Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Created 'Quantum Artificial Life' For the First Time (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the pushing-the-limits dept.

From a report: For the first time, an international team of researchers has used a quantum computer to create artificial life -- a simulation of living organisms that scientists can use to understand life at the level of whole populations all the way down to cellular interactions. With the quantum computer, individual living organisms represented at a microscopic level with superconducting qubits were made to "mate," interact with their environment, and "die" to model some of the major factors that influence evolution. The new research, published in Scientific Reports on Thursday, is a breakthrough that may eventually help answer the question of whether the origin of life can be explained by quantum mechanics, a theory of physics that describes the universe in terms of the interactions between subatomic particles. Modeling quantum artificial life is a new approach to one of the most vexing questions in science: How does life emerge from inert matter, such as the "primordial soup" of organic molecules that once existed on Earth?

28 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. And all *this* with 5 qubits? by PaulBu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Incredible! :)

  2. Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, this is getting utterly ridiculous and not in any funny sense. That whole "quantum computing" thing is nonsense, get over it. And stop to find "new" applications that nobody needs and that work better on a classical computer anyways.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Publish or perish. Beats getting a real job though.

    2. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If quantum computers worked as D-Wave advertised, they would be great, but so would perpetual motion machines and snake oil.

      FTFY

      Quantum computing is in its infancy. Everyone (except Geordie Rose, presumably) knows that all we have right are proof-of-concept toys which don't solve any problem any better than well-tuned classical solvers, and also that we probably won't any time soon.

      Nonetheless, it's in the nature of the tech industry to overestimate the short-term impact of a new technology and underestimate its long-term impact. Snake oil was a patent medicine, but so were aspirin, Vicks Vapo Rub, and tonic water.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Quantum blockchain AI even.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      All you need to know is author information:

      Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940, Leioa, Spain
      Department of Physics, Shanghai University, 200444, Shanghai, China

      Those two universities have had more "research" retracted than the rest combined.

    5. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Publish or perish. Beats getting a real job though.

      As opposed to produce or perish?

      A university researcher's job is just as "real" as anyone else's. There are deadlines, budgets, evaluations, deliverables, conferences, reports, meetings, and so on.

      It's not easy to get a job doing university research. The pay is low compared to industry. People do it for the love of knowledge more than for the money.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Quantum computing is in its infancy.

      After 40 years of intense research? I don't think so. It is a dud. Whether it dies by not scaling or by not actually delivering the operations it promises to is immaterial in the end (for computing). Although the 2nd possibility may have interesting implications for Physics.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      After 40 years of intense research?

      Just like fusion power, yes.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    8. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      As far as I can see, one class of problems where quantum computers can be useful, if they can be gotten to work, is in cracking encryption. Encryption can be, and is, crafted such that conventional deterministic solutions take impractical amounts of time. In principle, quantum computers can crack such encryption quite quickly. Testing to see if the quantum solution is correct -- it won't always be due to "leakage" of the correct answer out of the system -- is trivial. If you don't get a good answer, you just try again.

      There is little doubt that many governments are interested in quantum computing. Are they likely to tell us if their efforts are successful?

      Probably not.

      Other than that, I agree with you. It's mostly nonsensical. The utility of a "computer" that randomly fails to generate a correct answer is likely to be limited.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    9. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Snake oil was a patent medicine, but so were aspirin, Vicks ..." ... and don't forget Coca-Cola with real cocaine

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    10. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Not even that. For block-ciphers, a working QC halves the key-length. That means AES-256 is not breakable with a QC in this universe and even AES-128 may be secure due to the extreme effort needed. That is for a known-plaintext attack. For things like RSA, you need to be able to put in the whole problem in one go. That means a huge number of entangled qbits, which may just be infeasible.

      So no, I doubt even this use-case will materialize.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Fusion power is different. They do have real advances and they have the issue that their machines take decades to build.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Quantum computing is in its infancy.

      After 40 years of intense research? I don't think so. It is a dud.

      Not necessarily. What happens is that all the easy problems have already been solved. In a number of fields, making further progress has become exponentially more difficult for a while now. Theoretical physics has been mostly stagnant for the last 40 years in part because of that. As far as quantum computing is concerned, 90% of the donkey work is already done. The remaining 10% will take 90% of the total time - assuming that it is doable.

    13. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Cracking most of the current asymmetric ciphers. When it comes to symmetric ciphers, quantum computing does indeed help, but it is trivial to enhance existing ciphers so that they become resistant to QC. As for asymmetric ciphers there already are QC-resistant schemes. By the time sufficiently capable QC becomes available (if it ever does) it will probably be a matter of little more than throwing a switch to transition to such schemes.

    14. Re:Great, more Quantum Bullshit! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      So you predict we have the whole thing (if possible) in 400 years or so? Makes sense to me.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. You need to add some more terms by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Funny

    like blockchain and bookface integration and self-driving to get enough words for BS Bingo, /s

  4. Our story so far by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This...is technobabble.

    Insofar as life started by bootstrapping from inanimate complex molecules, it isn't a difficult concept, and requires discrete units of atoms and molecules with real properties.

    There's nothing directly quantum required as life is all about chemistry at a very gross scale above the quantum.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Our story so far by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      My opinion also. The early Earth apparently had liquid water although it's unclear quite how since the sun was, in principle, quite dim back then. There are numerous known mechanisms for producing organic compounds if there is nothing around to eat them. Presumably self replicating organic compounds will eventually appear by pure chance if a complex organic soup sits around long enough. And life as we know it eventually evolved.

      The details are quite hazy and seem likely to remain hazy for decades or maybe centuries.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Our story so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I mostly agree that the article is technobabble (we've known about dynamic programming for a long time, and there's nothing quantum about it). Cells are indeed just a mass of molecules arranged in a certain way so that they can perform reactions and reproduce.

      However, I think that some of those chemical reactions are helped by quantum effects (I vaguely remember that mitochondria, in particular, due to their geometric configuration, "use" quantum effects to speed up their energy production beyond normal chemical limits, as do some catalysts). I thought the article would discuss those, as in "we designed a minimal living cell, and we can explain how it works in the quantum realm". Now that article I would have loved to read !

  5. Quantum artificial life by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Quantum artificial life may be both about life, and about death. You only know when you observe it.

  6. When I poo in the woods by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I call it cranking a steamer. The steam is strong on this one. I think there are more chaotic fluctuations in the poo steam than 5 cubits could model. And my life is profoundly influences by the beauty of that steam. I really don't think they can model life.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:When I poo in the woods by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      yes I know conway, Did you have a point here? it's eluding me.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  7. They should create... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    a quantum Shrodinger's cat!

  8. Miller Urey Experiment by buravirgil · · Score: 1

    I always make a reference of their experiment when I am at a mall where those glass sealed ecospheres are sold. I think, âoeWith a battery powered arc and a better guess as to Earthâ(TM)s early atmosphere, and I could have some friends...if I lived long enough!â

    --
    Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
  9. Re:So they wrote conways game of life? by jtgd · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, I bet that was hard eh?

    Except that each cell is alive, dead, or both.

    --
    J
  10. Re:Conways game of life with qubits? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    Conway's game of life. Yep. That was my first thought also. Not that getting a quantum computer to play CGL wouldn't be a remarkable achievement. But not, I think, one that would provide much insight into the origin of life.

    (Why would anyone think that the origin of life has, much less requires, a quantum explanation?)

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  11. Astounding what gets published in Science nowadays by quax · · Score: 1

    This was done with five noisy qubits. Everything that such a chip can do can be simulated at much higher quality on classical machines. Five quibits you could even simulate on your cell phone.

    I am running a start-up that is exploring what kind of use you can get out of near term noisy quantum computers (50 qubits and beyond).

    BS hype like this is not helping.