"Damgerous misinformation" to say quantum computers are not magical oracles? The entire subject of QC is literally a hoax! The only danger is that if people dont think they are magical they might want to cut off the funding. If I were to say I know a magical oracle who can break encryption with pure thought, it wouldnt be much different than the kinds of claims you hear about quantum computers on a daily basis. I used to do experimental physics for many years, all of my colleages and I thought quantum computers were a joke. Main stream physics people understand there is an intense debate over whether or not its even possible to build a quantum computer. Nothing to see here, its just the QC hype train doing its thing.
I said this in another comment, but there's two sides to this QC thing: People who think QCs are magic and can do everything, and people who think they know better when they tell people that QCs are not magic and cannot do everything. In reality, you're both slightly skewed. To undermine the potential of QCs is a blunder, as big a blunder as thinking they can do everything. The hype train is exactly where it needs to be.
There isn't a debate about whether it's possible since it's already been done...
Your comment is either lacking context to explain what you really mean or simple fabrication. Neither is acceptable
What I meant was the debate which has been taking place in the main stream of physics for many years now is whether or not its possible to build a quantum computer on the scale where it can do anything useful. In the article we read:
>> When Dr Shor made his discovery such computers were the stuff of science fiction. But in 2001 researchers at ibm announced that they had built one, programmed it with Shor’s algorithm, and used it to work out that the prime factors of 15 are three and five. This machine was about the most primitive quantum computer imaginable.
The context which was lacking is that I meant on a large scale and not simply the most primitive thing. And no I am not fabricating anything, see here [1] for some of the main stream discussion by someone who is more articulate and knows more about it than me.
Let's keep in mind that just this week it was announced that a grad student figured out an algorithm to verify that the computations done by hypothetical quantum computers actually are giving a correct answer [2].
I seriously don't think you know what you are talking about when it comes to the idea that its "already been done", D-Wave is not a "quantum computer" in the sense of this article or shors algorithm.
However, you are correct that my comment was overly hyperbolic and lacking context. Next time this comes up on here I will try to do a better job and not use phrases like "its a hoax" because to be honest, its not a hoax, it might be possible one day they will exist. I personally believe at that point there will be so many other advances that non quantum computers will simply outperform everything else.
Thanks for the additional response. I agree that there are fundamental technical questions that are very difficult.
As an aside, I'm actually well versed in the difference between quantum annealing and Turing like computation as I got my PhD in an ultra cold atomic physics lab.
Yeah, because peer review does such a good job of winnowing out bad 'research.' Which is why we are now a nanotech economy running on controlled nuclear fusion reactors.
Physcial qubits currently suffer from noise problems and so logical qubits have to be simulated. You can't just implement them directly in a scalable way in hardware. So, you could say that a meaningful, scalable quantum computer of any kind has not yet been built. You can certainly say that a quantum computer capable of breaking real world encryption is very far from current reality.
Saying there's a lot of work to do and it's unclear whether there will be a practical solution in our lifetimes is very different from calling it a hoax. Comment even makes an absurd appeal to authority. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't belong here
He/she does go on to explain what they mean by that: press releases deliberately talk up the `magical' aspect of quantum computing, and this is at least in part necessary for further funding. You can argue about whether the word `hoax' is warranted. But I didn't misunderstand the sentiment. It's not an antiscience claim, but merely hyperbole to drive home a point.
You can literally sign up for D-Wave Leap and submit problems to their quantum annealer for free. How much more real does QC need to be before people believe it?
Sure, it's not a gate model, but they have a pile of working, useful applications already. Significantly more useful than anything MS is doing on the topic, that's for sure.
