Quantum Computing Explained! (Well, Sorta)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quantum Computing Explained! (Well, Sorta)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday October 26, 2010 @05:32AM from the over-my-head dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Valiant effort to 'explain' quantum computing over on silicon.com — covering the difference between classical computers and quantum machines."

15 of 145 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Weird thing about the article by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-26 05:36 · Score: 5, Funny

You can't possibly know if the article explains quantum computing until you actually read the article.
1. Re:Weird thing about the article by Pojut · 2010-10-26 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But by observing the article, you're changing it. Does that mean it will explain it to you...but not to me? :)
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
2. Re:Weird thing about the article by fred+fleenblat · 2010-10-26 06:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I find your argument very polarizing.
3. Re:Weird thing about the article by ultranova · 2010-10-26 06:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  But by observing the article, you're changing it. Does that mean it will explain it to you...but not to me? :)
  
  It means that the article's explanation is fuzzy and all over the place, however once you read it you perceive it as having collapsed into either explaining or not explaining quantum computing.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
chatty narrative by NoSleepDemon · 2010-10-26 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Interesting but the chatty narrative is really annoying and is getting in the way of the actual useful information
1. Re:chatty narrative by geogob · 2010-10-26 05:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But "chat" is cat in french, which is totally relevant to quantum mechanics...
One minor mistake by vlm · 2010-10-26 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

One more thing, there is a minority of scientists who believe that building a quantum computer will turn out to be out-and-out impossible.
However, if those scientists are right, the implication of not being able to build such a machine is that quantum mechanics itself, as a description of nature, is wrong. Either way, the stakes could not be higher.
One possible failure mode is the theoretical power required could exceed the light fluxs of the visible universe, that would be a bummer. Maybe in true supercomputer style, a formerly computational problem is merely converted into an I/O problem, the interface to the classical world might be too slow/imprecise/analog/noisy/random to pull useful results out of it. Nothing wrong with quantum theory at all, just not possible to interface usefully with the greater classical world.
Or the more practical engineering/accounting failure mode where it would simply be cheaper / faster / more efficient to use mass produced classical processor, possibly for any problem.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Seen on a major job board today by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-26 05:44 · Score: 5, Funny

From the geniuses in H.R.
Wanted:
Quantum Computer Developer.
Qualifications:
Five years in depth Quantum computing experience. Certification in Quantum Computing highly desired.
In depth knowledge of Quantum Computing principals and a proven track record of creating Quantum Computing applications.
Principals only.
Actually by killmenow · 2010-10-26 05:52 · Score: 3, Funny

The more precisely the article explains it to him, the less precisely it will explain it to you.
Horrible by aaaaaaargh! · 2010-10-26 06:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sorry to be so negative but in my opinion the article is horrible. It doesn't explain anything unless you think bad analogies and jovial metaphors help you understand things better. After having read it, I don't know a single qubit more about quantum computers than before.
1. Re:Horrible by noidentity · 2010-10-26 06:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah, with a 350-pixel-wide web page (yes, the entire page), and an opening like this, I can't imagine why nobody would read any further:
  
  Time machines - oh, boy!
  Steady on Sam, I love science fiction as much as the next geek but I'm not talking about Quantum Leap here. This is even more exciting than time travel. OK, so what is this quantum computing lark then? Quantum computing and quantum information processing are research efforts that seek to exploit quantum mechanical phenomena to perform tasks such as massively parallel computing. The quantum research field also encompasses quantum cryptography, which utilises quantum phenomena to guarantee secure communications.
  What are these quantum phenomena you talk of?
  Tsk! Clearly weren't paying attention in physics class were you? [...]
  
  Tip to new writers: you aren't witty, you aren't funny, you aren't entertaining. Leave your antics out of the writing and cover the subject matter so well that its inherent nature will be interesting to the reader.
Highly recommended book by AdmiralXyz · 2010-10-26 06:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Have to agree with the comments above, that article is pretty useless.

Coincidentally, though, at a university book sale a few weeks ago, I picked up a copy of N. David Mermin's Quantum Computer Science: An Introduction, for just $5 (seems to be about $30 on Amazon) and I can't recommend it highly enough. It's an intro to quantum computing textbook, about 200 pages, written specifically for people who have CS or math (as opposed to physics) backgrounds, and while it's almost impossible to get into the nitty-gritty of why quantum computing works without a lot of quantum mechanics esoterica, this book does a great job of explaining how it works (which is plenty complicated on it's own).

It's not a light read (it's a textbook, after all), and contains some serious math, but it's nothing someone with a college education can't handle and it really helped me understand this whole mess better than any popular news article.

--
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
1. Re:Highly recommended book by blueg3 · 2010-10-26 06:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Incidentally, from Mermin's website, you can download his lecture notes at no cost. The book is directly based on the lecture notes and, as far as I recall, the notes are pretty good. I took the class while he was working on the book, so all we had to work with was the lecture notes (which have since undergone some revisions), which were essentially a beta version of the book's text.
  It should be reasonably understandable to someone with a good CS and mathematical background but limited physics background. (Likewise, it should be reasonably understandable to someone with a good physics background but relatively little CS.) The course was designed to be taken by both CS and physics students. I think it was fairly challenging for the Cornell CS undergrads that were in the course, but your mileage may vary.
Re:It is very annoying that sentences start... by maxwell+demon · 2010-10-26 06:31 · Score: 4, Funny

The pages are entangled.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Are quantum computers Turing machines? by maxwell+demon · 2010-10-26 06:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The set of problems you can in principle solve with a quantum computer is exactly the same as you can solve with classical computers. The best proof of this is that you can simulate a quantum computer with a classical computer (and vice versa). However, as far as we know you cannot simulate a quantum computer on a classical computer in polynomial time.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.