 0 that is only used for You Tube, /., and Myspace... But if I ever (Not likely) wanted to play a cutting edge game or use an intense 3D rendering program I cloud.

    12. Re:Simulating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it take an exponential amount of resources?

      Ahem. Why has nobody built a working simulation of a 32- or 64-qbit quantum computer?

      Oh yeah: because they need 2^32 or 2^64 units of REAL work to build and/or operate the things. It's hard to promote vaporware to the get-rich-quick crowd when you show them that your product will never be practical. EVER.

    13. Re:Simulating? by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      What if they try to crack my 1 Mb encryption key?

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    14. Re:Simulating? by Starlon · · Score: 1

      You must be related to Bill Gates.

      --
      Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    15. Re:Simulating? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I guess it should be either "1.66e-14 percent" or "1.66x10^-14 percent"

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    16. Re:Simulating? by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      It's more complicated than you understand. A qubit can be |0> or |1>, or a superposition over |0> or |1>, OR a probability distribution over |0> or |1> (called mixture). Mixture is directly akin to the probability of a bit being in 0 or 1 state, whereas superposition (which is independent of mixture) can appear similar in certain conditions, but in general is a very different thing.

  5. This is the day we've been waiting for people! by Garbad+Ropedink · · Score: 0

    We all knew this day would come. We're now officially living in the future. We can expect even greater leaps and bounds in scientific progress now. Like electric cars and drawing energy from the very air we breathe. Our ancestors in the 1950's would be proud.

    --
    And that was the last Terry Fox run I ever participated in.
    1. Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Informative
      Not quite yet. FTFA:

      Next, the team will work to increase the amount of time the qubits maintain their quantum states so they can run more complex algorithms. They will also work to connect more qubits to the quantum bus. The processing power increases exponentially with each qubit added, Schoelkopf said, so the potential for more advanced quantum computing is enormous. But he cautions it will still be some time before quantum computers are being used to solve complex problems. "We're still far away from building a practical quantum computer, but this is a major step forward."

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! by Garbad+Ropedink · · Score: 1

      But still I've been hearing about this for so long, any news is good news.

      Apparently the mods don't approve of my enthusiasm though.

      --
      And that was the last Terry Fox run I ever participated in.
    3. Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! by alexborges · · Score: 1

      l33t writing makes you look like a clueless noob.

      --
      NO SIG
    4. Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      l33t writing makes you look like a clueless noob.

      -- Joke --

      o
      /|\ -- You --
      / \

    5. Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      oh "clueless"! I was having difficulty figuring out what the guy meant.

    6. Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't skip ahead. We'll cover that 2 lessons from now, in "Avoiding Pinhead Rage By Posting Anonymously".

  6. Yay! by S810 · · Score: 1

    Soon a PC with a Quantum Processor, Holographic Memory and optical storage.

    --
    "I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
    1. Re:Yay! by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soon a PC with a Quantum Processor, Holographic Memory and optical storage.

      Running Duke Nukem Forever on a three dimensional console inside your flying car as it pilots itself to your workplace ...

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Yay! by Futile+Rhetoric · · Score: 1

      Your workplace? Snicker. How quaint!

    3. Re:Yay! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      And running Windows 9 :(

    4. Re:Yay! by chaoticgeek · · Score: 1

      At which time you get a BSOD your car crashes into a building and your computer explodes killing you and everyone in a 10 block radius...

      --
      hello
    5. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All that requires an operating system. I suggest Hurd.

    6. Re:Yay! by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      And running Windows 9 :(

      ...slowly.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    7. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And running Windows 9 :(

      No way. This thing will be released in the Year of Linux.

    8. Re:Yay! by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      will it be a phantom?

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
  7. excellent news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the production model allow us to upload our consciousness to the Universal Computer?
    In that case, I might actually queue up for it (and let others queue for the iPhone).

    1. Re:excellent news! by yahwotqa · · Score: 1

      That would be qPhone.

  8. Article is incorrect. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not trying to split hairs. This is actually a rather important point: they did not manufacture "two artificial atoms, or qubits". They manufactured two clusters of atoms that acted as qubits.

    1. Re:Article is incorrect. by bostongraf · · Score: 5, Informative

      they did not manufacture "two artificial atoms, or qubits". They manufactured two clusters of atoms that acted as qubits.

      A qubit is not actually a quantum particle. It is a unit of quantum information. Now, do you consider the qubit to be the system or the state?

    2. Re:Article is incorrect. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Riiiiight. What's a qubit?

    3. Re:Article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiight. What's a qubit?

      LOL. Great reference Cosby's very funny Noah's Ark routine. (This was being modded interesting... when it is 100% funny)

    4. Re:Article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cosby returns!

    5. Re:Article is incorrect. by causality · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I am not trying to split hairs. This is actually a rather important point: they did not manufacture "two artificial atoms, or qubits". They manufactured two clusters of atoms that acted as qubits.

      If the quality of journalism we see for politics or for useless celebrity trivia became just like the quality of journalism we see for technical matters, there would be significant backlashes against it. Joe Sixpack might not care about the distinction between abstract qubits and their physical implementation, but by God they better not misreport how many times $POP_SINGER has been divorced!

      Though I'm not so sure that blatantly inaccurate (or misleading) statements are worse than the way more mainstream news items are handled. For the mainstream items, they are very careful about which stories become "big news that everyone knows" and which don't, or they selectively omit facts which don't suit their agenda or that they otherwise find to be inconvenient. They do that while being careful that any positive statements that they do choose to make are impeccable.

      There's nothing absurd or magical about this. It's not unlike the way Microsoft doesn't make all of their file formats free open standards because they, in a similar fashion, find the idea to be inconvenient and incompatible with their intentions. That doesn't become impossible and unthinkable merely because accurate news is important to you. It just means that it's unwise to be the naive person who takes everything at face value and doesn't question like this:

      "Of all the events that happen in the world every day, why promote this thing?"
      "If you look carefully at what becomes big news and what doesn't, do you see independent people who stand up for themselves, or do you see victims who need to be rescued from something? Why?"
      "Do you see that the news corporations value freedom above all else, or do they call for its removal in the name of safety? Can you pick up any newspaper or turn to any news channel and easily find good representatives of both views? Why or why not?"
      "Is the nature of presented debate concerning whether or not it is the role of government to get involved, or does the debate consist merely of two competing proposals for what government should do after it gets involved? Is this a careful consideration of available options before solutions are proposed?"
      "Do people like Ron Paul (whether you hate him or love him) get coverage because their ideas are radically different, and so they stand out more? Or do such folks become marginalized because their views are not mainstream? Does this help people to make up their own minds? Does this mean that we have real debate, including dissent, or some mockery of real debate?"
      "Do these things, when taken together as an abstract, reflect an agenda? Is that agenda statist in nature? Did it get there by accident?"

      The way tech stories are handled can be described as "merely low-quality" or "someone didn't do their homework" ... the way the mainstream items are dealt with is really much worse because it takes far more discernment to see what is (deeply) wrong with it. I remember once hearing this on radio news a few years ago (I believe it was Fox): "This new proposal authorizes warrentless wiretapping, which officials state is necessary in order to protect us from the threat of terrorism and will help us to prosecute the War on Terror. However, some civil liberties groups cite privacy concerns *end of show*." Nice how they didn't bother to explain what those concerns are or what the reasoning behind them might be. To quote Bill Hicks, "you'd think that'd be newsworthy ..."

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Article is incorrect. by causality · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's difficult to talk about what's wrong with tech news reporting without also talking about what's generally wrong with news as an institution. That's because these kinds of problems don't happen in isolation but rather, they reflect the priorities and motivations of the institution. Sort of like the saying "no man is an island."

      I am reminded of a sig I have seen belonging to more than one poster, something like "Slashdot does not have a -1 DisagreeAndWishToCensor, and no, Flamebait, Offtopic, and Troll are not substitutes." Now if you don't like what I said and think that there is absolutely no way that the case could be made that it belongs here, at least *try* to look like you have a legitimate reason to feel that way, please. "Offtopic" is a bit too transparent.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:Article is incorrect. by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Schrodinger's qbit?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    8. Re:Article is incorrect. by Artuir · · Score: 1

      Q*Bert is related somehow, but I haven't figured it all out yet. Maybe this will help explain it.

    9. Re:Article is incorrect. by Kheric · · Score: 1

      Holy crap that's an obscure reference. Score one for Bill Cosby (and this guy who like quoting him)!

    10. Re:Article is incorrect. by RWerp · · Score: 1

      That's why these were called "artifical atoms" (emphasis added). I think that it is a sufficiently accurate description for an article targeted at non-professional audience.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    11. Re:Article is incorrect. by RWerp · · Score: 1

      PS. And they did explain later in the text that "While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states.". You are splitting hairs, my friend ;-)

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    12. Re:Article is incorrect. by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I think the ark was measured in qubits. Frankly I'm not sure what the fuss is about, don't we have the metric system now?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    13. Re:Article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiight. What's a qubit?

      Qubit is "an arcade video game developed and published by Gottlieb in 1982. It is a platform game that features two-dimensional (2D) graphics. The object is to change the color of every cube in a pyramid by having the on-screen character jump on top them while avoiding obstacles and enemies." Oh, wait, my bad.

      Sorry.....

    14. Re:Article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To see this wonderful comment tagged "Offtopic" instead of "Insightful"; a little piece of me died today.

    15. Re:Article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      little critter, he hops on a bunch of blocks, avoiding certain obstac ....

    16. Re:Article is incorrect. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That is precisely my point. The wording of the article is akin to manufacturing a memory module with a million cells, and saying "the factory just created 1 million bits".

      A qubit is not a physical construct, it is a representation of data, just as a "bit" is not a physical construct, but a representation of data.

    17. Re:Article is incorrect. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but those weren't the hairs I was splitting. The article stated that the "artificial atoms" (incorrect enough to start with), were two qubits. And that is simply incorrect. They held two qubits of data... which is a different matter entirely.

    18. Re:Article is incorrect. by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Again, this is a metaphor targeted at non-professional audience. "They were two qubits" sounds more tangible than "held two qubits of data".

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    19. Re:Article is incorrect. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      It depends on exactly what definition you use but a qubit is roughly 45 sentymeaters.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    20. Re:Article is incorrect. by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      It's the sound you get when you perform SchrÃdinger's cat experiment with a frog instead of a cat.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    21. Re:Article is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't hear people saying "My MP3 player is 45,000 songs" they say "My MP3 player holds 45,000 songs"

  9. Direct PDF Link to Original Paper by GameGod0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nature08121.pdf

    (For those with access to Nature through school or work...)

    1. Re:Direct PDF Link to Original Paper by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Funny
      (For those with access to Nature through school or work...)

      The shame of the big city, everyday people losing access to nature unless they happen to be in school or have a job where they can afford to drive to Atlantic City and see it first-hand.

    2. Re:Direct PDF Link to Original Paper by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      Link to PDF version for those without access to Nature. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2030

    3. Re:Direct PDF Link to Original Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for those without access, here is the free preprint of the same paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2030

  10. Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in theory, one of the greatest scientific inquiries can now be solved by a quantum computer.

    Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

    1. Re:Problem Solved by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Funny

      So in theory, one of the greatest scientific inquiries can now be solved by a quantum computer.

      Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

      The answer, of course, is 'Yes'.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:Problem Solved by immakiku · · Score: 2, Funny

      With probability 1/2

    3. Re:Problem Solved by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      The answer, of course, is 'Yes'.

      And "No".

      The first chicken was named Schrodinger.

    4. Re:Problem Solved by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Informative

      That has been long since solved with evolutionary genetics.

      The egg.

      What produced it just happened not to be a chicken. Something close, but not quite.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

      It's obvious the egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs. Dinosaurs lived before birds, including chickens, evolved. So eggs existed before chickens did.

    6. Re:Problem Solved by neovoxx · · Score: 1

      You fool! You changed the outcome by looking at it!

      --
      0x68ADA2CC
    7. Re:Problem Solved by edalytical · · Score: 3, Insightful

      New question: what came first the dinosaur or the egg?

      Doesn't change much does it?

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    8. Re:Problem Solved by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, so then you agree that it wasn't a chicken egg? ie Chicken came first (from non-chicken egg), then laid chicken egg.

    9. Re:Problem Solved by immakiku · · Score: 1

      The question has always been inane. We choose to define what is a "dinosaur" or what is an "egg", but nature doesn't care about our definitions. There must've been creatures with very similar reproductive or incubation systems that are not quite eggs. These creatures are also not quite "dinosaurs".

    10. Re:Problem Solved by d474 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

      Neither: It was the Rooster who came first (it happens to every guy once in a while).

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    11. Re:Problem Solved by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Nah, the correct answer is: 42

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    12. Re:Problem Solved by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the question, as written, is obvious. Chickens do not predate dinosaurs; dinosaurs had eggs; thus, eggs came first.

      The question should be: which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    13. Re:Problem Solved by GNious · · Score: 1

      Eh, looking from the Chicken's POV, its egg came first.

    14. Re:Problem Solved by Loko+Draucarn · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, no, you've got it backwards.

      A non-chicken laid a chicken egg (i.e. the egg's genes were those of a chicken), from which hatched a chicken.

    15. Re:Problem Solved by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Depends on which one you are looking at.

    16. Re:Problem Solved by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That depends on what makes it a chicken egg, what's inside it, or what produced it.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    17. Re:Problem Solved by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What produced it just happened not to be a chicken. Something close, but not quite.

      Except when posed in evolutionary terms, the whole question comes down to a problem of the human desire for classification versus nature's complete lack of giving a shit about that desire.

      What precisely makes a chicken a chicken versus a chicken-minus-one-generation proto-chicken? Given that any population naturally has a degree of genetic variation, there's no "gold standard" for a chicken genome, and it is entirely possible that every gene we see in chickens was already present in the population of proto-chickens. It could be that the only thing differentiating the chicken from its proto-chicken parent is that the chicken was born into an environment where its only potential mates were other proto-chickens with the same subset of genes from the larger proto-chicken population. Then proto-chicken becomes chicken not by a mutation that completes the chicken genome, but by a quirk of fate that isolated a certain set of genes, and what was once a sub-species of proto-chicken is now its own species, the chicken.

      Or it could be that in the list of traits we recognize as chicken-like, a hen laid an egg with the mutation that completed the last of these traits and thus was the chicken born to dominate the proto-chicken. Or a hundred thousand other possibilities I can't think of. I guess I'm just trying to add back in some mystery to an old philosophical question that science seems to give an answer too. :)

      Oh and this is unrelated, but proto-chicken seriously needs to be a boss monster in some rpg.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    18. Re:Problem Solved by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      it happens to every guy once in a while

      Once in a while?!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    19. Re:Problem Solved by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Actually, the question, as written, is obvious. Chickens do not predate dinosaurs; dinosaurs had eggs; thus, eggs came first.

      The question should be: which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?

      Which is really just an ambiguous question that becomes easy to answer as soon as you define what you mean by "chicken egg":

      If you mean "an egg which, when fertilized appropriately, will produce a chicken" then clearly the chicken egg must have come first.

      If you mean "an egg laid by a chicken" then clearly the chicken must have come first.

    20. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woot! The only answer that comes close, while all others presume that there is any other intrinsic difference between the chicken and the egg than time.

    21. Re:Problem Solved by immakiku · · Score: 1

      That's just half of it. You have to precisely define what you mean by "chicken" first.

    22. Re:Problem Solved by Daffy+Duck · · Score: 1

      when posed in evolutionary terms, the whole question comes down to a problem of the human desire for classification versus nature's complete lack of giving a shit about that desire.

      You're my hero today. Wish I had mod points. :)

    23. Re:Problem Solved by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Your post is better than some stupid karma. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    24. Re:Problem Solved by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Fish lay eggs.

    25. Re:Problem Solved by zacronos · · Score: 1

      Actually, it depends on how you define "chicken egg", unless there is a universally accepted definition that I'm not aware of. The genes of the organism in the egg were those of a chicken, but the egg itself was developed based on the genes of the mother, which you have stated was a non-chicken. Perhaps it was the father's genes which contained the crucial mutation that resulted in a chicken hatching from the non-chicken's egg. In that case, did it become a chicken egg after it was fertilized? It doesn't seem to make any sense to say it was a chicken egg before it was fertilized. Such a discontinuity doesn't sit well with me -- I would prefer to say that the type of egg is defined by the organism that produces the egg, since that event occurs before the genetics of the organism inside the egg are fully determined. I could come up with a more extreme, but similar, scenario involving hybrid creatures.

    26. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so then you agree that it wasn't a chicken egg? ie Chicken came first (from non-chicken egg), then laid chicken egg.

      The egg came first silly. The question is about a chicken and an egg, not a chicken and a chickens egg.

      Reptiles had been laying eggs for qubitillions of years before the tasty chickens showed up on the menu!

    27. Re:Problem Solved by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      the chicken had to get laid before the egg could

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    28. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rooster.

    29. Re:Problem Solved by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Still the egg. But if you were to ask which came first, the egg or the life-form, then fortunately we could answer: the life-form. Asexual reproduction precedes sexual reproduction.

  11. Does it run Linux? by filesiteguy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Seriously, I wonder if this comes to pass and we continue on the binary process forever. (IIRC, some mainframes back in the '40s and '50s used decimal processing, which was too slow then, so all switched eventually to binary.)

    1. Re:Does it run Linux? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that there is no real advantage to switching away from binary, why not? Decimal is far slower and less information packed, from the computer's perspective. And since it only takes a cycle or so for the computer to translate for the humans, just let it.

      The only really viable alternative is trinary computing, which is slightly less optimal generally. (The actual ideal would be base e, but it's really hard to build a system around irrational numbers.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:Does it run Linux? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Of course. Windows hasn't been ported yet.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    3. Re:Does it run Linux? by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obligatory slashdot answer on any topic regarding quantum mechanics: Yes and No.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Does it run Linux? by Abreu · · Score: 1

      The actual ideal would be base e, but it's really hard to build a system around irrational numbers.

      The mind boggles

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    5. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum Processors are only good for certain algorithms; more likely, in the medium-to-long term as quantum architecture becomes possible, either (1) specialized coprocessors will be built for quantum operations, (2) eventually perhaps a quantum ALU will be added on-chip on some systems, or (3) Quantum computing will be tightly regulated by the government. (Because it invalidates most encryption schemes other than one-time-pads.)

    6. Re:Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with base e, the evidence suggests that the square root of pi * the hypotenuse would be better.

    7. Re:Does it run Linux? by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      Invalidates them how?

    8. Re:Does it run Linux? by Dewin · · Score: 1

      When you have the ability to evaluate millions or billions of possibilities simultaneously, sniffing out the private key used in asymmetric key cryptography is no longer a seriously time-consuming endeavor.

      Current cryptography doesn't work on the premise that it can't be cracked. It works on the premise that it can't be cracked within the amount of time it'd take for the data being protected to still be useful.

      --
      Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
    9. Re:Does it run Linux? by vishbar · · Score: 1

      Burma Shave

      --
      Ride the skies
    10. Re:Does it run Linux? by sentientbeing · · Score: 3, Funny

      I once designed a system around imaginary numbers.

      It was too complex.


      ..baddum tish!

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    11. Re:Does it run Linux? by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      But you don't have that ability. Quantum computer != massively parallel computer. I went looking myself and found this page which explains why it doesn't work like that, and how it actually works.

    12. Re:Does it run Linux? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      I read that algorithms based on elliptic functions are immune to quantum algorithms, but this may have changed now.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    13. Re:Does it run Linux? by Suzuran · · Score: 1

      OK, rather than waste mod points modding me down, mod this up. For some reason the idea of reading all that tripe and then "Burma Shave" is hilarious. If only it all rhymed...

    14. Re:Does it run Linux? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Shor's algorithm allows to factorize numbers in polynomial time on quantum computers. Since most of the current encryption infrastructure is built on the inability to factorize large numbers in reasonable time, it will be broken if quantum computers are available.

      However there are problems which cannot be efficiently solved even by a quantum computer, therefore it's likely that the current encryption algorithms will just be replaced by quantum-safe encryption.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    15. Re:Does it run Linux? by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      "The actual ideal would be base e"

      Interesting. Got a reference for that? This isn't meant to be a snarky "[Citation needed]", I actually want to know. :-)

    16. Re:Does it run Linux? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I thought I could put my hand right on it, but I haven't been able to find the book. Must have been something I got out of the library. (And my Google-fu is weak.)

      Anyway, it has to do with data compression/transmission ratios, and choice-depth theory. Basically, it is easier and faster to run several choices/datapoints of limited precision in parallel than it is to try to run the same amount of data as one wide stream.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  12. Sooo Excited... by Steegest · · Score: 1

    Wow. I'm very excited for the future of computing right now. I hope when I'm 65 and this technology is finally implemented I'll still know how to use computers. If my parents are any indication...unlikely...

  13. Re:What's up with pseudonyms? by causality · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why can't people use a real name in Slashdot or Reddit?

    I'm sorry you feel that way, Mr. Sybert42.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  14. In UR Multiverse ... by lysdexia · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... cracken' UR codez.
    In one of those universes, this meme is still funny, and I'm not a dipshit.
    Probably not.

  15. Quick! by alexborges · · Score: 2, Funny

    Feed 42 to it and let us know how it goes!

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:Quick! by stewbee · · Score: 1

      This isn't Jeapordy. You are giving it the answer. You need to ask it the ultimate question first...you know...to compare answers :)

  16. Wasn't there a quantum computer a while back? by louiswins · · Score: 1

    I thought I remembered reading about a multi-qubit quantum computer that implemented Shor's algorithm for a small input?

    It appears that Wikipedia says it was 15 = 3×5. That page says they used photonic qubits - as opposed to the aluminum qubits here, I guess. Can anyone enlighten me as to why these are better, or why this is a big deal? It seems that these decay just as quickly as the photonic ones.

    1. Re:Wasn't there a quantum computer a while back? by immakiku · · Score: 1

      Electronic systems are much easier to manipulate. Just think about your current computer. We have a whole toolbox of knowledge to deal with these.

  17. Beowulf Cluster by Pepebuho · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How far till we have a Beowulf Cluster of Quantum Processors?

  18. Still Problem Solved by Suzuran · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fish.

    1. Re:Still Problem Solved by shelterpaw · · Score: 1

      Fish or fish eggs?

    2. Re:Still Problem Solved by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Your Mom.

    3. Re:Still Problem Solved by Suzuran · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, we could have kept this going for a few more evolutionary levels, but then you had to step in and ruin it...

    4. Re:Still Problem Solved by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Bacteria.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Still Problem Solved by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Do you like fishsticks?

    6. Re:Still Problem Solved by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      I was pondering what to put, but "unnamed chordate ancestor", "unknown deuterostome ancestor" and "hypothetical bilateral ancestor" seemed a little too generic.

  19. Real test by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't yet know what kind of porn this enables. I just know that I want it.

  20. Re:Stallman says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that you should also be able to change the state of the qubits on the server running your cloud applications.

  21. Re:Stallman says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More evidence of the MS shill campaign going on at slashdot...

  22. Bose-einstein condensate? by RudeIota · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states.

    This sounds a like a bose-einstein condensate, where many atoms will act is if though they are all part of a larger, single atom. Also, it gains some pretty interesting properties, neither of which can be described exactly as solid, liquid or gas.

    The article didn't mention anything about near absolute zero temps, though.

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    1. Re:Bose-einstein condensate? by reverseengineer · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ScienceDaily article and the /. summary seem to be confused on the experimental setup. From the Nature article, "[e]ach qubit has a split Josephson junction...." The Josephson effect is an effect where two superconductors are separated by a very thin insulating layer. A "supercurrent" composed of paired correlated electrons (Cooper pairs) can tunnel across this barrier under certain circumstances. Cooper pairs act as bosons, just as atoms do in Bose-Einstein condensates, so they have long been a focus of research for quantum computing. In this experiment, the device was a "180nm Nb film was d.c.-magnetron sputtered on the epipolished surface of an R-plane corundum wafer," meaning that the superconductor they used was niobium, and the insulator was aluminum oxide, aka corundum. They built it out of these, in other words.

      They go on to mention that the apparatus was cooled to 13 millikelvin using a helium dilution refrigerator. Now, niobium is superconductive to about 9 kelvin in the pure state (and about 23 kelvin in some alloys), so I would assume the extra effort to make it that cold has more to do with preserving the delicate electronic state of the qubits than with merely chilling the superconductors.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    2. Re:Bose-einstein condensate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds a like a bose-einstein condensate

      Sorry, I tune out of all this later Einstein bullshit. He lost all credibility with me after selling out and giving inappropriate advertising for overpriced speakers. Sorry, dude, take that spam shit elsewhere.

  23. Qubert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused. What does any of this have to do with our beloved Qubert? Nothing to see here, lets move on...

  24. The first, really? by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 1

    "First Electronic Quantum Processor Created".. Sorry to spoil the fun, but does anyone do facts checking with these articles before posting? Guess not, because these guys presented a 28 qbit prototype and working quantum processor back in 07.

    1. Re:The first, really? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes the first. The Dwave guys aren't building quantum computers. Their system lacks entanglement between the qubits, which is essential to running quantum algorithms. They have also been less than forthcoming about the coherence in their system.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    2. Re:The first, really? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      No, man, Dwave's not here.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  25. Little boats by carpefishus · · Score: 1

    Moses: 300 qubits? That's awfully small, dude.

    --
    Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
  26. I'll get crap for this but... shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quantum memory does not make a quantum computer. These are 2 data stores... not a *processor* ( and by that I simply mean a device that can receive a series of signals and perform actions based upon them )

    Every bit of quantum computing is utter BS until someone can illustrate how you can interface with these objects with traditional "newtonian" electronics. Quantum computers may be able to act in a magical simultaneous manner, but it still eventually has to get serialized for the human.

  27. Re:What's up with pseudonyms? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Why can't people use a real name in Slashdot or Reddit?

    I don't know Sybert42, why can't they?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  28. But remember... by Qubit · · Score: 4, Funny

    This idea was invented by Shampoo.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  29. Re:Stallman says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you see people poking fun at a man who has essentially set himself up as a giant joke to be a conspiracy inspired by Microsoft, I recommend you ignore the doctor's instructions and double up your dosage.

  30. I Will Be Impressed/Unimpressed by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

    Until you read this message.

  31. It's like cutting off Sampson's hair... by Qubit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Riiiiight. What's a qubit?

    If I tell you, I'll lose my superposition high and collapse.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  32. I want.. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Google Maps - Traveling Salesmen.

    Imagine how much fuel could be saved by UPS or FedEx in a given year.

    1. Re:I want.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      epsilon, I imagine.

  33. Re:Stallman says by Loko+Draucarn · · Score: 1

    In fact, due to the state superposition, any set of qubits longer then the number of bits in the GPL will necessarily contain the GPL.

    Ditto for the Windows EULA. (what's worse, you can get the Windows EULA superposed over the GPL, and wind up with a completely undistributable state.)

  34. Most Condensed Slashdotism possible by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our Linux running Qubit overlords and in full disclousure IANAL but ITFA they had me ROTFL'ing when I pondered Linxu being greated then Micro$oft running in an N-Dimensional space until NYCL told me that my ImaginaryProperty was sold by kdawson to CmdTaco because Truth != Facts != Love != Reality after SCO and the RIAA\MPAA sued Open Source and WON!

    Therefore your post sucks and should be deleted.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Most Condensed Slashdotism possible by Shooter28 · · Score: 1

      You forgot CowboyNeil

    2. Re:Most Condensed Slashdotism possible by Gilandune · · Score: 1

      and correlation != causation

  35. Re:What's up with pseudonyms? by assert(0) · · Score: 1

    Then why do you sign your posts Anonymous Cowardon?

    http://i44.tinypic.com/2ia33bn.jpg

    --
    (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
  36. hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

  37. Re:Love by amnezick · · Score: 0

    Don't look at them!

    --
    mov ax,4c00h
    int 21h
  38. This is a breakthrough by RWerp · · Score: 1

    The fact that they managed to construct a quantum computing device using solid-state physics is a technological breakthrough. It may revive the interest in the topic (which was fading due to lack of technological progress).

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  39. Crackpottery by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

    Quantum computing is one of biggest hoaxes/crackpotteries in the history of science, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis.

    Quantum Computing Crackpottery

    1. Re:Crackpottery by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      I'm a layperson on the subject but have read extensively, and my understanding is yes, there is a "quantum superposition" and you can prove it by running exactly the same experiment over and over again, and getting different results each time. You take the average of the results and that's the answer to your problem.

      Hence, a quantum algorithm only has a probability of arriving at the correct answer. Executing a quantum algorithm several times gives you increasingly better odds in polynomial time, and because there are quantum algorithms for non-polynomial problems (see: Shor's Algorithm), you can simply repeat the algorithm and refine your result and get a right answer much faster.

      While you can never guarantee your answer is 100% correct, I believe, you can get arbitrarily close. And for problems that are intractable for modern computers, problems that would require enormous supercomputers, the correct answer can be derived with, theoretically, much smaller and much faster quantum computers if you are willing to accept some small probability of error.

      In addition, the solutions to these problems can be checked rather quickly, for example, if in attempting to factor the number 15, you get the number 6, a classical computer could check this very easily. Even when you scale up the numbers immensely, the verification step is not much more difficult. So Shor's Algorithm on a quantum computer, combined with a fast bignum library on a classical computer, could determine factors much more rapidly than any classical computer could on its own given current knowledge.

      In short, you're wrong.

    2. Re:Crackpottery by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

      Superposition is an interpretation, not an observation. You don't build a science on an interpretation. Voodoo, yes, but science, I don't think so. Besides, if physicists understood the real physical reason that quantum interactions are probabilistic, they would realize that superposition is as stupid an interpretation as they come. Too bad that they don't.

      That being said, don't let me or anybody else make up your mind for you. Just remember that it's always easier to go along with the flow.

    3. Re:Crackpottery by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If it works, it works, whether you built it based on your interpretation or based directly on your observation. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, whether you baked the pudding by following a recipe or whether you just kinda threw some ingredients in a pot, stirred them a few times, and then said your special rhyme three times over them.

      So the question becomes "does it work?" and the answer is 'yes'. It's a very small pudding but it still tastes like pudding, if you catch my meaning.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Crackpottery by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Then you're going to have to try very hard to invalidate 80 years of science that has culminated in microprocessing technology that relies on quantum effects, thus allowing you to post on Slashdot.

      I'm genuinely interested in your alternative theory for all things quantum. I don't think you have a theory, but I won't let that stop you.

      Right now, we have very successful theories that explain how LEDs work, how your computer's CPU works, etc. What I don't see is an alternative theory to explain all of those things rigorously.

    5. Re:Crackpottery by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

      I have very few problems with quantum mechanics. I accept entanglement and nonlocality. So please don't create a strawman so that you can have a point to argue about. I do have a problem with speculative and highly illogical interpretations that are accepted as facts without evidence. State superposition is one such speculation.

    6. Re:Crackpottery by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

      Well, that's just it. I does not work. All the claims that some organizations have built quantum computers with a number of qbits are 100% BS. You can take that to the bank.

  40. Re:Love by TheBlackMan · · Score: 1

    Honey, I got you these two solid-state qubits that hold their quantum states for a microsecond and can be used to perform rudimentary algorithms.

    I agree, but the basic question remains: Will it run Vista ?

  41. If they did this and we know the NSA did ..? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

    If they got this far and we know about it then how far has the NSA gotten?

    this has serious implications for RSA.

    1. Re:If they did this and we know the NSA did ..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Who do you think pays for this research? From the acknowledgements of the paper in question: "This work was supported by LPS/NSA under ARO Contract No. W911NF-05-1-0365..."

  42. I know something about QC by mathimus1863 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I took a class on Quantum computing, and studied many specific QC algorithms, so I know a little bit about them. A lot of misunderstandings about them, so let me summarize.

    Quantum Computers are not super-computers. On a bit-for-bit (or qubit-for-qubit) scale, they're not necessarily faster than regular computers, they just process info differently. Since information is stored in a quantum "superposition" of states, as opposed to a deterministic state like regular computers, the qubits exhibit quantum interference around other qubits. Typically, your bit starts in 50% '0' and 50% '1', and thus when you measure it, you get a 50% chance of it being one or the other (and then it assumes that state). But if you don't measure, and push it through quantum circuits allowing them to interact with other qubits, you get the quantum phases to interfere and cancel out. If you are damned smart (as I realized you have to be, to design QC algorithms), you can figure out creative ways to encode your problem into qubits, and use the interference to cancel out the information you don't want, and leave the information you do want.

    For instance, some calculations will start with the 50/50 qubit above, and end with 99% '0' and 1% '1' at the end of the calculation, or vice versa, depending on the answer. Then you've got a 99% chance of getting the right answer. If you run the calculation twice, you have a 99.99% chance of measuring the correct answer.

    However, the details of these circuits which perform quantum algorithms are extremely non-intuitive to most people, even those who study it. I found it to require an amazing degree of creativity, to figure out how to combine qubits to take advantage of quantum interference constructively. But what does this get us?

    Well it turns out that quantum computers can run anything a classical computer can do, and such algorithms can be written identically if you really wanted to, but doing so gets the same results as the classical computer (i.e. same order of growth). But, the smart people who have been publishing papers about this for the past 20 years have been finding new ways to combine qubits, to take advantage of nature of certain problems (usually deep, pure-math concepts), to achieve better orders of growth than possible on a classical computer. For instance, factoring large numbers is difficult on classical computers, which is why RSA/PGP/GPG/PKI/SSL is secure. It's order of growth is e^( n^(1/3) ). It's not quite exponential, but it's still prohibitive. It turns out that Shor figured out how to get it to n^2 on a quantum computer (which is the same order of growth as decrypting with the private key on a classical computer!). Strangely, trying to guess someone's encryption key, normally O(n) on classical computers (where n is the number of possible keys encryption keys) it's only O(sqrt(n)) on QCs. Weird (but sqrt(n) is still usually too big).

    There's a vast number of other problems for which efficient quantum algorithms have been found. Unfortunately, a lot of these problems aren't particularly useful in real life (besides to the curious pure-mathematician). A lot of them are better, but not phenomenal. Like verifying that two sparse matrices were mulitplied correctly has order of growth n^(7/3) on a classical computer, n^(5/3) on a quantum computer. You can find a pretty extensive list by googling "quantum algorithm zoo."

    Unfortunately [for humanity], there is no evidence yet that quantum computers will solve NP-complete problems efficiently. Most likely, they won't. So don't get your hopes up about solving the traveling salesmen problem any time soon. But there is still a lot of cool stuff we can do with them. In fact, the theory is so far ahead of the technology, that we're anxiously waiting for breakthroughs like this, so we can start plugging problems through known algorithms.

    1. Re:I know something about QC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am really surprised that this comment is not scored as 5++!

      Thank you!

    2. Re:I know something about QC by autoevolution · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone who actually knows what they're talking about instead of spouting random nerd culture references. Thank you for your insightful comment.

    3. Re:I know something about QC by Graywolf · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this concise explanation.

  43. Breakthrough chaos theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has got to be one of the best breakthroughs in theoretical physics I've seen lately.
    http://moustachio.novahost.org/?p=47

  44. Two qubits? by emandres · · Score: 1

    Two qubits? As far as I'm concerned that's not a quantum processor, it's a quantum transistor. Wake me up when they have a few of these things slung together to make a logic gate.

    --
    The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
  45. Artifical Atoms! by paulkoan · · Score: 1

    So, what do you make an artificial atom out of?

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank
  46. Is it scalable? by kementari7 · · Score: 1

    That's nice, but if they can't scale it, or create entanglement between the qubits, it isn't going to be of any immediate use. Some guys at IBM built a quantum circuit to factor the number 15, which took seven qubits, and that was not a general algorithm. The general algorithm would take 3-10 times (you'd want error correction for larger numbers) the number of bits needed to represent the number.

  47. Need more cats! by aqk · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately the supply of cats is running out.
    The live ones we can re-use; the dead ones are problematic.

  48. Quantum computing ...not in my lifetime by nickrao · · Score: 1

    This has been the holy grail of computing for a while now. Sorry, I would not put the champagne on ice. There will be more challenges in engineering this into a workable solution.

  49. Re:Love by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

    Yes! No! Maybe? Er... I think you'd have to look at it to be sure.