D-Wave Quantum Computing Solution Raises More Questions

benonemusic writes "The commercially available D-Wave computer has demonstrated its ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. But is it a real quantum computer? A new round of research continues the debate over how much its calculations owe to exotic quantum-physics phenomena. 'One side argues there is too much noise in the D-Wave system, which prevents consistent entanglement. But in an adiabatic device, certain types of entanglement are not as vital as they are in the traditional model of a quantum computer. Some researchers are attempting to solve this conundrum by proving the presence or absence of entanglement. If they show entanglement is absent, that would be the end of the discussion. On the other hand, even if some of D-Wave's qubits are entangled, this doesn't mean the device is taking advantage of it. Another way to prove D-Wave's quantumness would be to confirm it is indeed performing quantum, and not classical, annealing. Lidar has published work to this effect, but that triggered opposition, and then a counter-point. The debate continues.'"

Comments

entangled entanglement

[aleator]

how do you show the presence of entanglement without disturbing it?

Re:entangled entanglement

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't look at it.

Re:entangled entanglement

[Anonymous Coward]

Sneeze on it. If it gets mad at you, you are to be sure it is in-tangled.

Re:entangled entanglement

[Frosty Piss]

how do you show the presence of entanglement without disturbing it?

You ask Schrodinger's cat. He has the answer...

Re:entangled entanglement

[Austrian Anarchy]

how do you show the presence of entanglement without disturbing it?

Analyze it with a quantum computer.

Re:entangled entanglement

[Anonymous Coward]

All I know is that it keeps you from blacking out during a flash-forward.

Re:entangled entanglement

[edelbrp]

You can do what Alain Aspect did which was to show that statistically a system can show the repeatable statistical measurements (using Bell's Theorem) that indicate that entanglement is happening. Then let the system/computer do it's thing with some confidence that entanglement is in play.

Re:entangled entanglement

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever that joke was, it's so inside that it's never coming out.

Re:entangled entanglement

[drolli]

Experimentally entanglement is shown most strongly in the form of Bell violations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

as e.g.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08363.html

did.

Re:entangled entanglement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some researchers are attempting to solve this conundrum by proving the presence or absence of entanglement. "

Entanglement can not be proven or disproven, it can only be catsproven

Re:entangled entanglement

[aleator]

thanx for the paper - its quite interesting, but not part of a running computer. also the bell signal would be changing from state to state of d-wave. quantum computers need a indicator of the bells signal (or rather CHSH signal) at the moment of computation! we should make it a nice colourful display in front to show you how much "quantified" you are computing atm ;)

Re:entangled entanglement

[slashmydots]

Simple. Make it do something only a quantumly entangled system could do in a given time period like reverse factorization or whatever. So far, they haven't done that. Their excuse is a lack of sufficient quantities of qubits to determine a speed change in factorization. Basically a normal CPU or ASIC could have solved the equation they demonstrated in 1 ms but a quantum one could solve it in a billionth of a millisecond but you can't measure that small of a time frame so you have to take their word on it that the machine didn't fake it. Go up to 4x the qubits and tada, it can crack and encryption key virtually instantly and prove itself.

Re:entangled entanglement

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I think I just saw him crawl into this box... DAMMIT!

Who needs D-Wave anyway?

[olsmeister]

We have Google.

Re:Who needs D-Wave anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have Google.

Google have a D-Wave machine, maybe this is what they use it for :)

Re:Who needs D-Wave anyway?

[aleator]

so that they can be uncertain about our personal data?

Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Can someone explain to me how this chip could be calculating anything unless the quantum part was working?

Isn't it like a car that has an electric motor or a gas one, but not both? How can they be confused which engine is running? Who builds a backup normal processor then what, it fills in if the quantum one doesn't work right, and they have no way to tell if this backup kicked in?

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's more like a car that has both an electric and gas motor, and the car moves forward, but it's undefined which motor is providing the motive power unless you open the hood and look.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

Can someone explain to me how this chip could be calculating anything unless the quantum part was working?

D-wave is very secretive about how their machine operates and do not respond to academics who want to know exactly how it works -- this is the source of much of the speculation. On top of that you need to specially code your instructions for it, because it can only do a subset of what a general quantum computer could in theory do.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[HuguesT]

The D-Wave engine can indeed solve some specific optimisation problems by a method called adiabatic annealing. Essentially this done by encoding the problem to be solved in some initial state of the physical components of the engine, and letting it evolve without exchanging energy with the outside world (this is what adiabatic means). The evolution is done in such a way that the solution to the optimisation problem eventually appears (this is the annealing part) with some probability.

The engine definitely works, this is not disputed. However there is some debate whether the way the engine works is essentially classical or essentially quantum. At the moment the engine is not especially powerful and it is very noisy, so there is no easy way to tell. In the 3 papers cited in the Fine Article, one says this is definitely quantum because the way the system evolves does not match the way classical annealing is simulated (simulated annealing (SA) is a very popular way to solve some complex classical optimisation problems). The second paper says that it is still possible to achieve the signature observed in the first paper by purely classical means, so this is not so clear. The third papers says that this is correct, but that there is more to the signature than was reported in the first paper, and that *this* is more likely to be quantum than not.

Feel free to contradict me. At any rate, and this is not disputed, the D-Wave engine does not work in the way quantum computers are expected to work in the literature about this topic. It would not be useful to solve factorisation problems as in the Shor algorithm. Rather, it would be useful to solve some optimisation problems in a faster way than with classical or traditional CPUs or GPU. This is still very useful, although at the moment the D-Wave computer's inner working are mostly secret, not hugely fast, and noisy. So D-Wave's qbits are a bit of a misnomer. They should be called something different so as not to engender confusion, perhaps obits (optimisation bits)?

I hope this make sense to you.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[gweihir]

Ordinarily, you would look at the computing power. If it is significantly larger than conventional physics can explain, it must use quantum effects. Unfortunately, this "magic black box" is in no way faster than traditional computers, just a lot more expensive, hence the hand-weaving.

My money is on this being pure fraud. Would not even surprise me if there is a conventional computer hidden in there somewhere that does the calculations.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[HuguesT]

I'm personally reasonably convinced that D-Wave's engine is novel and does offer some new ways of performing various specific calculations. The literature about it exists and is quite interesting for people interested in optimisation. However I'm not sold to the technology yet, essentially classical CPUs can perform the same type of calculation that D-Wave's computer can at the moment, at a much lower cost. This might change in the future though.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you know this topic. I have a question for you, just for personal curiosity.

Is there any known possible use for quantum computers besides Shor's algorithm, or the other one I saw where it can find a row in a database table by a single lookup (I don't remember the name of that one).

I was just curious, becasue there seems to be a lot of research into it with only a couple of possible application. Maybe they are expecting new applications for it to emerge once they have one working.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[Garridan]

Yeah... I watched a talk by a D-Wave guy. This is a summary of his talk: "So, you have an NP-Complete problem. We have a quantum solver that works on a large graph with a special structure. If you can find a homomorphism from your problem into our graph structure, and you can figure out how slowly to evolve the adiabatic process, then we can solve your problem!"

Okay, that's great. But finding that graph homomorphism? Probably NP-Complete itself. Figuring out how slowly to evolve the system? I have no idea, but the guy said "it's hard", which means the physicists don't have any idea. Maybe also NP-Complete or worse? Who knows. Tell ya one thing, D-Wave sure doesn't.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[sanpitch]

I think the search that you refer to is Grover's algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover's_algorithm
Yes, Quantum computers have other known uses besides Shor's and Grover's algorithms. Specifically, they can simulate other quantum systems, and also do a few other things such as solving algorithms based on quantum walks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_algorithm

I have a similar question to yours. Do the D-Wave people claim any mapping of their hardware to a known quantum algorithm such as those at the last link above, or what?

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's very, very, very improbable that the D-Wave engine is...wait, where did all these fried eggs come from?

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

You are a bit behind the times. This was true as long as D-Wave was in stealth mode.

At this point they are quite open and have published several papers in Nature.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

No, the D-Wave machine can only solve the Ising equation. Universal adiabatic quantum computers have been shown to be able to emulate gate model quantum algorithm, but for the more restricted current D-Wave architecture a mapping is (probably) not possible. Nevertheless the class of problems they can solve is still pretty large, and is applicable to useful optimization use cases and learning algorithms.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

I recently visited D-Wave looked at their chips and deep freeze containment. Shot a snapshot of Geordie Rose standing in one of the open boxes.

You may think they are misguided, but their tech is for real. Even Scott Aaronson doesn't deny that.

There is no classical computer hidden inside, but there is still reasonable doubt as to exactly how quantum the device is, and if it will ever deliver clear cut quantum speed-up.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[fatphil]

Whoever wrote that article has absolutely no interest in communicating clearly.

When such people are supportive of D-Wave, it adds no credibility to D-Wave at all. If anything, it reinforces the prejudices that many have against them.

So, they've left "stealth" mode, and are now in full-on "buzzword bingo" mode?

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[HuguesT]

Theoretical Quantum computer using entanglement to perform their calculations make no claim to solve NP-hard problems. They can only solve some very specific class of problems, that are well identified but are still interesting. Integer factorisation is one of them, but factorisation is not thought to be in NP-complete, although we are not certain at this stage.

There is an old article in PNAS that says that adiabatic quantum computers are theoretically no better than classical computers at solving NP-hard problems. So even if D-Wave had a truly working adiabatic quantum computer, it is not clear that it would perform orders of magnitudes better than what we have now.

Anyway all of this is very interesting to watch, but the fact that D-Wave is so secretive is not very compatible with progress in the field.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[gweihir]

You do realize that you can put classical computers on deep-frozen chips, do you? And that they tend to run _very_ fast in that situation?

Re: Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a government contractor.., there was once a firm that sold snake oil gas additive to the Australian government that supposedly raised mileage of their cars, and the scheme would be running to this very day without scientists' inquiry and public outcry.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

That'll be a lot of effort for a fraud, especially since you then have to fake all the qubit specific data that goes into the publications. And the chip samples they have on display very much looks like Josephson junctions circuits and nothing like regular chips. (And the integration density they have for this process could not at all deliver reasonable classical performance).

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

No, "not in stealth mode" means they are now publishing like clockwork.

Enlightment is just one scholar.google.com search away.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[gweihir]

And do you realize that Josephson circuits are especially fast and well understood, if not cost-effective? And that in addition there does not need to be any resemblance between what they display publicly and what is actually in the machine? And that what is actually in the machine does not need to be created with the same process or by them at all? Until somebody competent in detection technological fraud disassembles one of these, we do not know. I bet disassembly voids the warranty or even destroys the thing! I also bet that anybody buying one of these is under a very strict NDA that disallows disassembly for any purpose.

No, the effort needed to defraud is not an indicator of the presence or absence of fraud. The ratio between grand claims and poor delivery at high prices is a pretty strong indicator of fraud, as is the refusal to explain the details. Can be observed in a far more crude version in other tech-fraud cases, like the Rossi cold fusion device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer). That one is still going strong despite the obviousness of his fraud.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

I've been following the Rossi story as well and agree that it is a fraud, but the comparisons to the ecat are only superficial.

The contraptions Rossi builds are cheap and look like a plumber put them together. On the other hand D-Wave has chips samples on display that are produced by a special purpose foundry that can produce Niobium SC circuitry. That took some serious investments.

Rossi supposedly sold his house to finance his venture, D-Wave is backed by the likes of Steve Jurvetson and Jeff Bezos. Rossi has phantom customers who don't talk to the public, D-Wave has Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin.

Frankly, after they started publishing in Nature it's ludicrous to hang on to the idea that this is just an elaborate fraud. Then again conspiracy theories are a dim dozen on the Internet, and you are free to believe whatever you want.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[gweihir]

Nature has been duped before. They are just better fraudsters than small-time Rossi is.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

Well then they duped them more than once and also duped Phys. Rev. A and B. Phys. Rev. Lett.

http://www.dwavesys.com/en/publications.html

Sorry pal, but you may as well subscribe to creationism. They have an adiabatic chip, the only open question is how good it is.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

Maybe you should post some of your concerns to this reddit group that has people who actually work with D-Wave boxes.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[gweihir]

I do not dispute their adiabatic chip. I dispute that it is of any use.

Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

OK, that makes more sense.

The jury is certainly still out on that.

D-Wave - quantum computer powered by cold-fusion ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of talk about D-Wave, but from what I was able to gather, it seems like like whole things is covered under veil of secrecy. Why so much secrecy ?
So, is D-Wave a real deal or it is quantum computer powered by cold-fusion ?

Hasn't the benchmarks put it above anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't the benchmarks already placed it above pretty much any computer in the tasks it can do within its full size?

Mind you, I guess even if that were true, if it wasn't quantum entanglement taking place, it would still be pretty big because they still managed to find a way to make a non-quantum computer way ahead of the competition.

If it is a quantum processor, it would be similar to say... the math co-processor, still baby steps towards a full, integrated circuit.
They even say themselves that it is only useful for certain tasks, some which are highly useful to certain people doing largely complicated, inter-connected lookups.
No wonder Google are interested in it, if it worked and they were the ones working on it and helping research it, they'd benefit hugely in their search systems, be it regular old text search of image-matching. That plus their machine-learning systems would be insane. (also very useful for NASA to spy on planets. And NSA to spy on people)

Re:Hasn't the benchmarks put it above anything?

[gweihir]

Last state of my knowledge is it is slower than a traditional computer in a fair comparison. There are some benchmarks though that have a traditional computer simulate this thing, and, not surprisingly, the simulation is slower than the real thing. That is about the most unfair comparison possible though.

Re:Hasn't the benchmarks put it above anything?

[the gnat]

Hasn't the benchmarks already placed it above pretty much any computer in the tasks it can do within its full size?

My understanding was that the benchmarks - at least the one that was quoted as showing a "3600x speedup" - weren't even comparing the same thing: the D-Wave computer was running the quantum adiabatic annealing method, which is the only way it can be programmed, while the conventional CPU was running an exact solver. The latter is expected to be vastly less efficient (but more precise). When a group of computer scientists came up with an annealing method to solve the same problem on a conventional CPU, they ended up with something just as fast as the D-Wave system.

Re:Hasn't the benchmarks put it above anything?

[quax]

The benchmark did indeed not demonstrate a quantum speed-up, but it in fairness to D-Wave this was a test designed based on the customers requirements i.e. for them acing this benchmark was good enough to justify investing in this technology.

My understanding is that the algorithm that was comparatively fast on a classical computer was hand optimized by a graduate student, it was not a generic annealing algorithm solver.

But the paper on this effort of 'beating' D-Wave on a classical machine is yet to be published, so this is all from blog hearsay.

Re:Hasn't the benchmarks put it above anything?

[amaurea]

Could you elaborate a bit on this? I had the impression that D-Wave's users had to map their problem to fit what D-Wave computes, not the other way around. That would make comparisons with a specialized software solver appropriate, wouldn't it?

The blog post in question also includes a link to the source code of the specialized solver (Prog-QAP), and others have confirmed that it produces the same results as CPLEX, the general solver that D-Wave beat.

CPLEX is indeed slower than D-Wave, though newer versions have brought the factor down from 3600x to 14x. But again, CPLEX is a general solver, while D-wave is specialized hardware. The specialized software solver Prog-QAP is *much* faster than CPLEX, and gets a 12000x speedup over D-Wave when running on a single core.

But all of that is a bit old, and it may be that D-Wave has produced more impressive results after that. I hope D-Wave's approach results in something able to beat classical computers, even if it doesn't lead to a general quantum computer. But I really dislike all the secrecy they employed - that is not how science is supposed to work. The fraud speculations they have had to endure are entierly self-inflicted due to this secrecy.

Re:Hasn't the benchmarks put it above anything?

[quax]

I was referring to the paper by Mathias Troyer et. al. that is yet to be published not the effort that Alex Selby writes about (thanks for the link).

Will have to read the latter in more detail to get a good grasp of how much effort is required to beat the benchmark with Alex's approach. Two caveats: On first glance I am not sure if he has the same training data (he mentions he communicated with Cathy McGeoch) - if he does it'll be interesting to see how stable his generic approach is when the problem domain is slightly altered.

Do you know if he plans to publish any of this?

Has it gotten faster than traditional computers?

[gweihir]

I doubt it. It is however far more expensive and is making its "inventors" a tidy profit at zero benefit to those stupid enough to buy one.

marketing for Intel

[globaljustin]

the 'race' to quantum computing is all about Marketing: "Now with QUANTUM technology!"

everyone wants to be the computing/physics genius who 'ushers humanity into a new era of computing'....someone might mention the 'singularity'

properly understood, Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics

if a research group **truly** were able to maintain a standing quantum entangled state with **non-local force transfer** and **quantum teleportation of information** then that would be, essentially, the **single greatest physics accomplishment of all human history**

I want it to happen. I think it will. I think it is not the same thing as the 'singularity' but that some people do...

The point is, what these Quantum Computing research groups are doing has nothing to do with harnessing the mysterious forces of nature or testing hypothesis proper....this is standard, state-of-the-art microprocessor research gussied up with hyperbolic language

Re:marketing for Intel

[Roger W Moore]

properly understood, Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics [wikipedia.org]

No it is not. It is one of the features of quantum physics which is the hardest to understand and, arguably, we still do not have a good grip on it. However that by no means puts it at the core of all quantum physics: there is far more to QM than quantum entanglement e.g. tunnelling, self interference etc.

So long, and thanks for all the quarks...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yet even tiny amounts of noise can cause a quantum state to lose coherence, "

Signal to noise ratio decreases as you get smaller (and approaches 0 rapidly) leaving anything at the 'quantum' qubit level useless (scale it up and it reverts to 'classical' logic (and we already have far cheaper mechanisms fo doing it that way...)

 

Re:So long, and thanks for all the quarks...

[quax]

The thing is operating close to absolute zero, and indeed the increase in noise with temperature severely degrades the machine's performance, but this is exactly as you'd expect, so I fail to see your point.

Just do it.

[CanEHdian]

There should be plenty of problems a quantum computer could solve in polynomial time that would take classic computers eons to solve. Start solving those problems and it's a quantum computer. Simple as that.

Re:Just do it.

[edelbrp]

They have. We're still waiting for the classical computers to finish to compare answers. Should just take a few eons. Then we'll know it works.

Re:Just do it.

[AmiMoJo]

Exactly, it doesn't really matter if it is a real quantum computer or not, only that it can complete certain computations that people need much faster than a traditional computer. If it solves that problem for someone then the rest of the debate is academic.

Re:Just do it.

[multimediavt]

Exactly, it doesn't really matter if it is a real quantum computer or not, only that it can complete certain computations that people need much faster than a traditional computer. If it solves that problem for someone then the rest of the debate is academic.

Wait, it does matter whether this is a quantum computer or not. If it *is* a quantum computer then the calculations can be trusted to be accurate and precise based on the fundemental principles driving the solutions. If it is *not* a quantum computer all the results from the machine may be so horribly wrong that they cause serious accidents, damage or loss of life. The problem as stated above in the comments is that some of the calculations take so egregiously long ("eons") on traditional computation devices that we will have no way to verify them for decades if not centuries. That's a real problem that QC needs to solve before it can be trusted. I don't know where the ball sits right now, but from all the fervor I'd say the jury is still out on whether the Dwave machine results can be trusted. I am skeptical, but hopeful. It sure would be nice to have QC working sooner than later. But, trust is still out on this whole deal and is the real sticking point for the physicists and mathematicians that are challenging the current tech. How do we really know if some of the results the Dwave machine cranks out are correct if we don't have known results to point to? That was rhetorical, I know the answer to that question, btw.

Re:Just do it.

[AmiMoJo]

That's not how quantum computers work or how they are used. You don't get a definite answer, just a highly probable one. You then have to verify it with a normal computer. The problem that the quantum computer solves is that a normal computer has to try every verifying possible answer until it finds the right one. Each test may only take fractions of a second, but you have to do so many of them it takes an unreasonable amount of time.

Re: Just do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't understand what's NP.

what bullshit. you know the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop the riddles, it gets old fast.

DWave itself is in an indeterminate quatum state

[Required Snark]

Consider the hypothesis that the DWave machine is a superposition of classical and quantum computing. By some observations it is classical, by others quantum. As some point a measurement will be preformed on the machine, and it's state will resolve into either a classical physics computing device or a quantum physics computing device.

This situation is completely reasonable give the current state of the art in quantum computing.

Making accusations of "marketing hype" and unethical behavior are irrelevant. Whatever it's doing, it's not digital computing. Even if it turns out to be classical physics, it is still advancing the state of the art in non-digital computing.

No matter how DWave does in the future, quantum computing is still going to happen in the near term. Dwave is not going to change that under any circumstances.

Getting bent out of shape over this is a waste of effort. Even the experts are not in agreement. This is how progress occurs at the cutting edge.

Sounds like a falsification problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"At any rate, and this is not disputed, the D-Wave engine does not work in the way quantum computers are expected to work in the literature about this topic."

There are two options: Reality has refuted the literature. Or D-Wave did not engineer their system in accordance with the literature. That last is, or should be, trivial to rule in or out.

If it was engineered properly, then reality rules supreme. If it was not, then we're still all agreed that it's a quasi-quantum device. Where quasi-quantum is indistinguishable from a really fast guy with an abacus.

Re:Sounds like a falsification problem

[gl4ss]

There are two options: Reality has refuted the literature. Or D-Wave did not engineer their system in accordance with the literature. That last is, or should be, trivial to rule in or out.

well, what dwave did was build what they could and called it quantum computing.

and sell it for big bucks to organizations which hope the next generation will have practical use.

Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a deep misunderstanding of the general public about how metaheuristics such as simulated annealing and its variants such as quantum annealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing) works. Basically, you can't compare the output of D-Wave with another, classical, machine and say for sure if there are quantum effects involved or not, you'd need access to the internal workings to say that 100% positively.

Quantum computation can easily be simulated in a classical computer, albeit it loses *almost all* of the nifty properties of a real quantum computer it retains, to some degree, the qualities in estimation of distributions.

When D-Wave was first announced me and a few research colleagues made a bet, we bet D-Wave was based on a traditional computational hardware ***inspired*** by quantum computation, without actually using any quantum effects. An analogy would be all the neural net chips these days without a biological neural net.

In the scenario of our bet, both the processor and the quantum bits are actually well implemented simulations of a quantum computer. In fact, it's a CPU especially crafted for estimation of distributions. This would account for the observed high error rates and noise.

These days, I'm not so sure anymore.

Either the "simulated quantum" hardware is incredibly good or it really uses quantum effects. I can't believe Google and other major companies would invest in a hoax.

Re:Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[koan]

This stuff is a bit dense for me (or me for it) but wouldn't this be considered a biological neural net:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/brain-dish-flies-plane-041022.htm

Or did I completely misinterpret what you were saying in your comparison.

Re:Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's a biological neural network, just as much as our brain is.

However, you did misinterpret. I was refering to neural nets in integrated circuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni1000

The point of the analogy was:
Does it look like the real thing? Yes.
Is it the real thing? Far from it.

Re:Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[quax]

Ahem ... the central claim that their chip is a true quantum chip leveraging qubit entanglement has been demonstrated i.e. this paper.

Matthias Troyer, one of the co-authors, expressed in an email to me, that he was surprised to see this evidence, but that the chip seems indeed to perform some sort of quantum annealing.

Re:Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: "The strong correlations between the device and a simulated quantum annealer ... demonstrate that the device performs quantum annealing"

That's a great example of bad science. Good experiments, solid results, bad conclusions.

A strong correlation between a simulated quantum annealer and between D-Wave points to a device that performs simulated quantum annealing.

Re:Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[quax]

Sorry to blow your bubble, but you can actually look at the chip that's inside D-Wave's boxes. It doesn't have transistors, it has Josephson junctions. Tell me how you can get any calculations out of those unless you do physical annealing with them.

Re:Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know I was talking to someone with access to alien tech here.

Are you implying that the ***PROGRAMMABLE*** CPU in D-Wave has no transistors at all? What kind of bullshit is that?

Please enlighten us mere mortals on how the necessary state machine, fetch-decode-execute cycle and ALU can be implemented without transistors in an IC.

And it's not like we don't know how the thing is programmed, there are even tutorials: http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dev-tutorial-getting-started.html

Snippet: result = dot(self.subset_sum_array, w)**2+prod(1-w)

The above line is impossible to be implemented without a functional classical processor.

"Has transistors and some X qubits which are implemented in a secret way" - Sure.
"Has no transistors and works with magic" - Hell no.

Re:Used to think it was a scam, not so sure now

[quax]

Maybe you should spend some more time on the D-Wave site and actually read it?

On the page you link to under the "What you will learn" section:

How to use the D-Wave OneTM System as a co-processor to a conventional computer in a scalable way.

The D-Wave chip is a special purpose solver, it relies on a classical processor for loading and pre-processing, that is where this python code gets executed.

Anyhow, if you want to learn what's on the chip check out this section.

Programming the D-Wave chip is nothing but initialising the spin states of the qubits, it has nothing to do with classical transistor logic. And no, it is not alien technology, although apparently pretty foreign to you.

Yet, you write like somebody who already made up his mind, and I doubt you're willing to learn anything that contradicts your preconceived notion.

Too much noise, all right

[islisis]

In the longterm of things, all proprietory systems will be just noise

Why

[koan]

Would anyone in their sane state want this:

"Integer factorization is believed to be computationally infeasible with an ordinary computer for large integers if they are the product of few prime numbers (e.g., products of two 300-digit primes).[13] By comparison, a quantum computer could efficiently solve this problem using Shor's algorithm to find its factors. This ability would allow a quantum computer to decrypt many of the cryptographic systems in use today, in the sense that there would be a polynomial time (in the number of digits of the integer) algorithm for solving the problem. In particular, most of the popular public key ciphers are based on the difficulty of factoring integers (or the related discrete logarithm problem, which can also be solved by Shor's algorithm), including forms of RSA. These are used to protect secure Web pages, encrypted email, and many other types of data. Breaking these would have significant ramifications for electronic privacy and security."

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

you just went full retard

Re:Why

[quax]

Given the recent NSA revelations I think that our security in mostly illusional anyway, but if it makes you sleep better, the D-Wave machine cannot implement Shor's algorithm.

Re:Why

[lennier]

Would anyone in their sane state want this:

"This ability would allow a quantum computer to decrypt many of the cryptographic systems in use today."

Nobody sane, no, but the NSA and GCHQ would love that. While lighting a cigar under the "no smoking next to the nuclear weapons" sign in the pool of suspicious green ooze at the abandoned military experiment base codenamed Icarus 13 that was formerly the Lovecraft House for Angry Psychic Orphans built on top of a desecrated Indian burial ground.

Re:Why

[SuricouRaven]

Eventually, there will be one that can.

I wouldn't be surprised if there already is, somewhere. The NSA is certainly reading every journal in the field, looking out for the elusive breakthrough. If they saw one being made they would likely surpress it for a few years, so they could take advantage of that window of opportunity before someone else invented it or at the very least have time to quantum-proof the US military and diplomatic communications before the tech went public. Their counterparts in other countries would doubtless have the same plan.

If someone has invented a true quantum computer, we'd find out eventually. But possibly not right away.

Re:Why

[quax]

The problem is mostly on the engineering side, it'll be hard to build up industrial capabilities of the scope needed for a useful universal gate based QC and conceal if from the rest of the world. It's not like coming up with a code cracking algorithm, the latter could be kept classified quite easily.

Oh, no.

[PopeRatzo]

No way I'm gonna try one of these until they get the bugs out. Instead of a blue screen, I'll get a black hole and those Higgs bosons all over the carpet. My wife will kill me. Plus, they probably cost like over a thousand bucks.

But I bet GTA V runs like a banshee on it. No screen tearing, but possibly tearing in the fabric of space and time. As soon as Tiger Direct starts selling them, I'm in for one, but you best believe I'm gonna be wearing my lead codpiece when I sit in front of that thing.

Re:Oh, no.

[SuricouRaven]

Never mind GTA - we might finally get to see what Crysis is like on full settings.

Question: How Quantum Is It?

[Dialecticus]

Answer: It's *SO* quantum that even the issue of whether or not it's quantum exists in a superposition of states!

Re:Question: How Quantum Is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, maybe this will happen with all quantum computing devices made in the future.

Maybe it is part of the macro quantum effect involved with a quantum computer.

Re:Question: How Quantum Is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

I let you work this out... There are no cats in the box!

Correlation

[Roger W Moore]

Measure correlations between the two systems. If you have entangled, oppositely polarized photons and you simultaneously pass them through aligned polarizers then one will always pass through the filter and one will always fail. It is impossible to recreate this in any classical system without communication between the photons.

If you can perform the same type of measurement with entangled qbits in a manner where it is physically impossible for them to communicate (e.g. make the two measurements simultaneously) you can confirm their quantum nature.

Re:Correlation

[aleator]

elegant solution! ... but how do you do it inside the D-wave? if you want it to work as a "computer" (which is a bit a misnamer if quantum is involved), you would have to manipulate the machine itself to be able to determine bells signal or in your suggestion the passing.

Re:Correlation

[Roger W Moore]

elegant solution! ... but how do you do it inside the D-wave?

Good question but I simply don't know enough about the D-wave to be able to answer. My point was just that it is possible, in principle, to devise such a measurement but how to do that in practice will depend heavily on the details of the D-wave.

Re:Correlation

[aleator]

i'm also not familiar with the inner workings of d-wave... but in general since we would have anyway always a non-quantum and quantum computer mixture, an indicator of the qubits used for a process might be of use!

When I recently sat down with D-Wave's CTO ...

[quax]

... I got the impression that he is not overtly concerned about this ongoing controversy, although he did mention he prepared another paper to demonstrate entanglement on the chip.

But his focus is clearly on tackling hard tasks with immediate applicability (for instance in deep learning).

 

Re:When I recently sat down with D-Wave's CTO ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good con artists are incredibly charming and charismatic. I'm not saying that this is a fraud, because I don't know, but this whole business with D-Wave reminds me too much of the movie Primer to feel comfortable. Clever engineers with a hidden agenda. There is something important that they are not telling us. Just a feeling. For all I know the secret is that they are trying to get rich by building a quantum bitcoin miner that can search the entire hash space in under a minute.

Re:When I recently sat down with D-Wave's CTO ...

[quax]

Yes, the quantum bitcoin miner thought occurred to me too :-)

There are good reasons people were suspicious of D-Wave, the way they first made a splash and overpromised delivery pushed all the right buttons.

But to hang on to this stance after the amount of scrutiny that the D-Wave machine received is about as rational a climate change denial.

It's one thing to argue that they have not proven a quantum speed-up, but they clearly build an quantum annealing device that you can use to perform calculations.

Why Develop This?

[Dialecticus]

Because *IF* it can be developed, someone will eventually develop it, and probably sooner rather than later. Technological advances depend less on creative genius and more on previous technological advances. It's like how radar was developed simultaneously by about a half-dozen different nations, but they were all trying to keep this supposed strategic advantage secret from one another. It's not that it was a coincidence, but rather that the time was right, and the pieces were all in place.

Isn't it better to develop a quantum computer first, so that you know to stop using vulnerable forms of cryptography? Anything else is just sticking your head in the sand. Failing to develop it yourself will not stop the other guy from doing it.

Re:D-Wave - quantum computer powered by cold-fusio

[quax]

The secrecy pretty much went away when they came out stealth mode.

Now they published several papers in Nature and are quite open.

When I visited them I was surprised that there were no restrictions on taking pictures and nothing was off limits.

Einstein & Schodinger accept your apology

[globaljustin]

did you check the source of my claim? go ahead...fine if you're just that impatient I'll paste it below...

it has some pretty good scientific backing:

Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox[13] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[14][15] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,[16] and recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.

[13] Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.

Re:Einstein & Schodinger accept your apology

[Nemyst]

Controversial for a while? Yes. Fundamental? Yes, At the core? Not necessarily. QM involves a lot of things and entanglement is only part of that.

Re:Einstein & Schodinger accept your apology

[Roger W Moore]

did you check the source of my claim?

Yes, but do you understand it? There is a huge difference between being a "feature of QM" (as your source accurately states) and being "at the core of QM" as you incorrectly state. Entanglement is a feature of QM but there are many other features of QM that have nothing to do with entanglement.

you misquoted my quotation directly heres proof

[globaljustin]

I'm not playing anymore...you misquoted my quotation here:

"feature of QM" (as your source accurately states)

No, actually, **one part** of the wikipedia portion copied (with the actual source below) **correctly** states the following (emphasis added)

recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics

And, i'm definitely not going to get into the difference between being **AT** the core of something (which I said) and being **THE ONE AND ONLY** core of something (what you're trolling me to have said)...

and being "at the core of QM" as you incorrectly state.

I'm letting the community handle this from here (cant mod on my own discussion of course)

Re:you misquoted my quotation directly heres proof

[ldobehardcore]

properly understood, Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics

To a US English speaker, this phrase can generally be translated to mean "All quantum mechanical reasoning relies on quantum entanglement" which is false. But the phrase you state leaves room for interpretation and can certainly mean "quantum entanglement is one of the basic features of quantum mechanics" or even "quantum mechanics requires quantum entanglement to be true". It's just that the standard way the phrase is parsed makes it seem you're saying entanglement is the most important or most fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. You aren't wrong, but the way you expressed yourself can be a little confusing.

Deep breaths

[Roger W Moore]

I did not misquote you: a fundamental feature is just one that derives from the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. That does not mean that it is central to the nature of quantum mechanics. To use an example from my own field of particle physics I could correctly say that kaon oscillations are a fundamental feature of particle physics but it would be ludicrous to say that this are "at the core" of particle physics.

So you might want to take a deep breath and calm down a little. Trying to claim that there are multiple "cores", when core is generally taken to mean "centre", sounds like you are desperately flailing around trying to justify yourself. Massive use of asterisks coupled with claiming that discovery of quantum teleportation of information (which has already been shown) would be "single greatest physics accomplishment of all human history" isn't exactly helping your case either.

I'm letting the community handle this from here (cant mod on my own discussion of course)

No, but going on past experience with comments like this undoubtedly your friends and/or secondary accounts can unfortunately.

olds

[Anonymous Coward]

This is old news.
Check the preprint dates, it says May.

what is the meaning of everything?

[aleator]

just ask such questions - but be prepared for 42 :)

reading is *fundamental* to comprehension

[globaljustin]

n/t

Re:reading is *fundamental* to comprehension

[Roger W Moore]

I think you will find that it's the other way around...or do you really have trouble comprehending the spoken word and pictures to give but two examples. Sorry but it is clear from this that you do not understand what 'fundamental' actually means so your confusion with quantum physics, which is tricky at the best of times, is understandable.

**FUNDAMENTAL** evidence you are wrong...

[globaljustin]

you are just being pedantic w/ language, and you are actively being dishonest in this conversation...my source cited, which you have never engaged with, says plainly what I paraphrased (while linking to the source, w/ the full source copied)

i absolutely will not have a conversation about pedantic definitions of 'fundamental' or 'at the core'...

my evidence is below, w/ source...you engage with my ideas here on this ground, the *content of my ideas not pedantic language disputes* or this conversation is over

from wikipedia, with wiki's citations included:

Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox[13] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.[14][15] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, **eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,[16] and recognized as a valid, ***fundamental feature of quantum mechanics.*** The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.

[13] Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.

Welcome to Science

[Roger W Moore]

you are just being pedantic w/ language

No, if I am being pedantic it is about the science. "Fundamental feature" and "at the core" do not mean exactly the same thing in a physics context. One means a behaviour that occurs under certain circumstances and the other means central to the explanation of the physical laws. For example the electron-positron annihilation a (fundamental) feature of QED but the fermion-photon vertex is at the core of QED. The first is a result of QED that occurs under the right circumstances the latter is something that pretty much any QED calculation will require.

Since we are using a written language to describe precise scientific concepts you have to be careful. Brushing this off as some minor language disagreement results in sloppy, inaccurate and incorrect scientific understanding. You may be quite happy with that but if you are going to start posting to a scientifically literate audience expect to get corrected and educated. There is a big difference between saying that entanglement is just one phenomenon that results from the laws of quantum mechanics under certain circumstances and saying that it is "at the core" of QM.

Finally I should point out that if I were to be pedantic I would point out that the paper you cite does not actually support your point at all. In fact Einstein was an opponent of QM and the EPR paradox paper was designed to poke a hole in it and that actually you should be citing the experimental paper that verified it and not some random comment from Wikipedia that was written by some random internet person and is hardly a reliable source.

"some random internet person"

[globaljustin]

you are simply perturbed i am right

b/c i'm "some random internet person" and you are either A) some academic w/ an ivory tower up your ass or B) 40 year old in mom's basement

the EPR Paradox was a criticism of a **factual inaccuracy** which was proven right via the sources cited...

Einstien et al first identified it...Hawking & the Cambridge Cabal did their whole "we destroyed Newton" parade...then...lo and behold...

the EPR Paradox criticism was rooted in the proper understanding of QM

you cant engage further b/c my original point...about how 'quantum computing' is hype pisses you off

deal with it...i know my shit...i'm right about the EPR paradox and you can't change that

You are perturbed I am ****right****

[Roger W Moore]

you are simply perturbed i am right

It's not often I get to see such a well reasoned, evidence based scientific argument. Might I suggest you publish this in a journal? The scientific world clearly needs to see the article "You are perturbed I am ****right****" by G. Justin (I hope you don't mind the addition of asterisks but I think that really adds a little more credibility and you do use them to such good effect almost everywhere else).

the EPR Paradox was a criticism of a **factual inaccuracy** which was proven right via the sources cited...

I also apologize for clearly completely misunderstanding the EPR paradox. I, like the rest of the scientific community, understood it to be a gedanken experiment (that was what Einstein called a thought experiment) which is understandable since Einstein was renowned as a theorist. I had no idea that he did experiment too and had actually proven a factual inaccuracy, apologies I mean a "**factual inaccuracy**" (wow those asterisks really make a difference!). This is a major revelation and you clearly need to write up the details in another paper. In keeping with Einstein's german naming might I suggest "Ich bin ein Dummkopf" by G. Justin would be an excellent and accurate title for it?

deal with it...i know my shit...

I am sure that studying your own faeces is something that you find really fascinating and clearly pervades your thinking and reasoning. However I'd strongly suggest that you refrain from announcing it in public. This tends to be the sort of thing that crazy people do and I'm sure you would hate for all your erudite and valuable arguments to be dismissed as the ravings of some internet lunatic.

still wrong b/c you use rhetoric over evidence

[globaljustin]

here's your problem: your thoughts and ideas are bound by jargon

I'm guessing you are some kind of academic. That would fit best, here's why: You can't have a discussion on a topic you are interested in without trying to force everyone to use the same language and tone you use

Your mind *literally* can't function properly unless everyone around you is using academic langauge because academia, especially parts of physics, is just recursions of abstract jargon describing the **same phenomeon**

You know I'm right, but I won't engage you in the way you expect, yet I demonstrate a grasp of the concepts and it pisses you off...

See, if I linked to a source that says something as basic as "The EPR Paradox was validated when it was proven that Quantum Entanglement (non-local, no force carrier, teleportation) exists."

Your academic shit-talk routine would kick in, and you'd use all the rhetorical tricks that academics use to conversationally assert authority without **actually talking about the issue**

You can have the "last word"...I've exposed your failings in this conversation as fully as I feel is necessary, for posterity sake...I wont comment further

What evidence?

[Roger W Moore]

No the problem is that you believe that you are correct and nothing and nobody will persuade you that you are wrong. In your previous post you literally said so. You keep coming back to the same argument again and again which basically boils down to "I am right and you are wrong". Anyone who is older than 5 and not mentally unbalanced should not need to be told that this is massively unconvincing because, whether you can conceive of it or not, there is always the chance that you might be wrong.

I have repeatedly explained that the EPR paradox is a result of the fundamental nature of QM being applied to a particular situation and not a core principle of QM. You have offered not one jot of evidence against this - indeed the one wikipedia comment on a reference that you keep pointing to literally says it is a feature and not a core principle which supports my view. Indeed far from addressing my correction to your original post you have switched between arguing it was just a point of language rather then scientific understanding, that I had to be wrong because you were right and ad hominem attacks.

Far from "demonstrating a grasp of the concepts" you have repeatedly shown that you do not really understand them and that you are incapable of making any sort of rational, scientific conversation. Any sensible discussion starts from the premise that there is a chance that you may be wrong and if you believe that there is zero possibility of this then, not only are you delusional, but nobody will learn much from the conversation. Rather than angry at you I was more curious to see whether there was any way to reach you and perhaps, if not educate you, then at least make you see that there is the slightest possibility you might be wrong. I've met people like you and always had trouble getting them to accept basic scientific concepts which contradict their beliefs so I like to take the practice when I can get it.

What evidence? YOU present some for once

[globaljustin]

can't help myself...

I'd fucking *love* for your dumb ass to post some real evidence...

You wrote this:

I have repeatedly explained that the EPR paradox is a result of the fundamental nature of QM being applied to a particular situation and not a core principle of QM. You have offered not one jot of evidence against this

I offered links and evidence...

YOU HAVENT LINKED TO ONE SOURCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS

What evidence? indeed...

if you're so fucking right, and you just want to 'teach me' then proffer up more than a calculated antipathy argument based on rhetoric

LINK TO SOURCES MOTHERFUCKER

LINK TO SOURCES

i will respond if you link to sources for your 'refutation' of the sources that I have linked to

lets see it

Re: What evidence? YOU present some for once

[Roger W Moore]

No, you offered one link to Wikipedia where there was a comment mentioning that the EPR paradox is a feature of QM. You then completely misinterpret that and come to the conclusion that it is at the core of QM which means that it is related to the explanation of al quantum phenomena. Worse you seem to think that Wikipedia is a better reference source than arXiv. This would be laughable if it were not so sad.

As for me providing evidence you are the one making the claim so the onus is on you to prove what you are claiming. In addition it is very hard to prove a negative, especially one that everyone (well apart from you) thinks is wrong. You will note that there are no papers claiming that there are no flying giraffes but I hope that does not lead you to believe that they exist!

However I can try so If you want a reference then just pick up practically any QM textbook (I'd recommend Griffiths) and read the chapter on the hydrogen atom orbital derivation. This will require understanding basic differential equations but this is needed to understand QM so if you can't do this that alone should tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. Now point to the part related to entanglement and get back to me.

guide for how you present 'evidence'

[globaljustin]

I expect journals or widely accepted books...copy/paste of the wikipedia (including the sources on the wiki of course) will do just fine

I won't respond if you just post links to arvix...you have to go aaaaalllll the way back and identify where we disagree on the EPR Paradox and **how** your evidence counters what I've shown (the einstien/shrodinger info)

I'll accept the same stuff I have used...you quote a wiki with proper sources and I'll go to the wiki and check the sources..

put up or shut up

that's what I thought...this is over

[globaljustin]

n/t...

Re:that's what I thought...this is over

[Roger W Moore]

Sorry - I did not realize that you did not possess any QM text book. If you are going to comment on QM you really ought to get one and read it - you might learn something. If the problem is that I dared to suggest a textbook as a reference instead of Wikipedia then you really ought to think things through a little deeper. I can easily write, or edit, a Wikipedia article to support my point of view, post a link to it. If you really want me to go to that trouble I suppose I could but honestly a text book is a far better reference source.

yes...I really do want a source

[globaljustin]

put yourself in the other situation...what if *you* made a claim, with evidence (the wiki i linked to used Einstein as a source for the claim quoted...i have never just linked to a wiki and called it good...it's the **sources the wiki uses**)

would you just change your mind b/c some random /.'er said "no, you are wrong"

You'd want evidence of some sort for something as complex as QM...not just some guys damn word...

Post the link

If you really want me to go to that trouble

I wrote it in all caps 3x....i made a separate post about what I would accept...

If it is in 'any QM textbook' then it should be easy to link to...

remember...you cant just post the link and say "there"....you have to show where your ideas about EPR Paradox differ from the stuff I quoted...

Re:yes...I really do want a source

[Roger W Moore]

the wiki i linked to used Einstein as a source for the claim quoted.

Umm...try reading that link again because that is completely wrong. The claim that it is a feature of QM came from the wiki page and has all the authority of the random internet person who wrote it. The paper which is cited on that page was written by Einstein as a way to convince people that QM was wrong. Einstein himself never believed in QM and applied the laws of QM to the entangled two photon system to try and show that this was a crazy feature of QM and so QM had to be wrong. It was later experimentally proven to actually be the case.

just make sure to note the **page number** of course

Why? Are you incapable of using the contents in the front of a book and finding the page on the derivation of the hydrogen atom orbitals? As I indicated there is no single page number where the claim is made because it is a negative claim. You are the one making the positive claim and, in science, that means you have to provide the evidence. All I can do is point you to a QM textbook and tell you to read it because it will then become very clear that entanglement is just one feature that comes from the fundamental nature of QM.

If it is a help here is a link to the book in question. The copy I have is an older version so my page number of the hydrogen orbital chapter would not help you in any case - you would still have to look it up in the contents at the front. If that's too much effort then you might as well give up because looking up the page number of the chapter is nothing compared to the effort that will be required to read and understand the chapter.

how about **YOUR** textbook

[globaljustin]

Sorry - I did not realize that you did not possess any QM text book. If you are going to comment on QM you really ought to get one and read it

hey, since you obviously must have at least one QM textbook around, cite that...

just make sure to note the **page number** of course...and I still need you to **identify where your and my ideas of the EPR Paradox diverge...**

i'll go to my local library or the technical bookstore downtown or the university library ;)

let's see it!

Re:how about **YOUR** textbook

[Roger W Moore]

just make sure to note the **page number** of course...and I still need you to **identify where your and my ideas of the EPR Paradox diverge...**

Explained above. Since there is no need to use entanglement to explain phenomena like electron orbitals (which is my point) there is no page number where it says "we do not use entanglement here because it is a feature of QM" just like they don't say "we do not use the infinite square well potential here". There are lots of things they don't use and it would be a VERY long chapter if they stated each and every one. So you have to read through and understand the chapter to see that there are phenomena which QM can explain without any hint of entanglement.

so you don't have a source

[globaljustin]

The copy I have is an older version so my page number of the hydrogen orbital chapter would not help you in any case

why did you refer me to a source that doesn't support your claim?

you claimed that your point about EPR Paradox was **so fucking obvious** and I was an idiot who apparently couldn't understand the simplest concpets of QM & was dumb for not having my own text

i presented actual evidence...you presented a link to a book that **by your own admission** does not support your claim

"because I say so"

[globaljustin]

you can't present evidence for you claim...

except 'because I say so'

that's all you've ever done...

I said "X"

you just keep restating "not X"

you have used NOTHING but rhetoric this whole time

rhetoric troll

Understanding

[Roger W Moore]

why did you refer me to a source that doesn't support your claim?

It does but you have to read through and understand a quantum phenomenon in order to know that you can explain it without any reference to entanglement. Here's a fun fact, I checked and I do actually have the second edition (although certainly an earlier reprinting) and if you go to page 421 it describes the EPR paradox as a theoretical exercise which attempted to prove the realist position. Happy? Of course if you had actually read Einstein's paper directly (the one you keep indirectly citing) you would have learnt that as well but hey why would you want to read your own references? ;-)

There is more information on p 427 to support my claim that the EPR paradox is a feature of the fundamental nature of QM where, when discussing Bell's inequality, the author states that the EPR paradox is a result of the nonlocal nature of QM. So there you go in back and white - the EPR paradox is a result of the nature of QM applied to a particular situation. Really this is just a phase velocity effect though like the transmission of a wave in a waveguide where the phase velocity can become anything up to infinite.

By the way if you are interested the hydrogen atom description starts on page 131 (Solving the Schrodinger equation in 3D) so now you don't even have to read the table of contents to find the page. Good luck!

could've done this 12 comments ago

[globaljustin]

but you didn't, jerk off...you're a troll

why didn't you respond this way before? you obviously feel motivated to continue the conversation, but yet you wasted so much of **your own time**

my goal was to get you to engage or keep asking until comments became disabled...

so, now, after 12 cycles, you make an **attempt** to engage my point...

which was about, originally, Current Quantum Computing Research is mostly hype & only 'Quantum' in the marketing sense of the word

I then stated that, in essence, true 'quantum computing' wouldnt exist until a research team actually dealt with Quantum Entanglement.

I then offered the wikipedia quote, which has **its own citations** in 4 PLACES to support the general concept that, at the current state of research, we understand that **non-local** **quantum teleportation** is theoretically possible

non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist

that current research proves your p. 427 obsolete...the EPR Paradox is no longer a paradox...true 'spooky action at a distance' can happen

that's my point...okay?

my real point is that non-local, quantum teleportation **can** exist, therefore, for any computing system to be considered 'quantum' it must, by logic, make some use of our current understanding of 'entanglement' or it isn't really 'quantum'

that's my point...

I don't want to hear any shit about 'at the core' vs 'fundamental' b/c that shit isn't...um....'at the core' of the 'fundamental' point I was making...looooong looooong ago up in my first comment...

which was about how 'quantum computing' in TFA is hype

now...if you want to pick this comment apart and have me respond, go right ahead....

Re:could've done this 12 comments ago

[Roger W Moore]

why didn't you respond this way before?

...because I thought you were intelligent enough to (a) read and understand your own references and (b) follow simple arguments and do a little looking up on your own without having to be told precise page numbers in specific books. My mistake, I know better now.

I don't want to hear any shit about 'at the core' vs 'fundamental' b/c that shit...

That is what we were talking about. It's what I commented on and what you replied to!

non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist

They actually exist - check the journals but I seem to remember reading relatively recently that it has been experimentally confirmed.

apology accepted

[globaljustin]

glad you agree?

non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist

They actually exist - check the journals but I seem to remember reading relatively recently that it has been experimentally confirmed.

also, don't try to equivocate...

my point was that to be 'quantum' computing the system had to have some use of entanglement...

you retorted that 'entanglement' is just one of many parts of 'quantum'...therefore, by logical deduction, attempting to refute my point about how 'quantum' computing in TFA was hype

see, if your assertation is right, and I'm wrong, then the research team in TFA can be said to be doing 'true quantum computing' w/o having entanglement be involved at all...no non-locality, no quant. teleportation...but, according to you, still 'quantum'

you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit ("check the journals")

the research group in TFA is *not* doing Quantum Computing, b/c to do true Quantum Computing current understandings of 'entanglement' must be involved in the system

1. we did have a direct clash on ideas, 2. you knew you were wrong and tried to use rhetoric to "win", 3. I forced you to actually engage the topic, and 4. have proven you wrong (or at least to be a troll)

Re:apology accepted

[Roger W Moore]

1. we did have a direct clash on ideas, 2. you knew you were wrong and tried to use rhetoric to "win", 3. I forced you to actually engage the topic, and 4. have proven you wrong

Wow - just wow. This whole discussion was your claim that "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics" which is just plain wrong. You've tried to claim that this was just semantics, then claimed that your references supported this (when they did not), then demanded detailed references and finally when everything failed as a last act of desperation you are now trying to claim that the discussion was about something else.

you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit

Errr...what? I say true non-local, quantum teleportation exists and then you say I am wrong because true non-local, quantum teleportation exists. Do you see the logic problem there?

Look I realize you probably can't take this from me but if you really believe what you wrote is right then show this discussion to a friend you trust and ask them whether you should seek professional mental help because you appear to have a tenuous grip on reality and are making illogical and irrational arguments.

now respond to this part: TFA is not QC

[globaljustin]

see, if your assertation is right, and I'm wrong, then the research team in TFA can be said to be doing 'true quantum computing' w/o having entanglement be involved at all...no non-locality, no quant. teleportation...but, according to you, still 'quantum'

you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit ("check the journals")

the research group in TFA is *not* doing Quantum Computing, b/c to do true Quantum Computing current understandings of 'entanglement' must be involved in the system

b/c that's what my post, which you replied to, was about...

TFA is not 'Quantum' Computing, b/c Quantum Computing proper must involve true non-local, quant. teleportation...(which has been experimentally verified to exist)...

Re:now respond to this part: TFA is not QC

[Roger W Moore]

I responded to a specific claim in your post which I quoted and you replied in kind to that. Only in the last few posts have you suddenly decided that we were discussing something else. This is not normal, rational behaviour.

you didn't respond_TFA is not CQ

[globaljustin]

no you didn't...you responded to selected sections, ignoring the context of the actual greater point

you are *still* trying to use rhetoric to avoid actual debate

since the begining, my *first* post you responded to I have been completely consistent

my point is that TFA is NOT "Quantum Computing" b/c its not using 'entanglement'

see, if your assertation is right, and I'm wrong, then the research team in TFA can be said to be doing 'true quantum computing' w/o having entanglement be involved at all...no non-locality, no quant. teleportation...but, according to you, still 'quantum'

you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit ("check the journals")

the research group in TFA is *not* doing Quantum Computing, b/c to do true Quantum Computing current understandings of 'entanglement' must be involved in the system

Re:you didn't respond_TFA is not CQ

[Roger W Moore]

I responded to a specific claim

no you didn't...you responded to selected sections

So in one sentence you say that I did not respond to a specific claim and then in the next sentence you say that I did since the selection I responded to contained a specific claim? I'm not trying to avoid a debate there simply isn't one going on because I can neither agree nor disagree with you since your statements are not logically consistent. Worse, having finally resolved what we were talking about you somehow can't accept that and are now inventing something else. At the risk of repeating myself this is not normal, rational behaviour.

respond to this:

[globaljustin]

is the work in TFA true 'quantum computing'?

you can either answer, or write more rhetorical avoidance....

Re:respond to this:

[Roger W Moore]

Was the claim I quoted and showed was wrong "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics"? Are you capable of conceiving that someone can respond to a claim in a post which is related to the topic being discussed?

off-topic this whole time & apology acepted

[globaljustin]

Are you capable of conceiving that someone can respond to a claim in a post which is related to the topic being discussed?

yes...here on /. it's called an 'off-topic' comment...also often can be a 'troll' comment as well

at the core

so you admit, finally, that this has been a rhetorical argument over a part of a sentence which was tangential to central point of my post

Lastly...you tacitly admit that you **AGREE** that TFA is *not* Quantum Computing...b/c true Quantum Computing must involve entanglement as discussed?

Have we reached that stage yet?

You are close to redemption

Quantum Physics

[Roger W Moore]

Quantum computers by their very nature employ quantum physics so I'm at a loss to see how a discussion on the nature of quantum physics can be considered "off-topic". I'm sorry but, other than curiosity to see how far Slashdot can nest comments, I really don't see that there is much point in continuing this.

Any sensible discussion requires two rational people. However it appears that having conceded the claim on quantum physics you are now determined to believe that we were having a conversation about something else entirely. Since facts and reality don't seem to be an obstacle for your belief there is not much to discuss because you are clearly capable of inventing and living in your own version of reality. At this point there is not much I can do because any facts I point out contrary to your imagined series of events are just ignored or denied. All I can suggest is that you seek some professional help.

red things are red b/c they are red_obv.

[globaljustin]

Answer this:

Is the computing method mentioned in The Fucking Article (TFA) truly 'quantum computing' or not?

I know they say it is 'quantum'....but look at their technique and answer is it truly 'quantum computing'?

also, you said:

However it appears that having conceded the claim on quantum physics you are now determined to believe that we were having a conversation about something else entirely

I didn't conceed any point. But don't bother pointing out where you think i did b/c it doesn't matter.

I quoted you here to illustrate a point. Your idea and my idea of what we are debating is different.

I said Quantum Computing must use 'entaglement' (as discussed) proper somehow in the system to be truly 'quantum computing'

certainly the nature of what defines 'quantum' is involved in that. but the **central question** of the post you replied to was asking if TFA was truly 'quantum computing'

You said that 'entanglement' (nonlocal, quant. teleportation) is not "at the core" of quantum physics...that's a rhetorical distinction that avoids the question...

whether you use the words 'at teh core' or 'fundament' is not part of my question **to which you responded**

now, either you answer on topic or continue trolling

Re:red things are red b/c they are red_obv.

[Roger W Moore]

Fact 1: You said "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics"

Fact 2: I replied refuting this claim and eventually having to stoop to giving page numbers to a book which I'm certain you have never bothered to check.

Fact 3: Immediately after this you suddenly switched to talking about quantum computers instead of quantum physics and insisting we talk about that.

Sorry but I'm not interested and despite your insistence I certainly don't have to engage in such a debate (indeed the fact that you believe you can insist on it is rather strange). If you can't agree with simple facts then there is no point because the evidence is there in front of you in black and white and if that can't convince you I honestly have no clue what will. Furthermore since the entire point of science is to put evidence above your own belief I see no way to debate a scientific topic with someone who can't do that.

out of context

[globaljustin]

your facts are wrong

your 'fact 1' is a fragment...it doesn't represent my point

I said that TFA was not truly 'quantum computing' b/c it didn't involve 'entanglement'

Just because you can pull a string of text from my post & make a counterpoint against that **isolated, context free fragment of words** doesn't mean your "Fact 2" refutes anything

You can't refute a **fragment of an argument** and say its a refutation of anything unless you **put in in context of the original statement**

All you've proven, for anyone still reading, is that you have been trolling this whole time...

try again...you can start being untrollface right now and redeem yourself by answering if you think what TFA research team is doing is true 'quantum computing'

so is it?

c'mon...you know I'll read it if you answer...

Your links Sound like a scam, quite frankly

[globaljustin]

do you possess links to these open published papers you speak of?

plz specify how they answer parent's questions as well...don't just copy/paste the links and hit 'publish'

Re:Your links Sound like a scam, quite frankly

[quax]

One of the earlier papers that supported their claim of actual quantum annealing is linked and discussed at this blog post.

D-Wave's publication list is too long at this point in order to give a synopsis here, but there are many blogs that follow this story, so it really isn't that hard to get a more up-to-date picture.

Re:Your links Sound like a scam, quite frankly

[globaljustin]

thanks!

if they were linked elsewhere I apologize...I didn't see them

I will have a look for sure...I've learned a few things reading this discussion

an answer we know?

[globaljustin]

couldn't we check a quantum computer's accuracy (probability) or w/e by asking it to solve a problem we know the answer to?