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.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Greggers
That first video you posted, however, is getting a lot of play on these forums because of the speaker's claims about alternate dimensions, which are simply not validated by empirical evidence at this time.
Yeah I remember first seeing that video probably more than a year ago. Although the OP's video looks like it could be the same lecture just given at a different place. As for what he says about parallel dimensions, it is certainly an unverified claim, but it's not hard to see why someone might reach that conclusion. Scientists tend to believe that computing power will increase exponentially with the addition of more qubits, so something like 300 qubits would be enough to simulate every particle in the observable universe. Think about what that implies though, it means the computer is simulating a universe containing far more particles than the actual computer contains.
There's clearly something very strange happening there and it could be said that quantum computers must be exploiting parallel dimensions. That's actually one of the main reasons I think we'll never have true quantum computers capable of computing things such as Shor's algorithm or Grover's algorithm. The physics behind the idea of a quantum computer violates some sort of conservation principle imo. The core difference between a quantum object and a classical object is the number of particles making up the object. Isolated particles will do weird things but large objects made of many particles will experience decoherence and behave in a classical manner.
I believe that combining many qubits together inherently demands the construction of a classical system, because once you link together too many different things decoherence will be unavoidable. It's why we can create primitive quantum computers with a small number of qubits but we haven't been able to scale up those systems after decades of research. I mean the D-wave system is still pretty interesting but it can only solve a very specific set of problems, it cannot break classical cryptography or anything like that. I really would like true quantum computers to be possible, but the rational side of me says they some how violate the laws of physics.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Greggers
Doesn't relativity mention and equate the math for an unseen force (aka dark matter) at a certain factor in these equations though?
originally posted by: gunshooter
originally posted by: Xeven
Shouldn't a Quantum computer be able to access data from the future?
It's not a time machine....
2
Dark matter, dark energy, they might be one in the same.
Yes, the BS was so deep in the video by the CEO of DWave that hip waders weren't enough, it was all the way up to my neck.
originally posted by: Greggers
The D-Wave computer isn't even a quantum computer. It is based purely on the classical model. However, it does leverage quantum tunneling, which is why D-Wave cites "quantum effects" in its operation.
There are electrical components that leverage quantum tunneling, and we certainly do not refer to these as quantum devices.
...
As it turns out, the D-Wave is the world's best processor for a very specific kind of mathematical calculation, whether it's a quantum computer or not.
As far as the inventor of the D-Wave, he's fond of making outlandish claims, such as his hyperbolic assertion that quantum tunneling has been proven to involve extra-spatial dimensions. Don't even get me started....
I'm glad some people see through the hype and recognize this Dwave computer for what it is.
originally posted by: Bedlam
Who knew a simulated annealer that's not even a proper quantum computer is like 'the altar of an alien God'?
One day they'll have a real one. This isn't it.
Greggers and Bedlam are spot-on about this not even being a real quantum computer, so the "D-Wave Quantum Computer" did not "Change My View of Reality Forever", but if you don't know much about computers or quantum phycsics I guess nobody should fault you for falling for the hype of the CEO, but some due diligence might have led you to the article greggers posted, which sets the record straight, so I hope you read that and wouldn't use the same thread title if making a thread on this topic today.
originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Greggers
Thank you for posting your information. I do not have any sort of computer back ground other than as an end user... I have mastered how to turn one on but myself and probably many other have no idea how far the Quantum tech stuff has advanced.
It might not be crazy since it's one of maybe 10 possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, but his presentation doesn't even hint at the fact there are maybe 9 other possible interpretations which don't suggest anything like what he said, so his presentation comes across as very misleading when it ignores those completely.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Greggers
Well he is clearly a business man before a scientist, he's trying to hype up his own product and get people interested in it. However many prominent scientists believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics so it's not actually all that crazy to be talking about parallel dimensions when it comes to quantum mechanics. I personally do not believe in that interpretation of QM.
No idea of why entanglement works either. The math says it does. The experiments say it does. It seems to work just like the math says it should. Any idea why?