News0 min ago
Michio Kaku, - Quantum Computing.
I wasn't sure whether or not to put this in the 'Science' category or in 'R&S':
https:/
https:/
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I mean... here seems fine.
Not read the book, but one needs I think to be careful about taking such grand claims about quantum computing seriously. Not that it *couldn't* be revolutionary, but there are more than a few caveats:
1. Since a lot of the frontier work is done by large companies (by necessity, this is expensive stuff), then many of their claims may end up being overblown for business reasons;
2. Many of the engineering challenges remain huge. I expect that most of these can be overcome with enough time and effort, but, rather like viable fusion, the timescale for these being solved often ends up being grossly underestimated by enthusiasts or advocates;
3. As a specific example of an overhyped claim, consider this point:
// ... in 2019 Google reported that its 53-qubit Sycamore computer could solve in 200 seconds a mathematical problem that would take the fastest digital computer 10,000 years to finish. //
This is true, in the sense that Google did report this, but not true in the sense that what they reported is accurate. The "10,000 years" figure should, in fact, be closer to 2.5 days. This would still be impressive, of course, just not *quite* so impressive, and turns out anyway to overstate the fidelity of the Quantum computation compared to the "classical" one (see eg https:/
4. On the specific point of encryption, too, while it's true that Quantum Computers *can* break standard encryption methods, the current record for this is factoring 21. And that was set around a decade ago, and to date still hasn't been bettered.
None of which is meant to discourage you, or anyone else, from reading the book. It's a fascinating and ongoing area of research, and it's useful to read up on it. Be wary of the more spectacular claims, is all.
Not read the book, but one needs I think to be careful about taking such grand claims about quantum computing seriously. Not that it *couldn't* be revolutionary, but there are more than a few caveats:
1. Since a lot of the frontier work is done by large companies (by necessity, this is expensive stuff), then many of their claims may end up being overblown for business reasons;
2. Many of the engineering challenges remain huge. I expect that most of these can be overcome with enough time and effort, but, rather like viable fusion, the timescale for these being solved often ends up being grossly underestimated by enthusiasts or advocates;
3. As a specific example of an overhyped claim, consider this point:
// ... in 2019 Google reported that its 53-qubit Sycamore computer could solve in 200 seconds a mathematical problem that would take the fastest digital computer 10,000 years to finish. //
This is true, in the sense that Google did report this, but not true in the sense that what they reported is accurate. The "10,000 years" figure should, in fact, be closer to 2.5 days. This would still be impressive, of course, just not *quite* so impressive, and turns out anyway to overstate the fidelity of the Quantum computation compared to the "classical" one (see eg https:/
4. On the specific point of encryption, too, while it's true that Quantum Computers *can* break standard encryption methods, the current record for this is factoring 21. And that was set around a decade ago, and to date still hasn't been bettered.
None of which is meant to discourage you, or anyone else, from reading the book. It's a fascinating and ongoing area of research, and it's useful to read up on it. Be wary of the more spectacular claims, is all.
Great answer Clare, & I think there is more than a soupcon of Flash Gordon in there, not to mention tongue in cheek, but I loved the final words;
............ "Do you believe in God yourself? I ask him. ‘I believe in the God of Einstein: that the universe in some sense was not an accident, that the universe is not just chaotic – that there really is a rhyme or reason to the universe.’"
............ "Do you believe in God yourself? I ask him. ‘I believe in the God of Einstein: that the universe in some sense was not an accident, that the universe is not just chaotic – that there really is a rhyme or reason to the universe.’"
-- answer removed --
Yes, I've recently read this excellent book;
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendationref=sr_1_1?crid=133836R92MDKV&keywords=six+impossible+things&qid=1705581169&s=books&sprefix=six+impossible+things%2Cstripbooks%2C138&sr=1-1
The quantum world is an extraordinary place, where the future can influence the past, and something can be in two places at the same moment - so it seems 😮
I've passed the book on to one of my grandsons who is doing an Masters Degree in quantum chemistry at Munich University. I think he will have a better grasp on these things.
1 to 4 of 4
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
Protesters Call For Islamic State In...
News3 mins ago
Spectator N0 2651 By Fieldfare
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.