Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Vote on "quantum computing"

Do anyone think that "quantum computing' will EVER work? Is it not just a new catchphrase to rob the funsding agencies of millions of dollars? So let us vote. Those the that believe that quantum computing is possible vote "yes". Those who do not believe it will ever work vote "no".

Vote on quantum computing single choice
	Do you believe "quantum computing" is possible?
	Do you believe that "quantum computing" is a mirage?
Votes accepted starting: 01/01/70 12:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

its possible. it may take a long time, but i dont see it not every happening.

Hi Jonny Boy,

Interesting topic. My "gut feel" on quantum computing is that it probably will not work out.

I am remined of analog computing (as opposed to digital) that was around up to about the 70's. There were several groups attempting to make general analog computing a practical reality. They actually did pretty good, but the price of a digital computer dropped like a stone with the appearence of the mini and then the micro computer. At that point it made more sense to wite a software program for a digital machine.

Another thing that occurs to me is the question: does the phrase "quantum computing" make any sense? What is the difference between a "computable function" and a "quantum computable function. By way of analogy we could ask what is the difference between "analogically computable functions" and "digitally computable functions"? The short answer is None!. This is because each is just a different way to compute the same class of functions.

well then - Suppose that someone does come up with a "quantum computer" - how would you program it? I am well aware that there has been research into this question, but there is a more practical problem. I have run into many computer programmers during my career and most of them are not too good at it. Most of them lack advanced mathematics and physics. This is not true of all programmers by any means, but the rank and file is not prepared to deal with quantum mechanics any more than they are to prepared to write FFT's.

My feeling is that the whole idea of quantum computing is sort of vague. This is no surprise - anyone who has studied quantum theory to any depth knows that it can be down right confusing. Just when you think you've got it figured - another surprise pops up.

Dr. R.

YES!

Only totally ignorant person can believe that we can control something, the machinery of which we know so little about.

ES

I think there is a fair chance of making Quantum Computing work, however I am talking about "classical" computing using Quantum states.
However "Super Quantum Computing" (the parrallel universe based parrallel processing boost achieved by using Quantum States in Superposition), is con. Its just "perpetual motion machine" with an information processing twist.
If they ever acheived a real quantum superposition (rather than just beleiving they have), and it could survive being used in processing without collapsing, then it would make Boolean logic impossible. This is because there is no information content in a Quantum Superposition (unless there was a way of testing a qubit to see if it was both a 0 and 1 at the same time, in which case the QS would actually be a third state).

This is what I meant by "quantum computing" when I posted this vote.

Quantum computing has already been made to work. If I remember it correctly, IBM successfully implemented Shor's algorithm and factored the number 15 using 7 qubits.

I believe that large scale quantum computing will happen if the technical challenges posed by decoherence etc. can be solved. Even if it costs hundreds of billions to build one, if it can be done it will be done because such a machine is able to crack the RSA code (using Shor's algorithm numbers can be factored in poynomial time).

Almost all of the secure communications can then be decoded using ordinary computers. You only need the quantum computer to find the key to decode messages.

the Count is correct. It has already been proven to work. What is in question is just how to make it commercially viable.

Here you go again.

Do you know how well the thing scales?

In what way does performance depend on the size of problem?

Hoax is a hoax, no ifs and buts.

ES