Slashdot Mirror
$100,000 Prize: Prove Quantum Computers Impossible
mikejuk writes "Quantum computing is currently a major area of research — but is this all a waste of effort? Now Scott Aaronson, a well-known MIT computer scientist, has offered a prize of $100,000 for any proof that quantum computers are impossible: 'I'm now offering a US$100,000 award for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable quantum computing is impossible in the physical world.' Notice the two important conditions — 'physical world' and 'scalable.' The proof doesn't have to rule out tiny 'toy' quantum computers, only those that could do any useful work."
Just point a gun at his head and ask him "Convinced?"
Err, uh,
Didn't D-Wave sell a commercial Quantum computer to Locheed Martin in 2010? Almost a year to the day?
Someone explain to me the difference between this quantum computer and the one they're trying to prove doesn't exist, please.
moox. for a new generation.
Now there's a challenge!
Prove that something which already exists CAN'T exist!
Methinks their money might be safe on this one... :P :P :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I will prove Quantum Computers both possible AND impossible at the SAME TIME!
So I guess the proof would be that they do exist, but only if you don't observe one.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
'I'm now offering a US$100,000 award for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable quantum computing is impossible in the physical world.' Notice the two important conditions — 'physical world' and 'scalable.'
Can its quantumness be measured?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
So if we make a quantum computer that can log in to facebook, it clearly is not doing useful work. Would we then win?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Yesyes...maybe Lockheed bought a quantum computer. It's real? I don't see why not. I can imagine you can program existing hardware to simulate the quantum effect. Does it mean that you get a quantum computer - no...but it simulates it, so in effect...you have one, expensive - not sure how useful, but it'll prove some working theory.
It's like a double douche - here's one, the other proves the existence of the first one. It's like perpetual energy theory, there will always be believers, and if you make it complex enough, no one will dare to prove them wrong, even though we never ever see the practical use of it.
My guess it's the same with the Quantum Computer. If ya catch my drift ;)
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
D-Wave uses quantum annealing. This works for minimization problems, although it's unclear whether it's better than "simulated annealing". This does not work for problems like factoring integers, which "real" quantum computers can do.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Could be that D-wave's doesn't actually work.
Even my brother-in-law can do useful work if you stretch the definition far enough.
Have gnu, will travel.
Prove there is a god
I'm willing to bet all I own that neither will ever be successfully claimed. You need faith to accept either to be met.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
From what my friend who is into Quantum computers tells me that was almost certainly a scam.
And even without knowing the specifics of quantum computers enough to have any opinion I know that one of the leading quantum computing places in the world, Waterloo Canada does not have a QC that is even close to being usable. It is just like a few quantum bits with a few rooms full of machinery that operates these bits and is both slow and has way to small a number of bits to really be useful.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm pretty sure Google and D-Wave even worked together as well on something. I'm sure it was posted on here with some pictures too.
Found it on physorg - Google and D-wave collab.
A similar question could've been asked years ago, back when transistors didn't exist: 'I'm now offering a US$100,000 award for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable personal computing is impossible in the physical world.'
Using only technology available then, the answer would've to scale down tubes to the minimal size and go "well this computer's too weak to do anything useful, ergo it's impossible to have a personal computer that isn't just a toy computer." Then transistors happened.
These kinds of things are stupid, because you're asking for a demonstration to an engineering problem, when engineering is always capped by scientific research. You could have a perfectly "convincing" proof today and tomorrow a new discovery crumbles it all to the ground.
Unless a theoretical and fundamental proof can be made that quantum computing is impossible, there's no reason to say that it is, and I have serious doubts such a proof can be made considering what has been accomplished thus far. Current limitations are engineering issues, but nothing fundamental is stopping a useful and practical quantum computer from existing.
{straightface, dead glare} They're impossible because they don't exist. {/straightface}
You take a metaphorical check?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
It is just like a few quantum bits with a few rooms full of machinery that operates these bits and is both slow and has way to small a number of bits to really be useful.
I don't know Jack - sorry, I don't know Werner - about quantum computing, but you did just describe the state of regular computing circa 1946 or thereabouts.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I know a man (my father actually) who wrote (unreleased) book in Serbian in which he claims (and proves with numbers) that Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity are mostly untrue.
Ever try proving something that is not going to happen?
Try it, and you'll know that it's impossible to prove something that is negative - like proving quantum computer impossible
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Sounds like a scam. We might as well try convincing him that God is impossible.
Do note that most, if not all, rapes in the bible are conducted by the designated "bad guys". It may not be family-friendly, but as far as that goes it's morally consistent without need for "metaphor" (actually, they usually say allegory) handwaving. The commands to genocide the natives -- well, that's a little harder for them to explain, but it's a great precedent when they "need" to go to war.
"Convincing to me".
do i have to pay it back in few years once i am proven wrong?
they said same thing
a new BS meter for posting that link, which features the following gem among many others:
HPCwire: Can you prove that quantum computing is actually taking place?
Rose: This was the question we set out to prove with the research published in the recent edition of Nature. The answer was a conclusive "yes."
And this is the clincher:
HPCwire: What's next?
Rose: This is a very significant time in the history of D-Wave. We've sold the world's first commercial quantum computer to a large global security company, Lockheed Martin.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Isn't the human brain a quantum computer? Isn't that proof enough that it doesn't work?
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
...and no, it 'in't 'cos I'm a black man. This is a CS guy looking for potential problems in QC to solve before a mature solution can be even considered ready for promotion from drawing board to prototyping - 'cos once you go physical shit gets expensive.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Well, then translate the book to English, so someone unbiased can take a look.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
He will be alive and dead at the same time.
I don't know Jack - sorry, I don't know Werner - about quantum computing, but you did just describe the state of regular computing circa 1946 or thereabouts.
The difference is that the way forward was clear in 1946. Scaling up was primarily a problem of cooling and maintenance. In other words, engineering problems, not theoretical ones.
The area of quantum computing today is nowhere near on par with where we were with classical computing in 1946.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
We can only prove and disprove what we can measure. We need the definitions of the dimensions we wish to measure to prove or disprove something "exists" (can "be found"). The first definition I think is most important is whether or not said "god" can interact willfully with the universe and change what would otherwise be natural consequence. If it cannot, then god is of no consequence. If it can, then how can you reproducibly show the god's interaction? If someone cannot repeatedly find god for others, then god hasn't been found, because said god as defined ceases to exist until demonstrated!
1. Human imagination imagines beyond what is possible.
2. I cannot imagine a quantum computer.
3. Therefore, quantum computing is further beyond what is possible than my imagination.
4. By (1), quantum computing is beyond the possible.
At least it's valid. If you give me half the money, I can work out rest of the kinks.
When the status quo was a room full of vacuum tubes, I doubt that the way forward (solid state transistors) was as clear as you suggest. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. There is a vast world of difference between making smaller, faster, better vacuum tubes, and making a transistor. So I think GP's suggestion that we are in the vacuum tube era of quantum computing is reasonable, and we are waiting on the equivalent of a quantum transistor to make quantum computing feasible.
... if I can prove they both are possible and impossible?
Maybe it's just me, but I had a hard time accepting the credibility of TFA when it misused "effects"/"affects".
The idea is nice but it seems like you're trying to get something for nothing which generally doesn't tend to work out in the real world. This prize is probably a good idea to take a look at things from the other end rather than just trying to scale up small-scale experiments (and continually failing if it's genuinely not possible).
I'd love to be wrong in this case but it seems possible it's something that's in the realm of perpetual motion, FTL travel and anti-gravity to my mind.
D-Wave is selling snake oil. Their so-called quantum computer is pure hogwash. The main reason that quantum computing is nonsense is that it is based on the pseudo-scientific concept of quantum state superposition. The problem is, superposition is not observable by definition. It is just a silly interpretation of QM. Superposition is nonsense on the face of it since any child can tell you that nothing can be its own opposite. Physicists do not understand why quantum interactions are probabilistic and yet they feel knowledgeable enough to conjure up all sorts of cockamamie Star-Trek physics that make no sense. The actual reason that quantum interactions are probabilistic is that there is no such thing as a time dimension. Therefore, nature cannot calculate the exact timing of interactions and is forced to use probability. Conservation laws are momentarily violated but are obeyed in the long run. Why is there no time dimension? Because a time dimension makes motion impossible. Surprise! This is the reason that time travel is crackpottery and that Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides and called spacetime, "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens". From Science: Conjectures and Refutations. Don't take my word for it.
The physics of oscillating crystals, such as those used in microphones and phonograph needles as well as radio transmitters, indicates that quantum computing could never not exist. Matched oscillating crystals have been in use for thousands of years and the mathematical model is proven by hundreds of different laboratory and home appliances; eg. an infrared spectrophotometric detector. The emission and absorption frequencies predicted by the mathematical model of the particle in a box (the basis for calculating electron dispersion around the nucleus and the fundamental beginning for subatomic calculations).
Particle in a box model translates into equations known as the Hamiltonian and, in combination with Eigenvalues calculated from the variables used in particle in a box modeling, generates the Schroedinger equation. Quantum computing could never be nonexistent because the mathematics of matched oscillating subatomic particles already has been proven millions of times over.
The marathon runner was not reporting a successful war campaign. The marathon runner was part of a system proving that those crystals do indeed oscillate, matched, from across the universe (at least 26.2 miles), in real time. Begin counting, begin running, when you arrive, repeat what they said back to them and report your current number. They will determine if your number matches theirs and if you repeat the exact words they said.
One aspect of the inside joke is that, when the marathon runner arrived and made his report, the response from the priests was,"That's _NOT_ what we said!" and they promptly hit him over the head with a baseball bat in frustration over the not completely failed experiment. "Don't tell anyone that he made it."
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
It's a safe bet on the professor's part because he knows that, in this case, it's impossible to prove a negative. What's he's basically saying is "prove that technology will never advance to the point that this can be done." He know's you can't prove that so his money is safe. Along the way he gets to sound real smart and stuff and thinks he's proving some sort of point. It's more like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well I play chess, the pigeon just knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and struts around like it's the winner.
People were already working on solid-state transistors in 1946. The main difficulty was growing pure enough crystals.
Even without solid state transistors, computers would have continued to get more powerful and require less maintenance per tube as vacuum tubes improved (nothing like what was possible with solid-state transistors, of course). Remember, vacuum tubes themselves were only about 35 years old at that time--lots of improvement in size, power and reliabililty was possible, but work on them stopped when it became clear that transistors were so much better.
In the case of quantum computers, there are lots of ideas floating around, but no one actually has any clear idea of what will be needed to maintain quantum coherence across a large number of bits. In fact, it is not yet clear that it is possible.
The D-Wave computer uses quantum annealing which does not require coherence across a large number of bits, but which is also a LOT less useful than one that does.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Um, you can't disprove a negative... so, anyone that is offering $100 grand to... is a fool.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
I examined all of the possibilities simultaneously and I have the answer.
Isn't the entire point of all this research to determine whether it'll work or not?
Yes, we've all covered the "prove a negative angle" but the strongest problem is the criteria "convincing to me." We live in a world where people still think the Earth is flat, etc. One might was well create a $100,000,000 prize to cure denial in humanity.
P.S: FTW.. challenge word was "ethers"
If anyone proves it impossible, and some day in the laser-shark ridden future somebody builds one, Scott's descendants are going to sue your descendants for 100K that you lost immediately after winning on hookers.
Wrong. See: Bell inequality.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
- HAL 9000
http://www.timecube.com/
Your argument is invalid.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Superposition is nonsense on the face of it since any child can tell you that nothing can be its own opposite.
Any adult can tell you that "any child can tell you" is a really, really bad guide to understanding how the world works.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Do you have a link on this subject? I'd like to know more.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
I am a layperson, though I studied quantum computers a bit at the university, and (years ago) I came to conclusion that quantum computers do not scale as well as normal computers. That's what will make them impractical.
In QC, unlike in normal computers, every qubit needs to be interlinked with all other qubits, otherwise the superposition won't work. In normal computers, once you can create a computer with X bits, creating a computer with X*2 bits is pretty easy, just build X twice (and add an address line). With quantum computers, creating a computer with even X+1 qubits from computer of X qubits can be hard, because you need to entangle the extra bit with all others. So the QC will scale only logarithmically to normal computer, and that will make it impractical (respectively, any advantage will be nullified by this problem).
At least that's what I think; I would like to hear a debunking argument.
Thank you for that response to the slayer of quantum bits who's living in the non-blocular universe and ignores the cubularness of the time.
In Genesis 19:8, Lot offers his two virgin daughters to a rape gang and invites the gang to do whatever he wants to them.
In 2 Peter 2:7 and 8, we learn that Lot is a "righteous man" in the eyes of god.
So yeah....anyone who believes in the bible is a good book supports gang raping people's virgin daughters.
Same AC here...
I forgot to add that in Genesis 19:32, that same righteous man tricks is daughters into thinking he's the last man on earth so he can knock up his own daughters.
This is the same Lot that is such a wonderful person god goes out of his way to spare him from the burning of soddom. Yet god kills his wife just for looking back at the city where her friends and relatives are dying and screaming.
Lot is really god's kind of fellow.
Aw shucks, I'm kinda low on money. I really need to spare some weekend to crack this quantum thingy, and a couple of those all-time toughest problems in mathematics.
"Demonstrate why cold fusion is impossible."
Obviously, most of you are missing the point. His ploy to get people looking into quantum computing is working. You are all at least discussing it. Some of you might even take career paths to try to prove him wrong. Well done Scott Aaronson.
-g
I think you need to be sealed in a box as well.
Is it just me, or does this just seem like a big buzz kill. I mean, who on earth who wants to see the human race getting better computer, more interconnected and overall smarter (basically any scientist) would want to start proving that things cant happen. Someone could of 'proved' that the earth was flat at the time, but that isn't true is it. Seems like anyone who considers themselves a scientific person will want to go another route...like maybe do something better then quantum computer, why would we want to encourage someone smart to do something that has utterly no point to it. maybe i am missing something, i didnt read much...lol
Notice the two important conditions - "physical world" and "scalable". ??
Let's not forget a few others, such as "a demonstration, convincing to me."
Convincing the truth of the scientific method... to a christian... the truth of truth, to a postmodernist....
These are potentially insurmountable hurdles. Adding a subjective consideration of "to ME" into a bet is worthless.
Do we still get the prize if we can prove quantum computer both exists and does not exist simultaneously?
You could extend the point by noting that Theories of Science are the best models of knowledge, and yet, they are always unable to cover all possible aspects. Those Theories are drawn from matching the data extrapolations which are themselves sorted by the Laws of Sciences which have limited practicality relative to their own application. And as Laws are inherently incomplete, the Math which proves them serves limited use beyond the paper or program which creates or uses it. Or, as one person has put it, "Did you know the '[Philosophiæ Naturalis] Principia [Mathematica]' has an error rate?" If you can't know every value of every dimension in the whole Universe, or otherwise, are not Maxwell's Demon, it's impossible to prove bupkis. Even the Doctor of Gallifrey can be suprised, and he knows this history of most civilizations in the Universe from the near beginning to the near end.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Disclaimer: i have worked for a group competing with dwave.
What dWave has, and they claim not much more, is a system which is stable enough to use thermal noise (their unproven claim: with a small addition by quantum tunnelling) to find the ground state of a Hamiltonian to construct. This solves some tasks, but by far not all.
What the rest of the QC community wants is a computer which can generate and manipulate entangled state superpositions, enabling to execute arbitrary operations on exponentially scaling (in the number of qubits) sets.
My prediction: The thing (dwave) has is a nice patent stack. Once other groups solve the important problems dwave will sue the fuck out of them or agree on a technology exchange.
They are not a scam, except for their marketing personal. They have a computer that doesn't hold classical information, but isn't a (q?)digital quantum computer either. They anounced that "feat" by claimming that they created a quantum computer.
Calling it is a quantum computer isn't completely untrue (not less than calling the one on your desk a quantum computer), and it is able to solve some kinds of problems in a way that is different from what a normal computer does. The machine may be usefull for somebody...
About nobody knowing if it is in fact bettter than a normal computer, well, nobody knows if real quantum computers are either. Also, nobody knows if P != NP, what is a related question.
Rethinking email
Ah, thanks for the clarification. But marketing is what makes any product a scam so I would not say that this fact makes it not a scam.
And If real practical quantum computers are possible I am pretty sure that it has been proven that they are a whole lot better at at least some things.
from what I hear they are massively parallel by nature, kind of turning any problem into a constant time solution.
So P=NP, since N is always equivalent to 1 in quantum computing.
I am sure the preceding comments are a gross approximation at best, but that is how I understand it.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Your friend is an idiot.
People debating whether quantum computing is possible are theoretical computer scientists, theoretical physicists and mathematicians. Their arguments are very similar to the "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin" debates that raged in the middle ages. They are not able to deal with a real machine. Some of them are trying to understand it. But most are just covering their ears and going "blah blah blah blah". It is hard to appreciate how dislocated from reality most of the researchers in quantum information theory are. Having a real down and dirty quantum computer actually exist in the real world is horrifying to these people.
...called house plants. This will be a bit difficult.
Depends on the cat, I guess. But yes, it's a stupid experiment that led to a wrong interpretation of the real world.
Led to a wrong interpretation of the real world? You talk as if the issue has been resolved or something.
It ignores the fact that the cat is an observer, as well as assuming that time can only go in one direction (and that last one has been in doubt for 50 years or so).
What the fuck are you talking about? Your remarks form a prime example of what Pauli called not even wrong -- they just show that you totally don't even understand the debate that you're attempting to contribute to. And your original comment above was so wrong it offends me on a deep and personal level. You're either a profound example of Dunning-Kruger or you really are trolling (in which case I guess we've proved that it's not just males that stoop to such idiotic immature behavior).
For your edification, "ignores the fact that the cat is an observer" is a retarded thing to say precisely because Schrodinger's thought experiment was about posing questions such as where the boundary between microscopic quantum system and macroscopic "observer" occurs, and why (or whether) there should even be such a boundary, in a setting in which the absurdity of the conceptual situation is intentionally made overt -- this doesn't make the thought experiment absurd (or "stupid"). Faulting the thought experiment on the basis that the cat is "an observer" is begging the question (in the grammar-pedant sense).
You forgot the all-important third condition: convincing to me.
I would give someone a million dollars for evidence convincing to me that the world is round, you could say. You'd never have to pay, because you could just cross your arms, and declare "I'm not convinced" no matter what evidence you're given. Also, if the world didn't happen to be round, it wouldn't matter, either way.
This article is nothing but free publicity for... whoever this schmuck is. It is meaningless, and a waste of readers' time.
How else could life exist?
We know how to use quantum computers to solve several problems in a much better way we know how to solve them on a clasical computer. But nobody has ever proved that there is no algorithm that olves those problems in a way that is as good as we can do with a quantum computer with a classical computer.
So, nobody knows if P = QP (quantum polynomial) or if QP = NP. The solution isn't as easy as you imply. There are plenty of people betting that if we found that QP = NP, that also means that P = NP (but nobody knows that either).
Rethinking email
To paraphrase what Pons said to Fleischmann, "Ehh, close enough."
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
The right answer or the wrong answer??? Are both equally acceptable??? I think not.
I can prove there isn't a "god". Assume(/assert with undue authority that you "know") "god" exists. Either "god" is bound by logic or not. If "god" is not bound by logic, no statements regarding "god" can be made. But that is a contradiction. If "god" is bound by logic then, logic is necessarily greater than "god". Hence, "god" does not exist. Q.E.D.
And the bonus follow up question Scott Aaronson asks: "Prove that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction"
Well, isn't the concept of "Higgs Bosons" similar to having some sort of "ether"?
Also, there is nothing that says ether must interact with all particles in the same way, or at all. That might sound far-fetched, but it really isn't more far fetched than proposing dark matter and dark energy with similar properties.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
I must say Google Translate does a decent job.
I'll try to find time to understand what is being said.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Space can both be finite and infinite with regards to some other metric. There is no contradiction. For example consider the inside of a sphere without the shell, commonly referred to as an "open ball":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_(mathematics)
Clearly the open ball is limited, yet regardless of how close you come to the shell (but stay inside the ball), you can always come closer.
Also, there does not need to be a containment, but the nonexistance of something.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
What is being said in there might be correct as far as things have been considered.
There are some problems though:
First, don't name something in a way that conflicts with the usage of the word by physicists. Example: If perceived matter is really something else that moves through something else, don't name the "something else" "matter".
Pro physicists go to great length for that reason, consider the weird names for the quarks.
Suggestion: One might be better of with prefixing everything with "dark": dark matter, dark ether, dark third field.
Regarding the calculations being made, it is really hard to tell for me whether there are new results matching existing measurements, or whether any matches are the results of tuning the free parameters that are available such that the calculations seem to match reality.
Finally, to have the new theory to be considered, it has to be able to predict something new, or at least it will be necessary to reproduce existing laws to some extent, the same way that Einsteins theories includes and matches Newtons theories for low speeds.
So the new theory will have to match Einsteins theories at least under some conditions, approximately, or as a corner case.
Good luck in your affairs!
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
$100'000 is a infinitesimal measurement value that is 99.9999% statistically undetectable respecting to the current relative totality of the current debt of >$13'000'000'000'000.00
JCPM: my/our arrow is into GRID of Quantum SAT solvers.
Scalable Quantum Computing relies on Quantum Mechanics. Here is my experiment that defies QM: Use Cd-109 that emits one gamma at a time. Put two NaI scintillator detectors in tandem and see if the gamma is detected in coincidence, at rates exceeding chance. The detections must be full height. It worked. Chance was greatly exceeded. QM fails in a very fundamental way, therefore QC can't work. The experiment, theory, history, tests eliminating artifact, tests of many form with different detectors and sources etc, control tests revealing the conditions for success and failure, are all on my Unquantum.net website. We should expect a flaw in QM because wave-particle duality has always been a paradox. My theory, the Loading Theory, is an extension of Planck's Second theory: emission is quantized, but absorption is continuous; Planck's constant is a threshold (a maximum). The distinction between QM and the Loading Theory is made in my many experiments. Also: you were misled by a false assumption in your textbooks concerning photoelectric time lag. I can demonstrate the experiment upon appointment. Please see www.unquantum.net Thank you.