Scientists finally prove that a quantum computer can unconditionally outperform classical computers

​

 

So WHAT??? Who is going to write the code to run on those faster computer??? And how many problems REALLY need to be answered faster??
Mostly it seems it will be like a fast car: WHERE can I legally drive 120 MPH?? And what would it gain me?? My bank does not need a faster computer, nor my credit card folks. Even NASA is doing quite well with whatever computers they use.

 

Science seeks to understand and explain the natural world by developing theories about how things work, while engineering applies scientific knowledge to create practical solutions for problems by designing and building new technologies, devices, and systems.

In my opinion, quantum computing is currently in its scientific research phase. Applications will come later, of that I'm sure. Although I have no idea as of how much later, I have to admit.

 

So WHAT??? Who is going to write the code to run on those faster computer??? And how many problems REALLY need to be answered faster??
Mostly it seems it will be like a fast car: WHERE can I legally drive 120 MPH?? And what would it gain me?? My bank does not need a faster computer, nor my credit card folks. Even NASA is doing quite well with whatever computers they use.

Hi,

It might seem redundant but it can't be. That's because since the dawn of computers we've always been looking for faster CPU's. Maybe you have never been involved with incredibly difficult calculations that need a long time to complete, but it's always the faster the better. If you have done any complicated circuit simulations you would note that some circuits take a long time to calculate up to the point in time you need to see the results for. In that case it would be really great to have a faster CPU, and something that can break all records with regard to speed would be really nice to have. 1 second vs 1000 seconds, or even 1 second vs 10000 seconds.

As to applications, I believe that parallel processing will help with that a lot. Is it possible that some applications can not be broken up into parts to handle each calculation separately? Sure, but for the ones that can be, it's a modern marvel for sure

 

Hello again,

So what is going to happen when 'ai' meets quantum computing meets robotics?

'ai' will be able to think faster than us and more accurately using quantum computing, robots will be able to work faster than us with more precision.
What jobs are going to be left for us to do? I can't think of one that will be left even the more advanced to the simplest any person can do.

Even scientists that work in quantum computing will be superseded because 'ai' will be able to figure out the next steps and robots will be able to put it all together, as well as mine the necessary materials and form them into any necessary components.

So what will be left.
Maybe everyone will just goof around and play games, and governments will have to go full socialist except maybe with the guarantee of employment becoming the guarantee of not needing to work anymore at all.
I guess we will still have mating activities unless robots become so much better, then mating might be with robots instead of humans.
So in the end we all get bored and nobody produces new babies anymore

It's a little interesting though that smart robots will be able to get to other star systems without any trouble. It will probably still take a long time, but they won't care. If we do really see UFO's today that are really from another star system, maybe that's all that we would be seeing because it's a lot harder for biological life to travel into far regions of the universe.

Today's itinerary: Lunch with coffee, meeting at 5pm, maybe Columbo later, then sleep.
Future itinerary: Lunch, then go back to sleep

 

In response to robots being able to get to other star systems: Long before that, AI will realize the lack of benefit and stop wasting resources on it.
Competent AI will consider the cost to benefit ratio and stop wasting efforts that only satisfy curiosity. That will be the end of space exploration as we know it.

 

In response to robots being able to get to other star systems: Long before that, AI will realize the lack of benefit and stop wasting resources on it.
Competent AI will consider the cost to benefit ratio and stop wasting efforts that only satisfy curiosity. That will be the end of space exploration as we know it.

Hi,

That makes sense, but one thing I won't do is try to predict what 'ai' will do or why they might do it any time in the future

 

Predicting errors is a big part of safety engineering. There is no limit to the dumb things some people will try. It was why I refused to even quote equipment for a few countries. (Explanation withheld because it is rude.)

 

When 'ai' and quantum computing merge, we are all going to be pretty bored.
Maybe we should be thankful QC is taking so long to perfect.

 

Quantum Computing, a bit like working fusion energy, is still a few years down the road. Which is fine with me, because almost all software reflects the attitudes of those who produce it. Many will attempt to refute that assertion, but we only need to look at the biggest operating system to prove it beyond any rational discussion.

 

Quantum Computing, a bit like working fusion energy, is still a few years down the road. Which is fine with me, because almost all software reflects the attitudes of those who produce it. Many will attempt to refute that assertion, but we only need to look at the biggest operating system to prove it beyond any rational discussion.

Hi,

Yeah I noticed that too. The really nutty part is that they sometimes flip flop between one idealism and another. In a previous OP SYS they do one thing, then in the next version they do another thing, then in the next one after that they are back to the first one. Really crazy stuff for a major player. It's like little kids are programming some of this stuff, no kidding. Add functionality, forget about fixing stuff. That's the trademark of a beginner programmer.

Maybe we are seeing a little of that with QC and fusion. I don't think it is as bad with those though.

 

What I see is folks having well paying low stress careers without ever producing much that has actual commercial value. Still not as useless as astronomers, providing information about things that happened far away a thousand years ago.
Consider that even with travel at light speed, going a distance of a hundred light years would still take a hundred years. o what is the point????

 

What I see is folks having well paying low stress careers without ever producing much that has actual commercial value. Still not as useless as astronomers, providing information about things that happened far away a thousand years ago.
Consider that even with travel at light speed, going a distance of a hundred light years would still take a hundred years. o what is the point????

Hi,

I think eventually it will become less important to everyone who does not work in that field unless we discover something really groundbreaking like faster than light travel for things that are much larger than particles.

The value for most of this stuff seems to be for the future of mankind, and very little for present day. Maybe we will get lucky though like with the work done by Einstein. There are some technologies that depend on knowing how the way things change as speed and distance from other objects change. We might say though that the funny thing is that if we ended up with GPS without relativity, it would have been immediately noticed that something wasn't working right, and then adjustments would have been made even without knowing about the specifics of relativity theory.

A lot of theory is just so that we can manage what we see in real life a little better and maybe faster. Some theory though seems to be for future endeavors only. I don't think relativity theory was used for much right away.

 

Travel to a distant planet with a hostile atmosphere does not seem like a good use of resources at all. Even travel to the moon, which certainly was interesting, does not make sense because the atmosphere will not support human life, and probably not even useful plants can grow there. Once again the engineers challenge: "Just because I Can do it, Should I do it".

 

There are other reasons to travel, and possibly populate the moon. One of them could be strategic spatial presence. Just like the island of Malta is nothing but bare rock in the middle of the Mediterranean, at one point it was strategically crucial to hold control over it. Even if it couldn't really "sustain life" and depended on a constant flow of supplies from the outside world.

 

Travel to a distant planet with a hostile atmosphere does not seem like a good use of resources at all. Even travel to the moon, which certainly was interesting, does not make sense because the atmosphere will not support human life, and probably not even useful plants can grow there. Once again the engineers challenge: "Just because I Can do it, Should I do it".

Hi,

Well they have a goal to get to Mars, you know, Hell, and to do that (ha ha) they figure that establishing a colony on the Moon will allow takeoffs and landings with MUCH less energy. In fact, to get to Mars (aka Hell) the energy needs have to be reduced in order to allow carrying enough cargo to make it like life sustaining supplies. As it stands now, I don't think we could start out on the journey to Mars because of all the stuff we have to carry and how much fuel that would require which adds more weight too. I think there are some limits to the size of the rocket and boosters and all that, and it takes a lot to break out of the Earths gravity. Mars, with something like 40 percent of Earths gravity, would allow rockets to take off with much less fuel. The escape velocity is something like 5 times lower for the Moon, and energy requirements something like 20 times less. The idea is to bring stuff to the Moon a little at a time, and build some things up there before launch.

It's also interesting that the fuel to total launch weight for leaving Earth is around 90 percent, while for the Moon it is around 50 percent. In round numbers, if we want to launch 1000 pounds of cargo from the Earth we need 9000 pounds of fuel, but from the Moon we only need around 1000 pounds of fuel.
The question then seems that we have to think about how to get the fuel from Earth to the Moon to start with so we can take off from the Moon. Right now I read that it is very costly even to transport water, at more than $80k per gallon. The intent for the future (I read) is to make the fuel from resources on the Moon, apparently from soil and ice.

I still see problems ahead though mostly financial. I like to bring up distance, as a length, as the most important thing about the universe, but when it comes to financial issues it seems that the most important thing is area, which of course is length times width, and that is in the form of real estate. As real estate prices rise everything else rises because people have to pay rent and property taxes.
With this in mind, it's going to be more and more expensive to not only build and maintain on the Moon which is relatively close to us, but also anywhere else like Mars. This brings up the question if we will reach a point where we just can't do it financially. We've already seen that with the Shuttle where cost was a major consideration.

 

I tend to avoid visiting places where the weather is unpleasant. I would be even more inclined to avoid visiting places where the air was toxic, or simply would not support life. I am very much in the habit of breathing air.
I can se that the moon might have some military value, but consider that any missile launched from Mars could be seen for several hours and certainly intercepted.

 

I tend to avoid visiting places where the weather is unpleasant. I would be even more inclined to avoid visiting places where the air was toxic, or simply would not support life. I am very much in the habit of breathing air.
I can se that the moon might have some military value, but consider that any missile launched from Mars could be seen for several hours and certainly intercepted.

Hi,

I don't think the goals for Mars include military projects at least not for any protections on Earth, but who knows. I think the return trip could be nine months which would probably be worthless. Even a radio signal takes around 5 to 20 minutes one way I think.

The main idea I think is to keep the human species alive at least somewhere in the universe in case of an extinction event on Earth. I am not sure if this is going to be practical though because of the challenges which have yet to be even attempted and maybe not even figured out yet.

 

 

I wish she'd buy a new blouse.