Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rose’s Law for Quantum Computers

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

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.



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

By all means, this sounds promising indeed.
For those who wonder what quantum computing and - information processing is:


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


Let's hope that Rose's Law turns out to be correct, the implications and possibilities of such technology in the coming months & years will, without a doubt, change the world.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:26 PM
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.
Link


edit on 27-3-2013 by Clairaudience because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I hope I live to see this stuff! Look at how far we have come in even 20 years using our 1s and 0s. It very well should be a flood gate moment, I agree.

I am interested in how they mention entanglement. Does that mean we can have instantaneous thin clients? I want this now!
edit on 27-3-2013 by Templeton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
SnF I'll give this a proper read when I'm home.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
this will cause havoc in computer security circles,
but i love the thread and give you both star and flag,

what interests me is the ability to solve maths problems by trying every single possible outcome
simultaneously. i imagine once we have enough qbits we can solve for the gravity "three body problem"

i believe it will create some very interesting patterns,

entanglement also has some interesting properties that can be exploited for high speed information transfer


quantum internet here we come\\

xploder



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
This is pretty cool and exciting.
The presentation you give would imply we're much further along in quantum computing than I previously understood.

For now, we're looking at systems used from a standpoint like the old University mainframes, and super-computers tasked and outsourced for tasking particular problems.

For now, this computational fitness is available to a stratospheric few.
When, however, does this technology get to the consumer level?

There's certainly a vast range of vastly complicated and process/calculation intensive applications such advances could benefit.

We'd have better meteorological forecasting in modelling weather on more data points with higher confidence in real time.

In physics a huge number of questions can be answered or given greater insight.

With enough processing, we could model an entire virtual human bodies down to the atom for medical studies ranging the whole spectrum of biology where near any and every mad-scientist experiment conceivable could feasibly be conducted ethically without a single living cell ever falling into controversy.

Diseases, and all the ails of mankind could be modeled and studied in ways never before possible.

SETI could crunch ALL of its accumulated data a few times over for near instant gratification in seeing if any signals at all have been intercepted, and continue to do so in real time while adding capability for accruing fatter data streams.

True AI; technological singularity could very well be only a few years away.

Post-humanism through the assistance of AI could very well be not too far behind.

Exciting. Exciting.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
wow. That d-wave thing must be good, so good the CIA is investing in it!

www.forbes.com...

"Yesterday, commercial quantum computing company D-Wave announced that it had closed a $30 million equity funding round. The primary investors in the financing round were In-Q-Tel, which invests in technology on behalf of the CIA and other intelligence agences, and Bezos Expeditions, which is Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos‘ private investment firm."

Moore's law isn't really a law by the way, it's a general heuristic made up by a guy for a technology corporation. Therefore saying your graph is 'like Moore's law' means very little.
edit on 27-3-2013 by yampa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

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.


You fight fire with fire....
or the balance of power!



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Quantum computers are better than normal computers only on a small number of very specific computational problems.

Most equations, functions, and programs that are used in daily life by your average computer user would not benefit in any way from quantum computation.

The only real consumer level application that I can think of, is extremely fast square root function for rasterization of 3D games. However, the cost benefit of using a quantum system to streamline gaming rigs is.... irreconcilable from an economic standpoint.

Of course, you know they want to make a Quantum GPU... if only so they can call their card the "Next Generation Quantum Edge Super Extreme GPU" or something similar.


Also, not all cryptographic systems are vulnerable to quantum computation (moreso than normal computation)

One time pads, for example, are information-theoretically secure. (They cannot be cracked by any known, theoretical, or hypothesized means)

Seriously... not even brute force hacking can crack a one time pad.

I mean... it COULD... but you would never know which answer you got was the REAL message....



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 





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?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
D-Wave uses a simulated annealing method that isn't 'real' quantum computing, sort of quantum computing lite.

It is, however, something you can buy off the shelf that will work when you turn it on every time, unlike the lab queen prototypes most other QC machines use.

Quantum Dot computing is likely to be the next big thing, it is very fast logic that's more classical and better understood, but which can also do 'real quantum', it's still a lab queen, but it's what DARPA and the various intel agencies are tossing most of the bucks at.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DexterRiley
 



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?


It is possible, yes... but making sufficiently randomized one time pads are very easy.

So the point is moot.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The problem with this thread is this D-Wave quantum computer - isn't really a quantum computer.


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.
motherboard.vice.com... Lockheed Martin's New Quantum Computer Doesn't Really Quantum Compute

Go on and read the rest of the article I linked to. They are making progress but it is not the kind of progress that Rose's Law above leads us to believe this machine should be making. Rose's Law will only go into effect if and when this device is perfected and it seems thats still a long way off. They are very expensive super computers by today's standards and will not be hitting the home computer market in an affordable way anytime soon.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I think what most are missing here is the realisation that it is not the direct aplication of the quantum computer inour daily lives that is important here..

It's the scientific and technological advancments we will achieve as a result of usingnthe computational power to crunch numbers..

Answers to questions like.... How do we make a propulsion drive that can go a significant speed of c

How do we treat and cure aids
How do we treat and cure cancer and to think of it all diseases
How do we avoid death and live young forever
How do we detect and communucate with life out there in the universe
How do we predict earthquakes and natural disasters
How do we predict the weather
Etcetcetcetcetc

These answers alone will propel us to the next phase of our evolution.

Korg.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
This is an interesting topic. I read the whole wiki article and even though I understand why this is a big thing, what I don't understand is how this works inside a chip. This is a simulated quantum computer at best. We are far far away from a real one, if there is any way for that to be even possible. There is no way we can match the real processing power of the universe.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Unless I'm gravely mistaken Moore's Law also corresponds to an exponential increase in computing power, not just the amount of transistors you can fit on an integrated circuit. I don't really see why we need to name a law after George Rose, this isn't a new principle by any means. Honestly when dealing with any information technology its pretty appropriate to just extend Moore's Law to include that as well. You can see it happen with individual information technologies and when you put them all together on a timeline the overall growth of size and power makes another graph identical to Moore's Law.

Still very cool though. The near future will show us some amazing new technologies.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


And I've got some proprietary Infini-Q Sucaba Quantum Processing Hyperchip to sell.

Everyone interested should deposit $1 billion to my banking account... or, maybe not to my banking account after all. I'd probably lose 80% of that money in the next bank bailout. Just send the money in a nicely wrapped package to my P.O. box. I'll call you back ASAP. I promise.

If you don't believe my claims, here's a sneak peek at this Infini-Q beast of a processing power that will revolutionize the world and change it forever:

en.wikipedia.org...
[end of sarcasm]

People, and especially physicists, should stop believing everything their mathematical models are (seemingly) telling them.

To be fair, this whole mess started with a wavefunction.

en.wikipedia.org...

The base idea was quite sound, and actually proved to be as close to reality as it was possible at the time it was introduced, but the whole idea of 'superposition of states', aka the famous 'Shroedinger's cat-in-a-box', as the actual physical reality behind wave mathematics, took hypnotizing hold of too many brilliant physicist minds ever since. Thus, we ended up with a pseudo-physical representation of a qubit.

en.wikipedia.org...

But what is a qubit, really?

Let me put it this way... If wavefunction is a flawed model of physical reality, qubit is that same flawed model squared.

Wavefunction is statistical/probabilistic (that is -- mathematical) representation of a single wave/particle.

Qubit, at it's simplest physical representation, is mathematical model of 2 electrons in the lowest orbital of an atom (think Helium atom for the simplest example). Those 2 electrons have mutually exclusive quantum states (as described by Pauli exclusion principle) and their qubit formula describes shared quantum state of both electrons at the same time.

Thus, instead of a definite state of 1 electron, as described by wavefunction, we have a qubit (wavefunction squared) description of an undetermined state of a 2-electron system which holds logical states of both 0 and 1 at the same time (however those logical states are physically represented).

This so-called, and completely unfounded in reality, 'superposition of states' shouldn't be the least surprising to anyone who's been paying attention at their math classes. It fu**ingly IS logical 0 and 1 joined in a single mathematical representation!

Talking about imaginary mathematical models and their complete misunderstanding... sheesh... it doesn't get any more messed up than this whole qubit business. It really doesn't.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
it's what DARPA and the various intel agencies are tossing most of the bucks at.


The American people's bucks, that is.

I don't remember any of the American people asking for this to be spent on completely speculative, theoretically shaky tools of no use to any common person.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
The thing is that quantum computing has been around a lot longer than what anybody is reporting.
Read a little about Grover's algorithm:


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.


That is exactly the way the Brits cracked the German enigma at Bletchley Park 70 years ago! The cipher text was encoded on a punch tape loop. They projected this loop and and another white noise loop into a fogged room as a superposition. It was the constructive and destructive interference that cracked the German codes in seconds.

So if they had quantum computers 70 years ago it must be a mature science now.
How many qubits do you need to solve a chess game from whites position?
That should be a fairly simple problem to solve.
Chess plays within an 8 by 8 matrix
The possible moves of each piece are strictly limited and defined by their rank.
There probably is a best opening that restricts the middle game politics significantly.
The end games play themselves without needing much computing power.
edit on 28-3-2013 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join