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.
Rose’s Law for Quantum Computers
So, how do we read the graph above? Like Moore’s Law, a straight line describes an exponential. But unlike Moore’s Law, the computational power of the quantum computer should grow exponentially with the number of entangled qubits as well. It’s like Moore’s Law compounded.
Link
And now, it gets mind bending. If we suspend disbelief for a moment, and use D-Wave’s early data on processing power scaling, then the very near future should be the watershed moment, where quantum computers surpass conventional computers and never look back. Moore’s Law cannot catch up. A year later, it outperforms all computers on Earth combined. Double qubits again the following year, and it outperforms the universe. What the???? you may ask... Meaning, it could solve certain problems that could not be solved by any non-quantum computer, even if the entire mass and energy of the universe was at its disposal and molded into the best possible computer.
It is a completely different way to compute — as David Deutsch posits — harnessing the refractive echoes of many trillions of parallel universes to perform a computation.
Link
In conventional devices, information is stored and manipulated in binary form: The elementary components of these devices—the so-called bits—have two states, each of which encodes the binary 0 or 1. To move beyond the binary system, one can exploit the laws of quantum mechanics. A quantum-mechanical object with two energy levels at its disposal can occupy either of those two levels, but also an arbitrary combination ("superposition") of the two, much like an electron in a two-slit experiment can go through both slits at once. This results in infinitely many quantum states that a single quantum bit, or "qubit," can take; together with another strange property of quantum mechanics—entanglement—it allows for a much more powerful information platform than is possible with conventional components.
Link
If it performs as Lockheed and D-Wave expect, the design could be used to supercharge even the most powerful systems, solving some science and business problems millions of times faster than can be done today.
Ray Johnson, Lockheed’s chief technical officer, said his company would use the quantum computer to create and test complex radar, space and aircraft systems. It could be possible, for example, to tell instantly how the millions of lines of software running a network of satellites would react to a solar burst or a pulse from a nuclear explosion — something that can now take weeks, if ever, to determine.
“This is a revolution not unlike the early days of computing,” he said. “It is a transformation in the way computers are thought about.” Many others could find applications for D-Wave’s computers. Cancer researchers see a potential to move rapidly through vast amounts of genetic data. The technology could also be used to determine the behavior of proteins in the human genome, a bigger and tougher problem than sequencing the genome. Researchers at Google have worked with D-Wave on using quantum computers to recognize cars and landmarks, a critical step in managing self-driving vehicles.
Originally posted by XPLodER
this will cause havoc in computer security circles
Originally posted by Clairaudience
Originally posted by XPLodER
this will cause havoc in computer security circles
Yes and No, although classical cryptography and security methods are still viable technologies, the introduction of quantum technology will force us to reevaluate some of our approaches to security. Unlike a classical computer, in which a bit can represent either 1 or 0, in a quantum computer a bit can represent 1 or 0 or a mixture of the two at the same time, letting the computer perform many computations simultaneously. That would shorten the time needed to break a strong 1024-bit RSA code from billions of years to a matter of minutes, just to give an example.
For the time being, our cryptosystems are safe and new alternatives will naturally fill most security voids in the coming years.
One time pads, for example, are information-theoretically secure. (They cannot be cracked by any known, theoretical, or hypothesized means)
But if you have some amount of cleartext that is encoded using a one time pad, couldn't you attack the pseudo-random generator that created the pad?
motherboard.vice.com... Lockheed Martin's New Quantum Computer Doesn't Really Quantum Compute
D-Wave has a boy-who-cried-wolf problem. Some six years ago, the Canadian future-computer company announced a major technological breakthrough, a world-changing feat, a spectacular accomplishment. After researchers tried for decades, D-Wave unveiled the "world's first commercial quantum computer," the Orion system, at the Computer History Museum in 2007. More importantly, the firm said it would have a beefed up commercial version within a year.
The technology would be able to solve problems millions of times faster than today's conventional computers, a level of processing power that would potentially make some earth-shattering breakthroughs possible. There's only one problem: It wasn't exactly a quantum computer.
At least, critics didn't think so. "D-Wave is misleading the public by calling their device ‘a practical quantum computer,'" Umesh Vazirani, one of the founders of quantum complexity theory, told the press. "The whole point of quantum computing is achieving a large speedup over classical computers, something that D-Wave hasn’t accomplished."
Vazirani added that even if the Orion system did have quantum capabilities, it "would likely not be more powerful than a cell phone." D-Wave later withdrew its claim that it would build a practical quantum computer within a year.
Originally posted by Bedlam
it's what DARPA and the various intel agencies are tossing most of the bucks at.
He describes the process in terms of wave phenomena. "All the paths leading to the desired results interfere constructively, and the others ones interfere destructively and cancel each other out," Grover explains.