It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Maybe they will find a niche somewhere but obviously computer scientists like Scott Aaronson are skeptical based on finding classical solutions to close previously claimed gaps.
24 January 2017
...
D-wave’s qubits are much easier to build than the equivalent in more traditional quantum computers, but their quantum states are also more fragile, and their manipulation less precise. So although scientists now agree that D-wave devices do use quantum phenomena in their calculations, some doubt that they can ever be used to solve real-world problems exponentially faster than classical computers — however many qubits are clubbed together, and whatever their configuration.
...
D-wave machines are a long way from showing the exponential speed increase over classical computers that their advocates hope to see. But in a paper posted on 17 January and not yet peer-reviewed, a D-Wave team claimed the 2000Q could find solutions up to 2,600 times faster than any known classical algorithm...Now the onus will be on sceptics to try to find a faster classical algorithm. “All I know is that, in the now two or three previous cases where we were in this same situation, it did turn out that a different classical solver eliminated the claimed gap,” says Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin.
So maybe if you pit a 15 million dollar Dwave processor against the processor in your laptop it looks pretty good, but in a more fair test against more appropriate classical competition, not so much.
Scott Aaronson of the University of Texas and Greg Kuperberg of UC Davis tell The Verge that while there was theoretical hope that quantum annealing would produce results, the tests have not borne this theory out. The pair note that papers published by D-Wave and partners supposedly showing its quantum advantage are generally pitting its $15 million chips against the class of processor you’d find in your laptop. What’s more, they say, testers tend to pick computational challenges optimized for D-Wave's chips, giving the company’s tech a home-field advantage. This, they say, leads to impressive but misleading claims that D-Wave's technology has been proved to be "100,000,000 times faster" than classical computers.
A layperson's "classical" view of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment might suggest that, and some find the results "shocking".
originally posted by: Aytakan
Can the future affect the past?
To the physicist, the results "are all consistent with prediction." To the layperson, the results should be shocking.
originally posted by: zundier
I appreciate if you have something to share about the current science dilemma....... If you are aware of what I mean, can you point the current's mind-bloggling subject that remain in the very edge of a eternal paradox?
1. If the simple fact that between 0 and 1, there is infinite, how deep would you want to find answers?
2. Considering that - of course - we don't know anything - could you elaborate how would you dream upon the final (or most satisfying) truth of all?
Might need to clear that up for us... what current science dilemma? Im a professional scientist and have no clue what you are talking about.
1.... that is not fact simple or otherwise, it is a somewhat ambiguous and partially meaningless question
2.... Again, it is not true that we dont know anything... we do know or at least understand some... things... So once more the question is ambiguous
If you have a question to ask please ask it. I find this game of "try to guess my question" quite annoying and unnecessary. I'm not aware of what you mean, and I don't care to guess when you could simply state your question.
originally posted by: zundier
Apologize for a bad english.
...If you are aware of what I mean....
I think Eros was too generous in saying that is a "somewhat ambiguous and partially meaningless question". 0 and 1 without any further context are abstractions with no meaning in the real world. For a mathematician, no meaning in the real world is required for mathematical abstractions, but for a physicist, mathematics is a tool to try to describe and predict how nature works in the real world. This means at some point the 0 and the 1 or more commonly variables are correlated with observables or other parameters in the real world.
1. If the simple fact that between 0 and 1, there is infinite, how deep would you want to find answers?
We do know some things and are grossly ignorant of others. As Eros said it's inaccurate to say we don't know anything. I think the most brilliant statement I've heard about uncovering truth was made by Richard Feynman:
2. Considering that - of course - we don't know anything - could you elaborate how would you dream upon the final (or most satisfying) truth of all?
"The way I think about what we're doing is we're exploring, we're trying to find out as much as we can about the world. People say to me 'Are you looking for the ultimate the laws of physics?'. No, I'm not. I'm just looking to find out more about the world. And if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law that explains everything, so be it, that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that's the way it is. But whatever way it comes out, it's nature, it's there and she's gonna come out the way she is. And therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we're trying to do except to find out more about it. The problem is why do you find out more about it? If you thought that you were trying to find out more about it because you're going to get an answer to some deep philosophical question you may be wrong. It may be that you can't get an answer to that particular question by finding out more about the character of nature. But I don't look at it - my interest in science is to simply find out about the world. And the more I find out the better it is. I like to find out."
It's difficult to say how far your journey has progressed when you don't know the location of the destination, if there even is such thing as a destination in the discoveries of science...it could be a never-ending journey.
originally posted by: pfishy
Regarding physics, from Cosmic Expansion to superclusters to singularities, down to atoms, nuclei, quarks, leptons, neutrinos and all the way down to the Planck Volume and Quantum Foam, do you think we have passed the halfway point in our knowledge of how these function and interact?
To put it another way, from Cosmic to Quantum, do you think there is more we know than don't know regarding the structure and function of the physical universe?