Slashdot Mirror


A "Photon Machine Gun" For Quantum Computers

An anonymous reader writes "Generating entangled photons in a reliable way is impossible right now, stalling the development of the optical quantum computers that would use entangled photons as quantum bits (qubits). Because entangled photons can only be produced at random — which takes time — the most powerful optical quantum computing device use only 6 qubits. UK and Israeli quantum physicists have designed a blueprint for a 'quantum machine gun' that fires out barrages of entangled photons on demand. They think within a few years this device will be built, and could lead to quantum computing using 20 to 30 qubits. Every additional qubit doubles the computing power, so these quantum computers could outperform any existing classical computer, the researchers say. The quantum machine gun is described as 'one of the most exciting theoretical proposals I've read in five years' by a leading quantum physicist." The research was published in Physical Review Letters earlier this month.

143 comments

  1. For certain problems. by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every additional qubit doubles the computing power, so these quantum computers could outperform any existing classical computer, the researchers say.

    But only for probabilistic algorithms. It's not going to be faster at everything.

    1. Re:For certain problems. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      But only for probabilistic algorithms. It's not going to be faster at everything.

      So Whpt if we occjsion?lly fl#p a fwe bits.
         

    2. Re:For certain problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you are gay, then I'll take it as a complement.

    3. Re:For certain problems. by Canazza · · Score: 1

      It'll be like a Quantum Rambo. You'll take out a hell of a lot of Scenery with your spray

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    4. Re:For certain problems. by physburn · · Score: 1
      It certainly depends if an quantum algorithm has been made for the problem, thats very hard, and not been done for most things. Most of us have heard that a quantum computer can solve factorisation in order n^3 thanks to Grovners algorithm. While classical computer take exponential time in n. Quantum computers (with Quantum storage), can also search data in a unsorted database table, in order sqrt(n), compared with the classical n. Neither of these are to be sniffed at, a very strong increase in speed. Neither of the above are probabilistic algorithm, there guaranteed to find a the exact answer if one exists. As far as a know it not yet known if a quantum computer can turn NP complete problems, in polynomial problems at all, or for what problems this is possible. However it looks like the travelling salesman problem may be done in polynomial time on a quantum computer, ArXiv:0601151.

      .

      For those that don't understand the maths of the speed of computer algorithms. The above goes to say, that yes quantum computers are really much faster for a lot of problems. They're very also good for education, as each new algorithm is probably worth a PhD.

      ---

      Quantum Computers Feed @ Feed Distiller - needs your QC blogs

    5. Re:For certain problems. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as a know it not yet known if a quantum computer can turn NP complete problems, in polynomial problems at all, or for what problems this is possible.

      Of course, as of yet it isn't even known if a classical computer can calculate NP complete problems in polynomial time. P!=NP is still a conjecture.

      BTW, the correct arXiv reference is arXiv:quant-ph/0601151. After all, there's also astro-ph/0601151, cond-mat/0601151, hep-ph/0601151, hep-th/0601151, math/0601151 and physics/0601151, none of which are relevant here.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:For certain problems. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Every additional qubit doubles the computing power, so these quantum computers could outperform any existing classical computer, the researchers say.

      As all the photons are entangled with the same electron it simply means that 1 qubit is going to be easier to read because it is being represented by multiple photons and an electron the idea that the more photons you entangle the more qubits you get is nonsence because they are all essentially linked so any change on one will be mirrored on the others

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    7. Re:For certain problems. by DanAndDusty · · Score: 1

      Lol.. Shame you were marked as troll.. I thought that was a nice comeback.. Offtopic as is this.. but a good comeback

    8. Re:For certain problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As far as a know it not yet known if a quantum computer can turn NP complete problems, in polynomial problems at all, or for what problems this is possible

      Of course, as of yet it isn't even know if a classical computer can calucate NP complete problems in polynomial time. P!=NP is still a conjecture.

      The polynomial time quantum factoring algorithm is by Peter Shor. Grover's algorithm is for searching an unsorted database in time proportional to the square root of the number of items in the database.

      Neither Shor's algorithm for quantum factoring nor Grover's algorithm for unsorted searching are guaranteed to find the correct solution. They are only guaranteed to find the correct solution with very high probability.

      The relationship between BQP and NP, is still unknown, but its answer does not directly apply to the P=NP problem. That is even if quantum computers can solve NP complete problems in polynomial time, NP complete problems may still not be solvable in polynomial time on classical computers. However, the converse is true. If P=NP then NP is contained in BQP.

    9. Re:For certain problems. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Lol.. Shame you were marked as troll.. I thought that was a nice comeback.. Offtopic as is this.. but a good comeback

      Yeah, if you take a reply of Anonymous Coward, pretending to be gay, to be a comeback.

    10. Re:For certain problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Shor's Algorithm is for factoring. Grover's Algorithm is for searching an unsorted database.

      2) These algorithms are probabilistic. They always return the correct answer, but there is a small chance that they will take very long to complete. This is the quantum analogue to the classical complexity class ZPP.

      3) It is generally believed by Quantum Complexity Theorists that BQP (the set of problems efficiently solved by a quantum computer) does not contain NP (there is an oracle separation to back this up). Interestingly, many also believe that BQP is not contained anywhere in the Polynomial Hierarchy, although it is contained in the class PP.

  2. Qubit does not double power in traditional sense? by religious+freak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every additional qubit doubles the computing power, so these quantum computers could outperform any existing classical computer, the researchers say.

    I thought that the "power doubling" was not in a traditional sense.. the qubit is fantastic at pattern matching and search functions, but no better than a classical computer for something like, say, a video game requiring finite mathematical calculations. I'd state this as a fact, because I've read this in at least a couple places, but seeing as how quantum physicists haunt this forum, I can't say I know as well as them. But this power is only useful in very specific circumstances, AFAIK.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  3. Not particularly useful against an insurgency by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Israeli quantum physicists have designed a blueprint for a 'quantum machine gun'

    In other news, Palestinian quantum physicists have designed shoulder-mounted quantum launchers and quantum vests in response.

    Civilians are hopeful for peace and terrified for escalation of hostilities.

    1. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by eonlabs · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's a sad world we live in, that in the presence of scientific breakthroughs and ingenuity, one of the first thoughts that arises is of the fighting that surrounds that part of the world. I suppose Yom Kippur is a surprisingly appropriate time for reflection on that though.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    2. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Idiomatick · · Score: 0, Troll

      My first thought when I read "UK and Israeli quantum physicists" was 'UK and Israeli quantum entangled physicists ' but I digress. My second thought went to the situation in the area.

      I think that while off topic this isn't a bad thing. Israel is a harmful harmful force in the region. And it is sort of disconcerting that they can afford to do this type of research while simultaneously submitting their neighbors to situations where they routinely cannot afford electricity or sometimes even clean water depending on Israel's mood. While Israel's essential occupation of the middle east is not news for nerds it is stuff that matters. That said I don't think it was right to bring the topic up, just healthy to keep it in mind.

    3. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Harmful harmful force? Dude i think you need to re-evaluate your worldview if you want to blame the group being constantly attacked and threatened with the explicit goal of genocide for everything wrong. The mere presence of jews in the middle east produces the reaction you see from Hamas and friends, whether or not Israel was officially a state would have fuck all to do with anything other than the success of those attempts at genocide.

      Hell Hamas' own govt charter explicitly blames the jews (merchants of death) for everything from the french and russian revolutions to both world wars while outright demanding the death of every jew and anyone who refuses to participate in said genocide.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I wonder if in 50 years the bad guys in the movies will be more likely to be Israeli or from an Islamic Country.

    5. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      It would help if they hadn't chosen to call it a "machine gun". What's wrong with "photon ejaculator"? Make love, not war.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Covalent · · Score: 1

      In other other news, the Trekkies are all thinking about the photon torpedo due to arrive within the next 15 years.

      --
      Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    7. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Ma8thew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Israel wishes not to be treated as the bad guy, then they should stop acting like the bad guy. Demolishing people's homes, closing borders to make Gaza a prison and handing down collective punishment do nothing for Israel's image, and gives the religious extremists in the region a concrete reason for the destruction of Israel. If you think Israel are the innocent victims of Palestinian oppression, then you really need to re-evaulate your worldview.

    8. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Exception+Duck · · Score: 1

      Try to look up Israel on a map from before 1940...

      They just moved in and now are keeping the previous land owners hostage in their own country (Palestine) ....

      I can kind of understand their resentment of Israelis.

    9. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      They ARE the previous land owners despite other people constantly trying to wipe them off the face of the earth with varying degrees of success. You REALLY don't know your world history do you... let me help you, what was the region called before the romans renamed it after the philistines after (suprise suprise) forcing the jews out. Or for a more recent example who was it that got all the "palestinians" to move to where they are today so that which nations' militaries would have a clear path to push the jews into the sea...

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    10. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with "photon ejaculator"? Make love, not war.

      Hey, baby, wanna light up your life? Let me shoot my rays into your black hole!
      My light bulb goes in your socket, you cute thing, you, my lamp in your room, you dig?

      Yeah, the innuendo is transparent, better to let my intentions shine through.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    11. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Exception+Duck · · Score: 1

      Quoting the good book are we ?

      I don't think you can show up after 1000 years and claim your land.

    12. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So in other words you want them to do the exact opposite of the only thing keeping the number of rockets and mortars fired at Israeli (arab AND jew) civilian targets in the low to mid thousands rather than much higher.

      What did we do with vietcong tunnels in vietnam? The ones used for moving and storing weapons and occasionally fired from. We demolished them. What does israel do with houses build on top of tunnels or used as weapons caches. They demolish them. If people don't want their house bulldozed all they need to do is say "No you cannot indiscriminately attack civilians from my house or store/transport the weapons you use to do that in/through my house."

      As for the borders, wtf do you suggest they do? Just open them up for MORE weapons to get smuggled through?

      The religious extremists in the region already HAVE a concrete and unarguable reason for doing what they do, it's called genocide. This has NOTHING to do with Israel as a state and everything to do with the fact that there are jews and christians (but mostly jews) over there that aren't dead yet. Read the Hamas charter sometime, the slaughter of all jews everywhere is listed as mandatory for the messiah to come in it. If you think anything Israel does has ANY bearing on anything the palestinians do you're delusional.

      There's a palestinian couple living a few apartments away from me, do you know what he calls palestinians that don't want to kill all the jews? Israelis. Just like the million and a half arabs living in israel that are ALSO a target of palestinian violence because they don't join the genocidal crusade Hamas is currently leading.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    13. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you go further back in history the Jews are supposed to originate from ancient Sumeria. This is one of the reasons they incorporated the Epic of Gilgamesh into their own mythos. With all historic movements nearly no one is from the place they are at.

    14. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell Hamas' own govt charter explicitly blames the jews (merchants of death) for everything from the french and russian revolutions to both world wars while outright demanding the death of every jew and anyone who refuses to participate in said genocide.

      Care to link to said government charter that demands genocide?

    15. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Actually I considered my history book pretty bad but it's hard to make a history textbook interesting so I guess it's to be expected.

      So should I take it that you think the region was completely uninhabited by jews since the roman diaspora then?

      I think you should wait until you pass your 8th grade history class before trying to make smartass comments about how the bible's the only thing connecting the jews to the region. It's not like, yknow, there were vast numbers of them living there continuously since the diaspora that were constantly subject to oppression.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    16. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Exception+Duck · · Score: 1

      No I realize there were Jews there before.

      But the influx of Jews during the 20th century kind of threw it off balance, and ended up being a major cause for the current problems.

    17. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's give the Americas back to the indians then, shall we?

    18. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. The previous owners are long dead and buried. If you think you own some land because your ancestors lived there, you are seriously deranged. Seriously.

    19. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Idiomatick · · Score: 0, Troll

      Both side's are retarded. The jewish people however invaded and conquered the region. They also massively unbalanced the region, having a military funded by the US. Their standard of living is many times better than their neighbors. And every few years THEY attack a neighboring country. And while hamas is a dick and won't acknowledge Israel, Israel too refuses to acknowledge Palestine. And since Israel first took some land they have expanded repeatedly. And though they fight against supposed terrorists they generally kill 10x as many citizens as the bad guys.

      In fact in Israels last major battle they attacked a country that had a military worth probably less than 1% of theirs. They killed much more citizens than militants and spent most of their time blowing up infrastructure in the country, things like hospitals and UN buildings. The bad guys at the time provide assistance to victims and manage to kill a much better military to civilian ratio.

      There is a reason the UN condemns Israel every handful of months and the US has to veto decisions made against it.

      Israel is NOT a peaceful entity in the middle east.

    20. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israeli quantum physicists have designed a blueprint for a 'quantum machine gun'

      Will they call it a Quzi?

    21. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Jewish people and christian's lived in the ME relatively peacefully BEFORE the jewish people stated shooting things with rockets and running around with machine guns. I think people forget that this land ISNT JEWISH. The jewish people have no claim to the land whatsoever. They came and took what isn't theirs. The only and I mean ONLY reason it was allowed was because they did it while they had victim stigma after the holocaust. No western country was about to open fire on any jewish people after we had war to help them out. Simple history.

    22. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I think going back thousands of years is a tad unfair but since you seem to want to... When was the last time the Jewish people controlled a major portion of the ME? You do know that even in the bible it is a story about the jewish people leaving. The roman's controlled the area the whole time. The area has been handed off dozens of times to different groups but never to the jewish people because historically everyone in the area has fought battles with the jewish people and won or just sent them away. Hell even God said that they are supposed to leave and not return until he sends them a prophet to guide their return. The natives in North America have a million time better claim on their historic land than the jewish people have in the middle east.

    23. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did we do with vietcong tunnels in vietnam? The ones used for moving and storing weapons and occasionally fired from. We demolished them.

      People who wish to win arguments need to stop citing this particular 'war'. Though we demolished the tunnels, it did not turn out to be productive, as we eventually were unable to win over the people and win the 'war'.

      What does israel do with houses build on top of tunnels or used as weapons caches. They demolish them. If people don't want their house bulldozed all they need to do is say "No you cannot indiscriminately attack civilians from my house or store/transport the weapons you use to do that in/through my house."

      Could you imagine this happening here, in the United States? Bad Evil Terrorists probably used that trailer park at some point, so lets doze it over! Personally, I cannot picture such a heavy-handed approach from anyone but the Israelis. I'd concede that I'm not in their shoes, but this is abhorrent behavior. Any behavior that kills innocents indiscriminately should be labeled terrorism. In my opinion, these bulldozer acts are more evil than the plane hitting the Pentagon. At least the Pentagon was a military target.

      As for the borders, wtf do you suggest they do? Just open them up for MORE weapons to get smuggled through?

      Actually, yes. The sooner the Israelis realize that there were people living there before Britian passed them the keys, the better. They need to either assimilate the people as full and equal citizens, stop interfering in their lives, or at a minimum expel and/or finish murdering them all. This middle of the road business is costing Israeli lives.

      The religious extremists in the region already HAVE a concrete and unarguable reason for doing what they do, it's called genocide. This has NOTHING to do with Israel as a state and everything to do with the fact that there are jews and christians (but mostly jews) over there that aren't dead yet. Read the Hamas charter sometime, the slaughter of all jews everywhere is listed as mandatory for the messiah to come in it. If you think anything Israel does has ANY bearing on anything the palestinians do you're delusional.

      I personally feel that, since the end of World War II, the Israeli people are free, at any time, to stop playing martyr. This is a choice these people can make now, now that they are free. Why not make it?

      I find it intellectually dishonest to say that when someone wants to kill all christians - that's terrorism. Yet killing all Israelis is genocide. This doesn't even make sense. Hamas wasn't even created until 1987. Why do we get to tie Hamas to Hitler merely based on the target of the hatred being the same? It does not follow logically. Hitler wanted the jews out of his world. Hamas wants the same. Hitler painted the jewish people as evil infiltrators attacking his way of life. Ironically, from the point of view of an Arab prior to the 1950's, the Israelis actually ARE invading and actually ARE attacking their way of life.

      The irony here is big enough to choke an elephant. This is only compounded by the fact that the aggressors continually paint themselves as the targets.

      There's a palestinian couple living a few apartments away from me, do you know what he calls palestinians that don't want to kill all the jews? Israelis. Just like the million and a half arabs living in israel that are ALSO a target of palestinian violence because they don't join the genocidal crusade Hamas is currently leading.

      To sum up, I'll ask you - which side will choose to end the conflict? "Peace in the Middle East" is a pipe dream because of exactly this. The parties involved are all victims and none are responsible adults willing to take the steps necessary to save lives going forward.

      Finally, I've decided to post this AC. Not because I do not stand behind what I say. It s

    24. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by phantasmagoric · · Score: 1

      Minor point: we did not have "war to help them out," helping them out was a side effect of the war. Before (and during most) of WWII, the extent of the holocaust was unknown and what was known was largely disregarded.

    25. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, a small group of civilians in a nearby town swear that they saw an person in an odd-looking motorcycle zoom past them at high speed the other day, leaving some kind of wall in his wake.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    26. Re:Not particularly useful against an insurgency by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  4. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought that the "power doubling" was not in a traditional sense.. the qubit is fantastic at pattern matching and search functions

    Which is all that really matters for breaking encryption, and is the whole reason we have computers in the first place.
    So my question is how many bits of encryption do I need to keep a 20~30 qbit computer out of my truecrypt partition?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  5. Klingons! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Again, Trek predicts the future.

    1. Re:Klingons! by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      ? Trek talked about a quantum computer? I was so young, I might've missed it, but I think you may be mistaken. I don't remember that at all.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    2. Re:Klingons! by Arimus · · Score: 1

      I suspect he's thinking of a photon torpedo rather than a photon bullet... :)

      I do wonder though whether you could also use this photon machine gun to any form of fancy imaging etc...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    3. Re:Klingons! by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      If you fired enough high energy photons from this gun at a mass of plutonium I think the ensuing explosion would make an image of you on the concrete wall! Is that fancy enough?

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    4. Re:Klingons! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I suspect he's thinking of a photon torpedo rather than a photon bullet

      Gotta start small.
         

  6. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anpheus · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, some problems like collision testing are really just pattern matching or search functions, and that has a huge amount of applicability to game design. There are many other similar problems that, at first blush, sound easy, but turn out to be quite difficult, and I've yet to see a modern game with physics that doesn't somehow manage to get objects stuck in floors or falling through levels.

  7. no peeking by RuBLed · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not going to be faster at everything.

    It's going to be faster at everything.

    1. Re:no peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? Well is it... like... going to be faster at... like... not being a quantum computer? Didn't think so.

    2. Re:no peeking by Mr.Whitney · · Score: 1

      yea theyre not going to be able to do anything that a classical computer cant but they will be way more efficient and faster, a lot of military funding going into research they will obviously help a lot with decoding

    3. Re:no peeking by moon3 · · Score: 1

      Entanglement switches are rated 10000x speed of light (physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland -- this is from Wikipedia) and upper limit is not even estimated.

    4. Re:no peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not going to be faster at everything.

      It's going to be faster at everything.

      It's going to be simultaneously faster and not faster at everything.

    5. Re:no peeking by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well yes and no

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:no peeking by plastbox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One (*err* more) thing I don't get.. How do they know quantum entanglement even happens? They entangle a pair of particles. Then they measure the state of one, causing the other to collapse into the same state with no regard to distance between the two.

      However, as it is impossible to measure the quantum properties of these particles without collapsing them into a non-super state, how do we know that the entanglement wasn't just the two particles gaining the same properties at the moment of entanglement? Obviously, this would result in them having the same properties once measured.

      How do we know that this super state exists, when it is impossible to measure? If a piece of equipment paints two balls a random color and puts them in separate boxes aren't the balls, by the same definition, in a super state as we can't know their color until we open the box? And can they be said to be entangled, as once you open the first box and observe that the ball inside is for example red, the other ball will also be red even though it has yet to be "measured"?

      This might be a bit of a Captain Obvious statement, but I don't freaggin get it! =(

    7. Re:no peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a Schrodinger's yes and no?

    8. Re:no peeking by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well... it is both.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:no peeking by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, let's look at a fair attempt to explain why quantum indeterminacy is not just the same thing as classical indeterminacy (like your two particles, which by your question were presumably determinate in the classical model, at least until they became entangled). You seem to be reasoning much as the following note claims early quantum physicists tried to, when they first grappled with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the question of knowing the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously. I give you someone deliberately trying to put the concept in normal, natural language and not use any actual math:

      http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm

      One point is, the interpretation that we can't know both position and velocity at the same instant, therefore the electron doesn't have both at the same instant, doesn't explain that thing you refer to as "with no regard to distance". This is what sometimes gets called "Spooky action" and is related to non-locality in general. Starting from the interpretation that it's not our not knowing that causes the indeterminacy but the indeterminacy which causes our not knowing turns out to be putting the horse back in front of the cart. Once people started working from the idea that the indeterminacy is fundamental and not like your example of the balls (where there is a definite color for each, and the observer just doesn't know it yet), they started making progress on figuring out how entanglement could be faster than light.

      http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Quantum_indeterminacy

      This is about what non-locality really means: One consequence is that we can't assign a local cause (such as: a localized observer hasn't looked yet) to explain why something on the quantum level is determinate, or we lose the ability to explain how the faster than light part happens.

      Just as the original QM problem was about determining position and velocity, talking about "non-localizable" (position), and instantanious/faster than light (velocity) is two ends of the same stick. The more you prove that the action happens much faster than the limitation of light-speed, the more you can't claim the action is caused by anything in a particular locale.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    10. Re:no peeking by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      However, as it is impossible to measure the quantum properties of these particles without collapsing them into a non-super state, how do we know that the entanglement wasn't just the two particles gaining the same properties at the moment of entanglement? Obviously, this would result in them having the same properties once measured.

      How do we know that this super state exists, when it is impossible to measure? If a piece of equipment paints two balls a random color and puts them in separate boxes aren't the balls, by the same definition, in a super state as we can't know their color until we open the box? And can they be said to be entangled, as once you open the first box and observe that the ball inside is for example red, the other ball will also be red even though it has yet to be "measured"?

      IANAQP, but this is pretty much correct. For the most part, the particles do get their properties matched upon creation, so your analogy is initially correct. However, the property could be one randomly determined while in the separate boxes, yet the second ball still matches the properties of the first ball after opening. This is basically the 'quantum-ness' that is, in general, incredibly confusing.

      There's a reason even Einstein mocked this as "spooky action at a distance" and said that if it were true he would rather be a cobbler or a casino employee. It's confusing and not completely understood. However, while Einstein believed it to be measurement error, it's it a pretty well established phenomenon now.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    11. Re:no peeking by wurp · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK, you measure photon phase with a polarized lens. The way you measure the phase is to pass the photon through a polarized lens at an arbitrary angle. Unfortunately, all you can measure about the phase is whether the phase matches that of the lens - either the photon makes it through the lens, which means the photon had the phase of the lens, or it doesn't, which means the photon had a phase at 90 degrees to the lens. There's lots more to say about this, but I think this is enough to explain the answer to your question.

      If you measure the phase of a photon with random phase (whether it's just classical random meaning it has a phase, but you don't know what it is, or if it's quantum random, meaning it's unknowable), half the time the measurement will say it's in phase, and half the time it will say it's 90 degrees out of phase. It will never say anything else (obviously).

      If you have two photons with entangled phases, and you set up lenses at 90 degrees to one another, you will always (guaranteed, at least up to how accurately you can get the lenses at true 90 degrees to one another) get corresponding phase readings. Note that the actual angle of the two lenses doesn't matter - just their relative angle.

      If the entangled photons had an initial phase, there's no way that could happen. If the angle happened to be 45 degrees off from your lenses, each of the photons would only get through half the time, and both would be random, not correlated. Either the photons somehow "know" what angle the lens you're going to use to measure them is at the time the photons are emitted (even though the lens might not be set up then), or they "communicate" about what angle the lens is after they hit it. (Or they have an infinite number of correlated states telling them how to react to every possible angle, or...)

      In any case, the phase is not the expected classical relation.

    12. Re:no peeking by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The relevant theory here is Bell's Theorem (or Bell's Inequality.) The principle of entanglement has been shown experimentally using some clever approaches based on probability.

      If you measure a specific property of two entangled particles, you are correct in saying that there is no way we could know if the result of the measurement was predetermined. However, experiments were set up in which a large number of pairs of particles were measured. Each measurement recorded one of several possible properties, chosen at random. Sometimes the same property would be measured for both particles, and sometimes different properties would be measured for each particle.

      It can be shown mathematically that if the particle properties were predetermined, we would see certain probabilities emerge. In other words, for each pair of measurements, the same result would be found N% of the time. However, if the particle properties are determined at the time of measurement, the math changes, and we expect instead for the results to correlate P% of the time. This latter result is what was observed.

      That is just a quick overview of the concept. I suggest reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", which provides a great explanation involving Mulder and Scully. (Really!)

      I also found a nice, clear explanation of the probabilities involved here.

    13. Re:no peeking by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's going to be simultaneously faster and not faster at everything.

      Only faster for computations involving cats.
             

    14. Re:no peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you did peek relatively quickly - would you observe it to be a "machine gun" or a "ray gun" ?

    15. Re:no peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Warning: DoIFaster is never used.
      Syntax error: DoItFaster undefinied

      Build failed.

    16. Re:no peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is and it isn't both.

  8. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even for traditional computers, adding 1 bit of memory doubles the size of problems you can tackle with a log-space algorithm. There's nothing magic about it.

  9. So what you're really trying to say is... by Capsy · · Score: 0

    That when this technology is finally put to practical use, i.e. home computers, the cost of hardware is going to go up? Isn't there an implied health risk involving high speed protons, such as in the form of radiation? Granted, it would be on a very weak level, alpha particles, but consistent exposure to said particles over time would have an impact on ones health. I suppose that could be stopped by the case though... Just a thought.

    --
    "Chance favors only the prepared mind." -Archimedes
    1. Re:So what you're really trying to say is... by Engine · · Score: 1

      Photons, not protons. And there is plenty of practical use of computers outside your home.

    2. Re:So what you're really trying to say is... by Capsy · · Score: 0

      Yet still, this technology would increase the cost of computers in theory, yes?

      --
      "Chance favors only the prepared mind." -Archimedes
    3. Re:So what you're really trying to say is... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Yet still, this technology would increase the cost of computers in theory, yes?

      I'm not sure that the quantum computer would be more expensive than the supercomputer needed otherwise to solve the sort of problems quantum computers are good at.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:So what you're really trying to say is... by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      involving high speed protons,

      Bt wot abt deez hispeed *photons*?

      Do they go *whoosh*?

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    5. Re:So what you're really trying to say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lost track of what you were saying after I read "his peed" and almost peed myself.

  10. ObCompJoke... by Tastecicles · · Score: 3, Funny

    imagine a Beowulf cluster of... NO! NONONO!

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:ObCompJoke... by Yoozer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I tried to imagine a cluster of photon machine guns and all I could come up with was a container full of Mag-Lites.

  11. bad movie quote?? by iCodemonkey · · Score: 1

    say hello to my little friend... (Please try to keep minds out of the gutter if possible)

    --
    Deja Moo: The feeling you've heard this bullsh*t before.
  12. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With what I can tell... 256 or 512 should keep you safe from that.

  13. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

    They're not absent, you just don't know them.

    How about the first known ships? African. Irrigation? African. Early mathematics? Early medicine? African.
     

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
  14. Explain the hype, please? by plastbox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so on this site bursting with intelligent, educated folk, the following question(s) might make me look like a village idiot, but what the hell. It's damn interesting stuff and I want to know!

    Exactly how does quantum computing work? I have a fleeting grip the basic stuff; qubits existing with states 0, 1 and "superposition" (i.e. all possible states) and that by actively measuring it's state (sending a photon or whatever bumping into it) you collapse it, and it's entangled mate, into a "classical state". If I place a shot glass in a dark room and tell you it could be empty, full or anything in between but the only way for you to find out is to A) Take the shot, or B) dump another 4cc of Tequila into the glass and see if it spills over, is the shot glass a cubit? To you, it is in a "superstate" until you actively measure it, an act that in itself makes the glass full or empty.

    How does this equate to computing? I might just have spent too much time with Proteus fiddling about with gates and stuff trying to make a very basic functional computing device, but isn't some sort of computing device needed to compute something? Even with Quantum Gates, 30 qubits seem like a very insignificant amount of building blocks to compute anything..

    Lastly, how would/will qubits be used to revolutionize storage? I get the allure of storing bits on a subatomic level but if the whole hype is about storage density, it sort of kills the magic for me.

    1. Re:Explain the hype, please? by noundi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok, so on this site bursting with intelligent, educated folk...

      You lost me at "Ok".

      --
      I am the lawn!
    2. Re:Explain the hype, please? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, I just wrote a lengthy reply, and then by accident hit "refresh", and all the text was gone :-(

      Therefore here the short version:

      • The speedup is basically because for quantum systems the dimension of the configuration space grows exponentially rather than linearly with the size of the system (i.e. number of qubits). The fact that we can't simply measure the complete state is actually a limitation, because it means we cannot directly access an arbitrary unknown state.
      • You can do quantum computing by just doing measurements because every measurement modifies the measured system, and with entangled states, this change is non-local (i.e. you also modify parts of the system where you didn't just destroy any entanglement by your measurement). However you need special entangled states to do universal measurement-based quantum computing (i.e. to allow arbitrary transformations with measurement only); one state which works is the cluster state produced by this "photon machine gun"
      • They didn't claim that qubits revolutionize storage, but that if emulating the 20 to 30 qubit quantum computer on a classical computer, it would not fit into computer storage. However I doubt that; storing the state of 30 qubits needs about 16 GB, which is large, but perfectly doable in todays computers (and may be actually standard by the time this photon gun is realized). The problem with simulating the quantum computer would not be storage, but time.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Explain the hype, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bad analogy time.

      The simplest way to factor a large number is to just try to divide it by 2, by 3, etc. Once you've divided it, you now have 2 smaller numbers to factor. Repeat until you get a prime. This takes a long time for a large number because you have to try it over and over again.

      With a quantum computer you can do all of these computations in parallel, and then arrange for all of the non-factors to cancel each other out, meaning that you can only measure a legitimate factoring. (Getting all of the non-answers to cancel out is the trick in quantum computing, and it isn't a particularly easy one to pull off. These are not general purpose computers!) If it keeps giving you 1*n as your factoring, eventually you conclude it is prime. Otherwise the first time it gives you something else, you've broken the number down into 2 easier ones.

      To break RSA you only have to factor one number. So everyone cites that as the classic problem. But you can't factor a number you can't put in. With 20-30 qbits you can only input 20-30 bit numbers so you can't factor anything bigger than that. By contrast a motivated person these days with a few PCs and a few months to devote to it can factor a general 600 bit number. Most people's codes are 1024 bits or longer.

      Therefore this research is cool, but any claim of an immediate threat to cryptography is waaay overblown.

    4. Re:Explain the hype, please? by plastbox · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the long reply, but I don't think you got the whole "me being the village idiot"-part. Your post doesn't really impart any understanding of a qubit as a computational unit. =/

      Yes, I understand the benefits of parallel processing. Hook up huge number of MUC's, send every MCU in "level 1" the same number, have MCU nr. 1 divide the incoming number by '2', MCU nr. 2 by '3', and so on, and pass on only the results that are whole numbers to the next level. Lather, rinse and repeat for however many steps the number takes to factor. Given enough MCU's (or a proper system, not a nerd-rant), it would almost certainly factor any number faster than my computer could ever dream of.

      Ok, so parallel processing is cool. Still, how does this thingie most commonly visualized as a small, spinning ball, actually process anything? How does a qubit divide a number by 5 any more than the shot glass? I can't for the life of me see how this works..

      And how do you "feed" a qubit anything? Following the (allegedly poor) shot glass analogy, do you simply "take the shot" to "write zero", I mean, do we know from measuring what to do to make the qubit collapse into the desired state? If true, I see how 1 qubit == 1 bit write-once storage, but the rest still doesn't make sense to me.

      Please, please don't leave me scratching my scraggly beard while reading "how quantum computing works"-articles written by people with no more understanding of the subject than me, while trying to contemplate how a n*(shot glass in the dark) can factor numbers! This technology is way too cool for me to not understand at all!

    5. Re:Explain the hype, please? by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      storing the state of 30 qubits needs about 16 GB, which is large, but perfectly doable in todays computers

      I can haz ur USB for teh ReddyBoozt?

      kthxbai.

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    6. Re:Explain the hype, please? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Ok, so on this site bursting with intelligent, educated folk

      I hope (for your sake) you're being sarcastic.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Explain the hype, please? by noundi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, I just wrote a lengthy reply, and then by accident hit "refresh", and all the text was gone :-(

      You're welcome.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    8. Re:Explain the hype, please? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Installed it. Works. Thanks!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  15. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by plastbox · · Score: 1

    Horribly off topic, and feeding trolls but..

    How about sports? Africans seem to dominate near every sport that doesn't involve skies or ice skates. The middle-east was the epicenter of early civilization, math, science and astronomy for a long time, as were the Asian regions of the world. Scientific aptitude on a geographical scale isn't about genetics, it's about your part of the world having the money and government for you to not worry about who's shooting at you today and instead get a proper education, job and research grants.

    If the nazies with their love of athletes and sports, were in fact looking for a "master race", they should have looked south rather than north. Racism is crap but I do acknowledge that my genes are inferior to those coming from the very cradle of human life, perhaps as a result of me coming from a comparatively tiny population just south of the North Pole. =P

  16. Duh..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    It's called a "Strobe Light", stupid.

    I know.....bad joke.....

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  17. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Alright, here's how it works: A quantum computer can efficiently execute algorithms the class BQP, which means "Bounded error, quantum, polynomial time". Since all quantum algorithms are probabilistic, "bounded error" means just that - that you can, basically speaking, run the algorithm as many times as you want to get the error as low as you want. Polynomial time means the time you have to wait increases relatively slowly with respect to the size of the input[1].

    What the previous comments seem to be talking about here is either EXPTIME (things that take exponential time, period, like solving chess when the input to the problem is the size of the board), or NP (puzzles where, if someone gives you a potential solution, you can check whether it's right rather quickly). Let's be clear, ahead of all: BQP is not EXPTIME. Whether BQP contains NP is an unsolved question, but so is whether P == NP (that is, whether you can use an ordinary computer to solve puzzles where you can recognize a solution quickly, for any sort of such puzzle).

    The short of it is: for some algorithms, like Shor's algorithm (which cracks certain types of public key cryptography), there will be an exponential speedup. Quantum computers can break RSA. However, this does not mean that quantum computers will be of much help in breaking AES[2]. Some public key algorithms may also be resistant to cracking by quantum computers - the Lamport signature definitely is (but can be only used once, or a finite number of times in a tree configuration), while other candidates without this finite-use limit include McEliece and NTRU.

    [1] Yes, I know about how 1.0001^n is, in practice, efficient, while n^10000 is not, but you'll rarely happen upon such algorithms.
    [2] Grover's algorithm means you have to double the number of bits in your key to get the same security given the same power, but I find it very unlikely that we're going to see quantum computers as fast as the quickest deterministic code cracking machines (no quantum Deep Crack yet), so this most likely isn't a threat.

  18. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you are very unfortunate, n qubits can map 2^n -1 bits. -1 because 2^0 = 1, and that'd just be weird.

    If this is the case, then a 6 qubit machine maps 63 bits, but 20 would map 1,048,575 bits (1 Mbit of information) and 30 would map 1 Gbit of information.

  19. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by thisisntme · · Score: 1

    That doesn't sound right to me. Do you have a citation? Or did you just make that up?

  20. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, seems wrong to me too. I bet he's wrong.

  21. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the whole thing about quantum computers is that they should be able to factor numbers extremely fast, so no matter how many bits of encryption you choose, you'll still be screwed.

    I've heard that there are now new encryption algorithms which should be able to withstand quantum computers. I don't know anything about them, so maybe someone else could explain.

  22. Dont say Photon Machine Gun by known_ID · · Score: 1

    Say flashlight.

    --
    Random
  23. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Calling the Egyptians 'African' is a kind of stretching.
    Well, they lived mostly in geographical Africa, but the rest of Africa didn't really adopt their culture/inventions.
    Europe, on the other hand did.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  24. Moore's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Traditional computer's performance doubles too, so we don't care!

  25. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correctly implemented symmetric encryption with 512 to 1024 bit keys should remain safe for some time. Public key encryption will be broken entirely, regardless of the key size because decryption without key will not be significantly enough slower than encryption with key.

  26. Dirty Erwin by ciderVisor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know what you're thinking: "Did he flip six qbits or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a Photon Machine Gun, the most powerful quantum entanglement source in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Is the cat dead or alive ? Well, is it, punk ?

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:Dirty Erwin by plastbox · · Score: 1

      Is the cat dead or alive ? Well, is it, punk ?

      Well, yes.. yes it is. Or not.

  27. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are very unfortunate, n qubits can map 2^n -1 bits. -1 because 2^0 = 1, and that'd just be weird.

    Uh, how many states can no bits exist in? I would've said 1, myself.

  28. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

    Also, the Japanese have done quite well. They invented the blue light-emitting diode, hybrid engines for cars, process technologies for cost effectively producing large LCD screens, etc.

    You forgot tentacle pr0n and bukkake.

    --
    Squirrel!
  29. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

    "Calling the Egyptians 'African' is a kind of stretching"

    Bullshit.

    If what are you talking about black people, then say "black people". If you want to use the word "African" then Egyptians are included by necessity.

  30. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    For how long?

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  31. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Note that Japan is a barren rock without any natural resources. "

    It has a huge amount of sea, same as Ancient Athens, same as the Roman Empire, same as Phoenicia and Venice and Great Britain and America, but unlike most of the African nations. (Egypt had its river).

    History tells us that it's the sea-abundant civilizations that created the greatest amounts of culture -- contrast Athens to Sparta, Venice to Prussia, America to the Soviet Union -- and yeah Japan to Africa.

    One of the reasons is because the sea-bordered nations have *natural* borders, thus they can spend less of their time in border-defense or neighbour-conquests and more of their time in other pursuits.

    Barren rocks prosper when they have lots of sea around them. Jungles and savannahs don't. It's geography, not skin-color, that forms national destiny.

    As for the IQ difference, you have it backwards: it's an advanced civilization that creates the IQ difference, not the IQ difference that creates the advanced civilization.

  32. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Jurily · · Score: 1

    If what are you talking about black people, then say "black people". If you want to use the word "African" then Egyptians are included by necessity.

    Tell that to those who call themselves African American.

  33. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Jurily · · Score: 1

    Uh, how many states can no bits exist in? I would've said 1, myself.

    Return type void is always the same.

  34. Why troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this modded troll? The poster has stated a legitimate argument and I'd mod him up if I could but I'm on a public computer and can't remember my password.

  35. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    How about Australia and New Zealand before they were colonized then? They were hardly more advanced than Africa and are islands.

  36. Heh by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The quantum machine gun is described as 'one of the most exciting theoretical proposals I've read in five years' by a leading quantum physicist.

    The long winter nights must just fly by.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the certain physicist who is quoted here is known to spend long nights at the bar during conferences... :)

  37. How Shor's algorithm works (the problem with QC) by professorguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The quantum algorithm for factoring does not just divide repeatedly "in parallel." Shor's algorithm really describes a specially built machine for factoring (which converts factoring to period finding, and a fourier analysis is forced and sampled).

    In fact, I first studied Shor's algorithm in order to understand why good programmers weren't looking at it, generalizing it, and writing a million more algorithms. I was disappointed to learn that we are not far enough along to describe a universal quantum computer and are still in the mode of building special-purpose machines. Like the early bomb dropping "computers" of WW2, results are still being generated but without a concept of universality.

    We don't have the math for universal quantum computation since it is still unknown what they are capable of (what their universe consists of). Until the math arrives, we're stuck with this scatter-shot approach.

  38. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

    I honestly haven't a clue. I just figured that 2^n would give you an exponential power gain to the point where 20-30 qubits would be enough to brute force most types of encryptions.

    If you have a device that can brute force a 1 Mbit to 1 Gbit key in a single step, your regular encryption types are dead.

    But I haven't a clue how it maps from qubit to bit. The maths shown on the Wiki page and on quantum computer is way above my head. The last one notes: "For example, a 300-qubit quantum computer has a state described by 2^300 (approximately 10^90) complex numbers, more than the number of atoms in the observable universe."

    But - no clue. I wasn't aiming for informative, I was hoping for interesting (as in, that's an interesting thought, let's see what the experts say).

  39. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    "One of the reasons is because the sea-bordered nations have *natural* borders, thus they can spend less of their time in border-defense or neighbour-conquests and more of their time in other pursuits."

    How come I always get raided by boat driving barbarians in Civilization then?

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  40. Light bulb? by karlwilson · · Score: 1

    So... Is "photon machine gun" another would for a light bulb?

    1. Re:Light bulb? by karlwilson · · Score: 1

      uhhh meant to write "word" not "would." Damn waking up so early.

  41. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    why not just factor encryption keys in like base 7 or something? All the keys I've heard discussed so far seem to be base 2 based...

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  42. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    cp /dev/random ~/unencryptableMessage.txt On a serious note, I haven't heard of such algorithms. Are Quantum computers good with cracking all encryptions, or just many of the methods used for such?

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  43. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    They invented tourism and penal colonies.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  44. Within a few years this device will be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...And maybe a few years after that we'll have 32-qubit machines, so we can start factoring unsigned ints.

    For now, we're just going to stick to factoring 15 though.

  45. Your Sig by nameer · · Score: 1

    I checked the patent in your link. It was re-examined in 2003, and all claims canceled. Whew, my kids are safe.

    --
    "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
  46. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by nathan.fulton · · Score: 1

    Even if you were right, I'm sure there's plenty of searching and pattern matching in video games. Especially searching.

    Regardless, video games are not nearly as interesting an encryption.

  47. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you're getting into 'security through obscurity' -- you're secure as long as nobody knows what weird algorithm you're using to encrypt your data. That's not real security. One leak and everything you've ever encrypted is plain text.

  48. How entanglement works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entanglement is described as 'spooky action at a distance'. What if the entangled particles are actually close to each other in a higher or lower dimension? In that case they could be arbitrarily far from each other in our dimension, while still being tightly wound in the other dimension. All the problems faced with regards to consistency of production and "random" disentanglement are therefore a result of not being able to see into and track movements in this higher or lower dimension.

    Hence, for example, in the case of entangled electrons, both of them might be in the same spot in the other dimension while they move in ours. As long as they stick together they might also be required to have opposite values for their properties. In that case, measuring one would cause a change in spin of the other. When they stop sticking together, that no longer applies.

    I vote for 2D universe with holographic interface.

  49. Quantum Entanglement takes time? by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is inherent in the universe representing some absolute barrier to doing Quantum Entanglement computations, 'Yes the universe will do your computation instantly, but not until you provide umpteen zillion entangled qbits. The universe will take 10^100 years to aquire sufficient randomness, please use /dev/urandom for quicker testing.

    --
    ...
  50. What is the most probable sum of 2+2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3.999794!

  51. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A prime number is prime in any base. You can't gain any complexity by using another base like you suggest.

  52. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    Troll of course but if anyone finds the question it's self interesting... I believe the main theory of why some countries fell behind is explained by early production. Many places that stayed primitive are closer to the equator, and most of them have something in common. Work. In places like South America the staple foods they have available to them take tons of work to get to. And the number of animals they have that they can have work for them are few. So given a tribe of 50 people in a European setting you could have 35 people feed the whole group because of the labour they share with animals and the easy to grow foods. In a jungle or desert or w/e harsher setting it might really take all 50 people just to feed themselves. This means that they don't have people to spare learning things when they have to be feeding themselves. The reason the equator matters is simply because of the heat, it is harder to work long days in grueling heat.

    This accounts for a large portion of Africa leaving South Africa and the northern edge. In the north historically they did have great cultures, for the time period one of the most advanced tech cultures on the planet. This was followed by decades of drought so people simply moved, their wasn't a big deal about country borders and maps at the time amongst ordinary people. That was followed by religious strife and wars. That said I wouldn't be surprised if we see countries like Egypt holding their own scientifically in the next few years. South Africa is simply far too isolated. No other country is that isolated and successful. Someone mentioned Japan is on an isolated rock... They are descendant from the Chinese and had trade with the countries around them (most of the time) and really it isn't a very long boat ride. South Africa is like a half year voyage to reach Europe.

    To destroy the rest of his argument, inventions happen in rich affluent countries. All of the inventions listed occur while a country is in a golden age and has plenty of money to spend. The IQ difference? Studies show that this is due to living in a poor country, or non-european, they are known to be flawed and admitted by the creators. Within the USA African Americans have only very very recently gained a sense of equality. But Im sure I could prove that the number of white folks that can afford to go to a good university and get a good research career are almost all white. There is also a culture issue, once a few black americans lead the way this will equalize over time.

  53. Bikini Girl operators? by boristdog · · Score: 1

    Now where am I going to find a quantum Bikini Girl to fire my quantum machine gun?

  54. I want a quantum uzi by Gnuontz · · Score: 1

    IA Quantum Uzi's for sale, free with a new car.....

  55. Will it work with a tetryon inhibitor? by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    I would like to know because if it gets tied into the main deflector array it could cause a metreon cascade in the warp core's plasma injectors.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  56. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by mhajicek · · Score: 1

    but no better than a classical computer for something like, say, a video game requiring finite mathematical calculations.

    What about Q-Bert?

  57. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by sorak · · Score: 1

    And as an additional note, for every ten afterward, you would multiply by roughly a thousand. I.E.

    2^10 = 1,024 b = 1kb
    2^20 = 1,048,576 b = 1mb
    2^30 = 1,073,741,824 b = 1gb
    2^40 = 1,099,511,627,776 b = 1tb

    I suspect this is nothing new to you, but, there are other people who might find it helpful to know.

  58. Ray tracing by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    How good would quantum computers be for raytracing (particularly of the hard-core globally illuminated variety) ?

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  59. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

    I've not studied the history of those populations closely, but if you want a first guess, it'd be that they were *very* isolated islands -- thus none of the trade that made possible for e.g. Greeks to get the alphabet from the Phoenicians or that made it possible for Japanese to get their alphabet (and other inventions) from the Chinese.

    It seems to me that for the best results you need the geographical sweet spots where there exist natural borders enough for security but enough contact with other civilizations that you are challenged by knowledge of them and are able to enhance your own with their inventions.

  60. device use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... device use ...

    That is wrong.

    That is all.

  61. Re:Anglo-Saxon and Jewish Intelligence by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen anyone who in this thread called themselves African-American.

    It's called personal responsibility -- if *you* use the word "African" stupidly, then it's you who are to blame, not anyone else, nor can you transfer the responsibility for the idiocy.

  62. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by suisui · · Score: 1

    Pattern matching and searching power will come in very handy for the task of creating a stronger Go-playing computer program. The "exploding" size of the search tree in Go is just too much for classical computer systems. If that tree could be trimmed with an intelligent pattern matching routine, solving Go could finally take less time than what the universe has existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go

  63. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by dmbasso · · Score: 1

    $ q_dec ~/unencryptableMessage.txt
    0011100
    0100010
    1000001
    1000001
    1000001
    0100010
    0011100

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  64. Re:Qubit does not double power in traditional sens by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

    Infinity qubits would be needed if you one time pad your information (essentially doubling the disk space required to encrypt of course).

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.