Slashdot Mirror
Simulations Show Quantum Error Not As Bad As Believed
aarondubrow writes "Because quantum systems become unstable quickly, their error threshold is an important factor. How many bits can 'break' before the system stops working? An international team of researchers used the supercomputers at the Texas Advanced Computing Center to simulate the error threshold of a topological quantum system and found a much higher threshold than had previously been reported."
You rather should look what it takes to store a single qubit... Wake me up when they have systems with 640K qubits...
goatse troll
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
But unlikely to work. Quantum states are too fragile and most of the time need super-cooled, Now few would want to have a liquid nitrogen tank near the computer.... (No, I am not talking to you, the ove-clocker nuts). Speaking of overclocking, off-topic, but that rig is out of that world.
GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT!
Goatse alert! Goatse alert! Goatse alert!
GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT!
Goatse alert! Goatse alert! Goatse alert!
GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT!
Goatse alert! Goatse alert! Goatse alert!
GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT!
Goatse alert! Goatse alert! Goatse alert!
GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT!
Goatse alert! Goatse alert! Goatse alert!
GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT!
Goatse alert! Goatse alert! Goatse alert!
Please friends, I beg of you, do not click that link! Do not look at that image, whatever you do! It is a bad image! It is a goatse image.
You rather should look what it takes to store a single qubit... Wake me up when they have systems with 640K qubits..
But unlikely to work.
Quantum states are too fragile and most of the time need super-cooled,
Now few would want to have a liquid nitrogen tank near the computer....
(No, I am not talking to you, the ove-clocker nuts).
Speaking of overclocking, off-topic, but that rig is out of that world.
Quantum computing is green go and lot of money is spent toward developing it
despite the fact that is very very unlikely to became practical.
But say something about skylon and you are bashed with 'it will never work, go ahead and sink your lifesavings..."
BTW, this blogger reports leaked photos of setup of their precooler test that is key to whole design, and will be done in 18 of June.
But unlikely to work.
Quantum states are too fragile and most of the time need super-cooled,
Now few would want to have a liquid nitrogen tank near the computer....
(No, I am not talking to you, the ove-clocker nuts).
Speaking of overclocking, off-topic, but that rig is out of that world.
You rather should look what it takes to store a single qubit... Wake me up when they have systems with 640K qubits..
Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
0. Definitions.
“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.
“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations.
To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the wor
But unlikely to work.
Quantum states are too fragile and most of the time need super-cooled,
Now few would want to have a liquid nitrogen tank near the computer....
(No, I am not talking to you, the ove-clocker nuts).
Speaking of overclocking, off-topic, but that rig is out of that world.
You rather should look what it takes to store a single qubit... Wake me up when they have systems with 640K qubits..
So they are "simulating" a quantum system with trinary particle bindings as opposed to the infinite in reality, completely neglecting the timescale (which will pretty much cause a simulation to spit out less errors as you lower the amount of time it runs over - unless the number of errors are negative, but that would take a whole new level of BS to pull off) - and saying the errors are less than expected? Well no shit, who the fuck let this chimp near a computer?
He'll take away your freedoms. Look at what else he's been up to.
I had a Quantum hard drive fail about 2 months after the warranty expired. Fortunately you could still READ the data on it, you just couldn't write to it.
This was in the days of SCSI hard drives and Amiga computers.
Dank u voor sharing.maybe zul je net als de SCHOENEN MBT.Have een mooie dag!;)
I think this comment thread is a good simulation of 'quantum errors'. Once you start getting that many errors, the best thing is just to not bother reading further. So I guess, for comparison, they're saying that the test showed that the computer didn't have as many errors as this thread has spam, so maybe it wasn't so bad. Only one out of three bits was a 'goat'.
Quantum errors are simultaneously not as bad as, and worse than believed.
This is about a rather specialized type of quantum computer. Or more realistically, a proposed idea for a quantum computer.
One of the problems for quantum computing is the fragility of the quantum states that could be used. Even a tiny disturbance can cause the thing to screw up in a manner called decohering. So, there has been a push to find possible quantum computing elements that are extremely well insulated from the outside world, or that will tolerate a lot of disturbance without decohering.
Certain quantum states of quasi-particles called anyons (no joke. That's what they are called) in 2 dimensions are thought to be extremely stable.
Recently, there have been observations of states similar to these in surfaces of materials called topological insulators. They haven't conclusively shown that the right sort of states (called nonabelian) exist yet.
But, even if these so called "topologically protected" quantum states of the right sort exist, you still need an algorithm for how to compute with them.
What the Texas Advanced Computing Center team did was simulate a proposed algorithm called topological color coding for a specific case. When they did this, they found that it can withstand 10% of the underlying quantum bits screwing up.
So, it's a simulation of a proposed set of rules for computing with a proposed (but not yet demonstrated) set of quantum bits, using special quantum particles (that are composed of more than one normal particles bound together) that have not yet been shown to exist.
Although this is a very interesting area, it's a simulation of a vaporware program to run on a vaporware computer that is based on vaporware physics.
So, to say the least it's a ways off. But for solid state physics geeks it's a very hot topic of research.
Obligatory non-goatse links with useful info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_quantum_computer
Original paper abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0573 with links to full paper.
This work was done by the computational physics group at Texas A&M: http://comp-phys.tamu.edu/ among others.
Not too long ago, I read about a different approach to computing. Where today's computers rely on essentially perfect logic (in the form of low and high voltages), the alternate approach could handle noise and used probabilities to make a mostly valid assumption. The benefit of faster calculations and lower voltages (ergo lower power consumption) were greater than the drawbacks of more errors. This seems well suited for quantum calculations
Because quantum systems become unstable quickly, their error threshold is an important factor. How many bits can 'break' before the system stops working?
more importantly: how many cats will have to die because of it?
Both good and bad was the the error rate
of the simulated Quantum state:
A superposition the states did make
having properties hard not to misstate.
Thus, when the research groups did separate
to further test the quantum error rate
they each observed a quantum error state
that they could not, in fact, equate!
Indeed, the collapsed quantum state
resulted in results so disparate,
their virtual machines could not re-simulate
these quantum effects they could not contemplate.
As the scientists began to debate
over a single quantum error rate
Their tense and stressed emotional state
caused some of them to scorn and berate,
and sparked others to recriminate.
(I would dare to speculate
that they were even too irate
to relate or even cogitate
the average quantum error rate.)
I hope they can remunerate
the costs that we associate
with researching the quantum error state,
so their teams do not have to inflate
the local unemployment rate!
Alas, science has yet to negate,
(or even circumnavigate)
the risks that one begins to take
by observing a Quantum error rate.
And the good news is the researchers used a quantum computer to calculate the values for this study.
Don't worry no errors to see here folks.
Hook 'em Horns! Glad that advances are being made by universities that don't put everyone that goes there in debt.
Really bad old days:
The latest thing was the replacement of relays with vacuum tubes. While an individual tube is reasonably reliable -- better than a light bulb -- collect a bunch together and you always have one blowing out.
I heard that with one such school sized computer after WWII the basic flip-flop was a 7 vacuum tube circuit, wired so that ANY two of the tubes could fail and the device would still function.
Several flip-flops were in a drawer. Indicator lights on the drawer front showed status. Red light on drawer, open drawer. Each flip-flop board had indicator lights showing which tubes were good.
People would race though the corridors with shopping carts of tubes doing hot replacements while the machine was running. My recollection was that even so uptime was usually measured in minutes before some other thing would break.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.