physorg.com— Light is the solution. It's also the problem. That's the paradox HP Labs' Quantum Information Processing Group is beginning to unravel with its research into optical quantum computing.
Apr 26, 2006View in Crawl 4
I totally agree! Self advertsing is WRONG.Hey women, I am 25 year old bachelor, with a good build. Come and get me and I gurantee you will be happy! ;-) Just search hot men on google images and you will see what I look like.<a class="user" href="http://www.google.com">http://www.google.com</a>
yes Cornstar, that's a major issue. and there's already been an algorithm devised (maybe several, im referring to Shor's algorithm here) that can take advantage of a quantum computer to factor extremely large numbers. the first full-blown quantum computer will spell the end to any RSA type encryption, and compromise pretty much anything else out there.but quantum computers open the door to new encryption algorithms, and hopefully something solid will be in place before the NSA gets their hands on a fully function quantum computer.
The problem with optical quantum computers is that they are bigger than a solid state or molecular quantum computer. However, they shouldn't need extremely low temperatures and shouldn't have problems associated with decoherence.
"pi is one of the prototypical irrational numbers (the other being e)."Sigh. pi and e are *transcendental* numbers. Being irrational is run-of-the-mill; e.g, the square root of every integer that isn't a perfect square is irrational. The first number proved to be irrational was sqrt(2), so that is the "prototypical" irrational number if anything is -- but nothing is; it's a ridiculous notion and an abuse of language.
"I admit I am a bit of a n00b when it comes to physics, but isn't there some uncertainty principle that dictates that you cannot measure too much about something like a photon without modifying it? "The Heisenberg principle only applies to certain pairs of observables, such as position and momentum. And it's not the same thing as the observer effect, which is what you're referring to. Indeed it's not possible -- as a matter of information theory -- to observe a system (obtain information about it) without perturbing it, but that in no way implies that detecting a photon must destroy it.
silentpurityApr 27, 2006
I totally agree! Self advertsing is WRONG.Hey women, I am 25 year old bachelor, with a good build. Come and get me and I gurantee you will be happy! ;-) Just search hot men on google images and you will see what I look like.<a class="user" href="http://www.google.com">http://www.google.com</a>
rolandogApr 27, 2006
What if Pi is a recursive number? What is the chance of finding Pi within Pi?
fluxionApr 27, 2006
yes Cornstar, that's a major issue. and there's already been an algorithm devised (maybe several, im referring to Shor's algorithm here) that can take advantage of a quantum computer to factor extremely large numbers. the first full-blown quantum computer will spell the end to any RSA type encryption, and compromise pretty much anything else out there.but quantum computers open the door to new encryption algorithms, and hopefully something solid will be in place before the NSA gets their hands on a fully function quantum computer.
pozzoeApr 28, 2006
The problem with optical quantum computers is that they are bigger than a solid state or molecular quantum computer. However, they shouldn't need extremely low temperatures and shouldn't have problems associated with decoherence.
ianamApr 28, 2006
"pi is one of the prototypical irrational numbers (the other being e)."Sigh. pi and e are *transcendental* numbers. Being irrational is run-of-the-mill; e.g, the square root of every integer that isn't a perfect square is irrational. The first number proved to be irrational was sqrt(2), so that is the "prototypical" irrational number if anything is -- but nothing is; it's a ridiculous notion and an abuse of language.
ianamApr 28, 2006
"I admit I am a bit of a n00b when it comes to physics, but isn't there some uncertainty principle that dictates that you cannot measure too much about something like a photon without modifying it? "The Heisenberg principle only applies to certain pairs of observables, such as position and momentum. And it's not the same thing as the observer effect, which is what you're referring to. Indeed it's not possible -- as a matter of information theory -- to observe a system (obtain information about it) without perturbing it, but that in no way implies that detecting a photon must destroy it.