What is Digg?105 Comments
- Jonez176, on 06/29/2008, -1/+72"two quantum computers could, in concept, communicate instantaneously across any distance imaginable, even across solar systems."
My brain just cracked. - supremebeing18, on 06/29/2008, -2/+31'"Our experiment made us realize that industrial electronic devices have now reached the level where we can study and manipulate the state of a single atom," Rogge says. "This is the ultimate limit, you can not get smaller than that."'
Anyone else think that the last statement may be proven false in the future? - MorphicMusic, on 06/29/2008, -3/+29SKYNET Stock up!
- SpykerSpeed, on 06/29/2008, -1/+19Instantaneous downloads... no more Time Warner/Comcast/ATT/etc.
- jacobu9, on 06/29/2008, -0/+15I'm pretty sure that that statement is in fact wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_communication_theo ...
While it's true that the wave-function collapse of one particle in an entangled state determines the wave function collapse of another (regardless of physical separation), such knowledge cannot be used to transmit information since whatever eigenvalue pops out of the first observable is, while not necessarily random, certainly uncontrollable. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong though. - inactive, on 06/29/2008, -2/+16This is a common misunderstanding with quantum entanglement. In quantum mechanics, two particles are said to be entangled if they come into contact. Suppose we have two particles, one is UP and the other is DOWN. To quantum mechanics their state is a superposition of both UP and DOWN (that is, both particles are up and down, basically, really, a 50/50 chance for it) until the system is observed. Once the system is observed (by observing one particle, probably) you learn that it is UP. So automatically, the other particle is DOWN and the system collapses (like detangling).
The note to make with this, however, is that information cannot be transmitted this way, at all. Undergraduates and Graduate students (even Professors) have been trying to bend the rules of logic to get around this. Information, as we know it, cannot travel faster than the speed of light. - Todamont, on 06/29/2008, -1/+14Quantum entanglement is not limited by light speed. This is what prompted Einstein to call it "spooky action at a distance". However, in order for two Qbits to become entangled, they must be in proximity. So you could theoretically send bits across galaxies, but you would first have to traverse that same distance with one of the qbits in tow.
- Jonez176, on 06/29/2008, -0/+13Sorry, man. Mine didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity - subterfuge, on 06/29/2008, -4/+16it is true - quantum entanglement can be used to make quantum computers or it can be used in quantum telecommunications, but not both simultaneously. that's like saying a telephone is a computer, when it's just a transmitter of information.
in quantum computers, at least two (but preferably many more) molecules or atoms are entangled, and triggering a certain event will cause an answer to be produced. in quantum telecommunications, two molecules or atoms are entangled, and flipping the spin of one results in a flipping in the spin of the other, no matter how far apart they are. but i believe the article is also wrong in saying that the flipping is instantaneous. i have read that the flipping is limited by the speed of light. - sockpuppets, on 06/29/2008, -2/+132 words-
delicious bacon - Jonez176, on 06/29/2008, -1/+11Doubtful... However, ping times would be near 0ms. A problem in today's internet is that ping times are approaching the speed of electricity, and that can't feasibly be solved.. yet.
- Unknown038, on 06/29/2008, -1/+9welcome to the ansible network
- kansoki, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7Actually, this will happen with multi-core parallel systems very soon, but quantum computing hasn't been shown to be able to outperform classical computers in any of these types of tasks. It's parallelism is very limited to specific kinds of operations that are not easily generalized to speeding up basic computing tasks.
- Ev3nt372, on 06/29/2008, -1/+8Are you suggesting that with these Quantum Computers I would be able to play TF2 with my buddies on Alpha Centauri at 0 ping as opposed to 2.84*10^14?
- DifferentAngle, on 06/29/2008, -4/+11This is completely false - it's a technique that has nothing to do with quantum computers
- EvilFerret, on 06/29/2008, -1/+8Bah I just ordered new parts for a computer too, every ***** time. Alright where do I pre-order quantum hardware?
- CCoe, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7Subspace communication! Next we discover warp drive, and then the Vulcans make contact.
- Khast, on 06/29/2008, -2/+8Okay, Quantum theory also states, that if observed, it would act like we'd expect.... Wouldn't the act of asking it to look up information....be observing it?
Quantum physics is interesting, whether we'll actually be able to harness it....I'll believe it when I "observe" it. - BlueSkyfish, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7Yes, but we can't manipulate the charge of those particles yet.
- Jaydude765, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Then the Borg only send one ship at a time and we keep winning against all odds.
- sprash, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7For those who are interested, here is a basic Quantum computer simulator:
http://jquantum.sourceforge.net/jQuantumApplet.htm ...
In order to use it you have to know what the gates are actually doing (I recommend to look it up at wikipedia). If you know the basics in quantum mechanics it is not that hard. Creating useful algorithms with those gates on the other hand is not that intuitive even if you know what each gate does. - thcobbs, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6santaliquer
Its not that there's a "speed of electricity" per se, but there is such a thing as propagation delay due to the medium of the transport. And there are physical limits. - kansoki, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5I think it was confusing because they said "looking up a person's phone number", given the name. Generally phone books are sorted by name, so the way they phrased it in the article, most people would assume to be a sorted list.
- Auxon, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5Nothing to do with quantum computing. You can do that now with applications. In fact that's the way computers started out ... dumb terminals on a mainframe. The only difference you are talking about is better support for graphics.
- Auxon, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5Multithreading is still serial ... the processor switches between threads, only making a single evaluation at a time. Multi-CPU or Multi-Core would be a better point.
- Auxon, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4Look up entanglement, i.e. "Spooky action at a distance." It's difficult to describe it in a short comment. Two or more particles are connected by entanglement such that one instantaeously responds to the other's state when it is changed ... no matter the distance. There are many theories on entanglement, but it remains the biggest and strangest mystery of all.
- ginestony, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4would that nix the need for bandwidth if data could be transferred from one computer to another simultaneously? Comcast is going to be pissed.
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4"decoherence"... not detangling
but I did giggle :P - BazookaCamel, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5Great, now that we've developed an ansible we can finally take down the Buggers!
- ryouko, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4Call me when Jane exists.
- aadnk, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4Not if the entries where shuffled and given random positions, but sure, it does miss the huge time-saving a sorted list brings to the table.
- sprash, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4How is this a fallacy?
In the worst case a calssical computer has to look at each entry in an unsorted list to find the right name.
A quantum computer would need the squareroot of the total number of entries in an unsorted list to find the correct name. - kansoki, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3In quantum computing, you actually perform a set of transformations on all quantum states at the same time, without observing anything. You are dealing only with probabilities for what you might observe, if you chose to do so. You only observe once, at the end of all of your transformations, and that observation is your final answer.
- Auxon, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Since of course, we determine which particle is which based on the charge or "color" or other quantum property. A negatively charged electron is a positron, for example. Can we change one into another? Yes, by using colliders and other means, but not without side effects (like the emission or absorbtion of another particles energy). If the particles are actually the same things ... just the charge that is different, then the state of the charge is being changed.
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3@thcobbs
not with quantum entanglement
Theoretically, with entanglement, you could transmit data across any distance... instantaneously - john2kx, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3@ Jonez176:
When quantum computing arrives, ping times almost certainly would no longer be measured in milliseconds. If we're talking about the instantaneous communication that is conceptually possible with quantum computers, the term "ping time" would become obsolete.
Hell, a millisecond is actually a very long time for any computer.. A typical 2 GHz CPU executes stages of instructions every .5 microseconds - three orders of magnitude less than .5 milliseconds. - dukeochutney, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2too complicated for the digg users.
- specialK16, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3/head explodes.
- 4DFX, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2It's not exactly doing it at the potential speed of a quantum computer...
- DigitAl56K, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3Recursion is still serial, you only make a single evaluation at a time.
Multithreading would be a better point. - pitlord, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but can it play Crysis?
>.> - jamessavik, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3All this talk of quantum possibilities has given part of my brain a splitting and the other part is just fine.
- SpykerSpeed, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3OMFG, GO HONEYBEEES!
- ironsam, on 06/29/2008, -4/+6Interesting, but it's hard to take this article seriously when fallacies such as this are presented:
"If a traditional computer were given the task of looking up a person's phone number in a telephone book, it would look at each name in order until it found the right number." - crodragn, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2By my understanding of quantum computing (which I'll admit could be wrong) the basics are this: You start out with q-bits in states which represent every possible solution. You then perform a series of operations on those q-bits, which ensure that all "wrong" answers are destroyed, i.e. the only way the q-bits could pass those gates is if they were in a certain correct configuration. Finally, you measure the state of the q-bits at the end to determine the final correct answer.
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2no, but nice try.
A quantum computer produces an "answer" in the form of an interference pattern.
example: if you make an interference pattern on a sheet of paper, using a laser through double slits... you are not going to collapse the wavefunction by viewing the interference pattern... because at that point, the wavefunctions have already collapsed - sering, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1that's nice
http://ekkei.com
http://forexposed.com
http://tembol.freehostia.com/ - inactive, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Here is something you might find interesting. There exists a quantum algorithm for quantum computers which can factor numbers into their primes really fast. That will make RSA easy to break!
- zaptoman, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1So, when do I get to fly the Heart of Gold?
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1I think they were just trying to make an analogy similar to the "encryption" description... where each number would have to be calculated one by one on a classical computer... where all of them could be calculated at once, in a quantum computer
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is