Readit News logoReadit News
drkevorkian commented on Looking at some claims that quantum computers won't work   blog.cr.yp.to/20250118-fl... · Posted by u/gjvc
jiggawatts · a year ago
> complex Hilbert space in 2^n dimensions

A very simple argument is that there's strong reasons to believe that energy is required to represent all information in the physical universe. You can't have "states" without mass/energy storing that state somewhere.

2^n is clearly super-linear in 'n', so as you scale to many particles, the equations suggest that you'd need a ludicrously huge state space, which requires a matching amount of energy to store. Clearly, this is not what happens, increasing the mass/energy of a system 10x doesn't result in 2^10 = 1024x as much mass/energy. You get 10x, plus or minus a correction for binding energy, GR, or whatever.

Quantum Computing is firmly based on pretending that this isn't how it is, that somehow you can squeeze 2^n bits of information out of a system with 'n' parts to it.

The ever increasing difficulties with noise, etc... indicate that no, there's no free lunch here, no matter how long we stand in the queue with an empty tray.

drkevorkian · a year ago
> there's strong reasons to believe that energy is required to represent all information in the physical universe

You simply do not need to believe this. The universe doesn't need to be "stored" somewhere.

> Quantum Computing is firmly based on pretending that this isn't how it is, that somehow you can squeeze 2^n bits of information out of a system with 'n' parts to it.

Quantum computing does not believe this. It is a theorem that you can only get n bits out of n qubits, and quantum computing speedups do not rely otherwise.

Noise is hard, but error correction is a mathematically sound response.

drkevorkian commented on The Google Willow Thing   scottaaronson.blog/?p=852... · Posted by u/Bootvis
dataflow · a year ago
Dumb question: can someone explain the following?

Imagine a ball falling on the ground.

Simulating the O(10^23) atoms in each one with a classical computer would take (say) 10^23 times the amount of work of simulating a single atom. Depending on the level of detail, that could easily take, you know, many, many years...

We don't call the ball a supercomputer or a quantum computer just because it's so much more efficient than a classical computer here.

I presume that's because it can't do arbitrary computation this quickly, right?

So in what way are these quantum computers different? Can they do arbitrary computations?

drkevorkian · a year ago
There are two points. You got the first one, which is controllability. The components are controllable and programmable. But second it's important to appreciate the difference between simulating 10^23 classical billiard balls with a computer (very hard, C * 10^23 work for some C) and simulating 10^23 quantum mechanical atoms (C * d^(10^23) work for some C and some d). Those numbers are very different.
drkevorkian commented on The Google Willow Thing   scottaaronson.blog/?p=852... · Posted by u/Bootvis
fastball · a year ago
Then why can they perform an RCS evaluation but not some other algo? RCS requires the least number of qubits by a huge margin?
drkevorkian · a year ago
No, not quite, it's about the error-per-gate. RCS has very loose requirements on the error per gate, since all they need is enough gates to build up some arbitrary entangled state (a hundred or so gates on this system). Other algorithms have very tight requirements on the error-per-gate, since they must perform a very long series of operations without error.
drkevorkian commented on Willow, Our Quantum Chip   blog.google/technology/re... · Posted by u/robflaherty
crote · a year ago
Is it really fair to call that "computation"? I am definitely not an expert, but it seems they are just doing a meaningless operation which happens to be trivial on a quantum computer but near-impossible to simulate on a classical computer.

To me that sounds a bit like saying my "sand computer" (hourglass) is way faster than a classical computer, because it'd take a classical computer trillions of years to exactly simulate the final position of every individual grain of sand.

Sure, it proves that your quantum computer is actually a genuine quantum computer, but it's not going to be topping the LINPACK charts or factoring large semiprimes any time soon, is it?

drkevorkian · a year ago
It's different from your hourglass in that the computer is controllable. Each sampled random circuit requires choosing all of the operations that the computer will perform. You have no control over what operation the hourglass does.

It won't be factoring large numbers yet because that computation requires the ability to perform millions of operations on thousands of qubits without any errors. You need very good error correction to do that, but luckily that's the other thing they demonstrated. Only when they do error correction, they are basically combining their system down into one effective qubit. They'll need to scale by several orders of magnitude to have hundreds of error corrected qubits to do factoring.

drkevorkian commented on Chicken Sexing and Knowing   adadithya.medium.com/chic... · Posted by u/trojanalert
Aromasin · 2 years ago
Related to this, I had been dreaming up an idea for a start-up for a while that uses computer imaging techniques to do non-invasive in-ovo sexing of bird eggs for the poultry industry. It seems criminal that we gas or drop into a macerator over half of the chickens hatched. It's just so cruel and seems like it could be done at an embryonic stage where they don't yet have the capacity for pain or sentience.

Turns out that since the last time I started doing some initial testing with my university MRI machine, someone has already run with the idea in Germany and it looks like they have a viable product that customers are already using: https://orbem.ai/solutions-poultry-egg-scanning-classificati...

This is awesome, exciting, and I hope it becomes the norm for the industry.

drkevorkian · 2 years ago
The ones dropped into the macerator are the lucky ones. The ones who live suffer for their short lives, until their economic utility curve crosses a threshold value and they are also slaughtered.
drkevorkian commented on Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth   hive.co.uk/Product/Ingrid... · Posted by u/MaysonL
drkevorkian · 2 years ago
I agree with the premise that "nobody deserves to be a millionaire" (although maybe with inflation we should say deca-millionaire), but a hard cap seems like a crude tool with many potential downsides. A UBI would be a better tool for raising living standards, and a progressive wealth tax would be a better guard against hereditary fortunes, without removing the incentives for high earners to continue working.
drkevorkian commented on Netflix adds 13.1M subscribers, tops revenue estimates   cnbc.com/2024/01/23/netfl... · Posted by u/samspenc
drkevorkian · 2 years ago
As much as I hate to admit it, their pushback on account sharing finally stopped me from leeching on my relatives account.
drkevorkian commented on A vision for the alleviation of water scarcity in the US Southwest   caseyhandmer.wordpress.co... · Posted by u/boiler_up800
bparsons · 2 years ago
The details might be a bit goofy, but this sort of large scale geoengineering project is going to be the only way that the SW is going to remain inhabitable.

The American southwest has a couple big things going for it -- unlimited sunshine and an extraordinary amount of empty land. You can combine these things to create huge amounts of electricity which can be used to irrigate new farm land, power mines and build new cities.

The status quo of drawing down on the increasingly precarious water supply is not feasible though. Before the unprecedented snowpack of 2022/2023, many regions were facing extreme water rationing.

drkevorkian · 2 years ago
Habitable? There is plenty of water for it to be habitable, residential use is a drop in the bucket compared with agricultural use. Without a technological solution, we'll have to scale back agriculture, but that's not a regional problem, since the market for food is an international one.
drkevorkian commented on Room-Temperature Superconductor Replicated   twitter.com/pronounced_ky... · Posted by u/doener
Yizahi · 2 years ago
Liquid nitrogen temp superconductor would be a world changing revolution with first page articles of all major outlets for a few years.

These guys claim -23C SC which is insanely harder than even non-existent -196C SC. I think this story will be debunked pretty fast, just like every other one before.

drkevorkian · 2 years ago
Not sure what you're saying here, YBCO and related materials become superconducting with liquid nitrogen temperatures
drkevorkian commented on IBM demonstrates 133-qubit Heron   tomshardware.com/tech-ind... · Posted by u/rbanffy
s1dev · 2 years ago
I want to point out that the experiment was at Harvard in the Lukin group. There is a proposal for constant-rate encodings using large quantum low-density parity check codes via atom rearrangement which could in principle achieve such high encoding rate. That said, it's certainly not mainstream yet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08648
drkevorkian · 2 years ago
Yes, good point (apologies to the Lukin group). That's an interesting proposal, but it seems from a cursory read that you would need still need very many physical qubits to approach that asymptotic rate, and also you would be forced to take a very large slow down due to serializing all of your logical operations through a smaller set of conventionally encoded logical qubits. That said, I'm not current on SOA LDPC QEC proposals, so I'll moderate my claim a bit to "the first actually useful logical qubits will almost certainly have an encoding rate lower than 1/5".

u/drkevorkian

KarmaCake day83October 1, 2009View Original