Slashdot Mirror
First Evidence That Google's Quantum Computer May Not Be Quantum After All
KentuckyFC writes "In May last year, Google and NASA paid a reported $15 million for a quantum computer from the controversial Canadian start up D-Wave Systems. One question mark over the device is whether it really is quantum or just a conventional computer in disguise. That's harder to answer than it sounds, not least because any direct measurement of a quantum state destroys it. So physicists have to take an indirect approach. They assume the computer is a black box in which they can input data and receive an output. Given this input and output, the question is whether this computing behavior can be best reproduced by a classical or a quantum algorithm. Last summer, an international team of scientists compared a number of classical algorithms against an algorithm that relies on a process called quantum annealing. Their conclusion was that quantum annealing best reproduces the D-Wave computer's behavior, a result that was a huge boon for the company. Now a group from UC Berkeley and IBM's Watson Research Lab says it has a found a classical algorithm that explains the results just as well, or even better, than quantum annealing. In other words, the results from the D-Wave machine could just as easily be explained if it was entirely classical. That comes on the back of mounting evidence that the D-Wave computer may not cut the quantum mustard in other ways too. Could it be that Google and NASA have forked out millions for a classical calculator?"
I am at such a loss of understanding what exactly quantum computers are and how they work (no matter how hard I try)... so it makes me feel like less of an idiot when I find out that it's so complicated that even Google engineers aren't even sure if what they have IS one.
Maybe it simultaneously both is and isn't a Quantum computer? :-P
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Unless the act of trying to find out changes the answer, of course.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You changed the outcome by measuring it!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I have a device for sale which generates free, unlimited power. The catch is that you cannot measure the power output or it won't function. If you put any load on the device you are directly or indirectly measuring the power, and thus it won't work. So just know up front that stipulation and use the device accordingly.
Better known as 318230.
Negative, each red LED makes the computer 1(one) faster. A P-III with one red LED is functionally equivalent to a P-IV.
Unfortunately, given predominance of heteronormative patriarchal culture, PIV is problematic and females cannot be said to have truly consented to using these machines.
This is why Apple products don't have red LEDs, and are popular with females whilst technically 1(one) slower. Most females can detect attempts to 'red light' PIV consent even remotely, so unless you can identify server traffic by bit-gender it's best to use the slower machines.
If you can identify bit-gender reliably, masculine traffic is unproblematic processed by PIV methods, feminine traffic should be directed to a cluster of co-operating P-III servers.
Hope that helps.