D-Wave Quantum Computing Solution Raises More Questions 143
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.'"
entangled entanglement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:entangled entanglement (Score:5, Funny)
how do you show the presence of entanglement without disturbing it?
You ask Schrodinger's cat. He has the answer...
Re: (Score:3)
how do you show the presence of entanglement without disturbing it?
Analyze it with a quantum computer.
Correlation (Score:4)
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: (Score:2)
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:entangled entanglement (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Experimentally entanglement is shown most strongly in the form of Bell violations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem [wikipedia.org]
as e.g.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08363.html [nature.com]
did.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs D-Wave anyway? (Score:1)
Sounds like a scam, quite frankly (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Your links Sound like a scam, quite frankly (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
One of the earlier papers that supported their claim of actual quantum annealing is linked and discussed at this blog post [wavewatching.net].
D-Wave's publication list [dwavesys.com] 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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, that's great. But finding that graph homomorphism? Probably NP-Complete itself. Figuring out how slowly to evolve the system? I have
Re:Sounds like a scam, quite frankly (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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 [pnas.org] 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: (Score:2)
I think the search that you refer to is Grover's algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover's_algorithm [wikipedia.org]
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 [wikipedia.org]
I have a similar question to yours. Do the D-Wave people claim any mapping of their hardware to a known quantum algorithm such
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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. [wavewatching.net]
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No, "not in stealth mode" means they are now publishing like clockwork.
Enlightment is just one scholar.google.com search away. [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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. [wavewatching.net]
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. Ross
Re: (Score:2)
Nature has been duped before. They are just better fraudsters than small-time Rossi is.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [dwavesys.com]
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: (Score:2)
I do not dispute their adiabatic chip. I dispute that it is of any use.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, that makes more sense.
The jury is certainly still out on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should post some of your concerns to this reddit group [reddit.com] that has people who actually work with D-Wave boxes.
Hasn't the benchmarks put it above anything? (Score:1)
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 u
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [archduke.org] also includes a link to the source code [github.com] 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 [ibm.com]. 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: (Score:2)
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 domai
Has it gotten faster than traditional computers? (Score:1)
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 (Score:1)
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 [wikipedia.org]
if a research group **truly** were able to maintain a standing quantum entangled state with **non-local force transfer** and **quantum teleportation of information** [wikipedia.org] then that would be, essentially, the
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Deep breaths (Score:2)
So you might want to take a deep breath and calm down a little. Trying to claim that t
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Science (Score:2)
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
You are perturbed I am ****right**** (Score:2)
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 scien
What evidence? (Score:2)
I have rep
guide for how you present 'evidence' (Score:2)
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
Re: What evidence? YOU present some for once (Score:2)
As for me providing evidence you are the one making the claim so the onus is on you to prove what
Re: (Score:2)
yes...I really do want a source (Score:2)
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
I wrote it in all caps 3x....i made a s
how about **YOUR** textbook (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 experimenta
Re: (Score:2)
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
so you don't have a source (Score:2)
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" (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 h
could've done this 12 comments ago (Score:2)
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 'q
Re: (Score:2)
why didn't you respond this way before?
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 (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 the
now respond to this part: TFA is not QC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you didn't respond_TFA is not CQ (Score:2)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
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
respond to this: (Score:2)
is the work in TFA true 'quantum computing'?
you can either answer, or write more rhetorical avoidance....
Re: (Score:2)
off-topic this whole time & apology acepted (Score:2)
yes...here on /. it's called an 'off-topic' comment...also often can be a 'troll' comment as well
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 disc
Quantum Physics (Score:2)
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 so
red things are red b/c they are red_obv. (Score:2)
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:
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 h
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
out of context (Score:2)
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, fo
Just do it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 devic
Re: (Score:2)
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.
an answer we know? (Score:2)
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?
DWave itself is in an indeterminate quatum state (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Too much noise, all right (Score:1)
In the longterm of things, all proprietory systems will be just noise
Oh, no. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Never mind GTA - we might finally get to see what Crysis is like on full settings.
Question: How Quantum Is It? (Score:5, Funny)
When I recently sat down with D-Wave's CTO ... (Score:4, Informative)
... I got the impression that he is not overtly concerned about this ongoing controversy [wavewatching.net], 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: (Score:2)
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. [wavewatching.net]
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 [wavewatching.net].
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is operating close to absolute zero, and indeed the increase in noise with temperature severely degrades the machine's performance [wavewatching.net], but this is exactly as you'd expect, so I fail to see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem ... the central claim that their chip is a true quantum chip leveraging qubit entanglement has been demonstrated i.e. this paper [arxiv.org].
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. [dwavesys.com]
Programming the D-Wave chip is nothing but i