A Working Quantum Computer in 3 Years? 292
prostoalex writes "Vancouver, BC-based D-Wave Systems got $17.5 mln from Draper Fisher Jurvetson to work on a preliminary version of a quantum computer, Technology Review reports. Delivery date? Within three years: 'It won't be a fully functional quantum computer of the sort long envisioned; but D-Wave is on track to produce a special-purpose, "noisy" piece of quantum hardware that could solve many of the physical-simulation problems that stump today's computers, says David Meyer, a mathematician working on quantum algorithms at the University of California, San Diego.'"
Mathematician (Score:5, Insightful)
Quantum is just another buzzword (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad that's not how it works. These computers will still have to process data the same as any other processor and all the threat behind magically decoding 128-bit encryption is pure fluff. We are talking about another way of computing, for sure, but it is just another step in the evolution of computing systems rather than a brand new magic bullet for encryption maniacs.
It is also unclear why people want to build a "quantum computer" when it seems that simply putting it on a peripheral board and using it as a separate calculation machine seems to be a much more straightforward application of the device than trying to cram a whole computer with these chips.
Speeds? (Score:3, Insightful)
__
Funny Adult Vido Clips [laughdily.com]
Re:With the good comes the bad. (Score:1, Insightful)
Vaporware Award goes to.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, a Quantum Computer that only exist in a "Powerpoint Universe ©".
And I promise diamond computing tomorrow (Score:2, Insightful)
On a more serious note... a fully operational quantum computing device in 3 years? Did they borrow their marketing/timeline departments from the Longhorn division of Micro$oft?
got my hopes up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quantum is just another buzzword (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually things like superdense coding and quantum teleportation have been verfied in the lab. So this stuff isn't exactly nonsense.
Re:Quantum is just another buzzword (Score:5, Insightful)
Frequency=! Speed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quantum is just another buzzword (Score:1, Insightful)
I suspect that "always" is rather longer than you appreciate. "Classical" computers have been around for less than a hundred years; as inventions go they haven't even exhibited even an interesting longevity, much less irreplaceability.
Re:Quantum is just another buzzword (Score:2, Insightful)
We have got to remember that no matter how much we like to think that science can prove something it can't the heart of the scientific theory is to disprove things in other words to be scientific a claim must be falsifiable [wikipedia.org]. Good theories remain just that, theories. Bad theories get falsified and thrown away. The quantum theories are good and so have endured thus far.
The real world? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Quantum is just another buzzword (Score:3, Insightful)
Or how about being able to solve the hardest math problems we have ever been able to think up as a species in mere seconds?
Shor's algorithm is great because we have been working on trying to understand the primes since the dawn of mathematics. You also dont seem to understand that once this takes hold, there will be no more public key algorithms. PKE is based on the idea that some math problems are harder to solve than to verify. Given a large enough quantum computer, that really is no longer the case.
It is my opinion that being able to harness the computational power of the universe as our own personal calculators is well worth the billions being invested.
Re:Mathematician (Score:3, Insightful)
I have nothing against mathematicians. I just don't think they are the right ones to predict when we will have _working_ quantum computers.
Decoherence! It simply won't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
One or two bit at a time quantum computers - sure, we can build those. My hunch, however, is that to build an N bit quantum computer is exp(N) hard. I expect we will eventually have non-trivial quantum computers, but unfortunately the amount of effort to make them will be as much as the effort to build a classical machine that can simulate them. This isn't just nay-saying, unlike the claims that driving at over 30mph would kill humans, my claims are backed up by many physicists, in particular those that don't have a financial interest in quantum computers.
On the other hand, quantum computer science is very interesting as a branch of mathematics and Shor's algorithm for factoring, for example, is a thing of beauty. So I don't blame people bluffing in order to get grant money. And I suppose I don't really hold it against researchers trying to get money out of venture capitalists this way either. Just as long as that money isn't coming out of any funds I'm investing in...