AN IBM QUANTUM COMPUTER WILL SOON PASS THE 1,000-QUBIT MARK

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

Swan wrote:
IBM'S CONDOR, THE world's first universal quantum computer with more than 1,000 qubits, is set to debut in 2023. The year is also expected to see IBM launch Heron, the first of a new flock of modular quantum processors that the company says may help it produce quantum computers with more than 4,000 qubits by 2025.

While quantum computers can, in theory, quickly find answers to problems that classical computers would take eons to solve, today's quantum hardware is still short on qubits, limiting its usefulness. Entanglement and other quantum states necessary for quantum computation are infamously fragile, being susceptible to heat and other disturbances, which makes scaling up the number of qubits a huge technical challenge.

Nevertheless, IBM has steadily increased its qubit numbers. In 2016, it put the first quantum computer in the cloud anyone to experiment with—a device with 5 qubits, each a superconducting circuit cooled to near absolute zero. In 2019, the company created the 27-qubit Falcon; in 2020, the 65-qubit Hummingbird; in 2021, the 127-qubit Eagle, the first quantum processor with more than 100 qubits; and in 2022, the 433-qubit Osprey.

So how sexy is that?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

You copy/paste/regurgitate... Barely reading past the headline, and still clueless.

Quantum computers only need to be based on, and function like. Doesn't have to actually be as fantasized. You still have all the same players at work with the fantasy, submitting their ideas how they might pull it off. Meanwhile, you have others who are trying to throw together something that might function like the fantasy. Even if the performance falls short of the fantasy, it should provide some interesting uses. A lot of research is trial/failure, learn,and try again. If they ever do get qubits of the fantasy, they'll have laid the foundation for what to do with them. Either way, they are taking a new direction on computing. Won't know, until they get a stable, functioning model to play with.

But, you should sell all your Apple stock, and get in on the ground floor. You should still make lots of money, even if it eventually fails. The hype, hysteria, momentum will keep the price growing rapidly. These are a good ways from commercial use, so nobody will really know how they perform, or function.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

You copy/paste/regurgitate... Barely reading past the headline, and still clueless.

Quantum computers only need to be based on, and function like. Doesn't have to actually be as fantasized. You still have all the same players at work with the fantasy, submitting their ideas how they might pull it off. Meanwhile, you have others who are trying to throw together something that might function like the fantasy. Even if the performance falls short of the fantasy, it should provide some interesting uses. A lot of research is trial/failure, learn,and try again. If they ever do get qubits of the fantasy, they'll have laid the foundation for what to do with them. Either way, they are taking a new direction on computing. Won't know, until they get a stable, functioning model to play with.

But, you should sell all your Apple stock, and get in on the ground floor. You should still make lots of money, even if it eventually fails. The hype, hysteria, momentum will keep the price growing rapidly. These are a good ways from commercial use, so nobody will really know how they perform, or function.

Actually, I am already in on the ground floor. The fact is that quantum computing is advancing far faster than binary computers advanced in the 40's and 50's. Enjoy your bud light weirdo

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

You copy/paste/regurgitate... Barely reading past the headline, and still clueless.

Quantum computers only need to be based on, and function like. Doesn't have to actually be as fantasized. You still have all the same players at work with the fantasy, submitting their ideas how they might pull it off. Meanwhile, you have others who are trying to throw together something that might function like the fantasy. Even if the performance falls short of the fantasy, it should provide some interesting uses. A lot of research is trial/failure, learn,and try again. If they ever do get qubits of the fantasy, they'll have laid the foundation for what to do with them. Either way, they are taking a new direction on computing. Won't know, until they get a stable, functioning model to play with.

But, you should sell all your Apple stock, and get in on the ground floor. You should still make lots of money, even if it eventually fails. The hype, hysteria, momentum will keep the price growing rapidly. These are a good ways from commercial use, so nobody will really know how they perform, or function.

Actually, I am already in on the ground floor. The fact is that quantum computing is advancing far faster than binary computers advanced in the 40's and 50's. Enjoy your bud light weirdo

So you are on the 'ground floor' of something that doesn't even exist. Too funny!

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

You copy/paste/regurgitate... Barely reading past the headline, and still clueless.

Quantum computers only need to be based on, and function like. Doesn't have to actually be as fantasized. You still have all the same players at work with the fantasy, submitting their ideas how they might pull it off. Meanwhile, you have others who are trying to throw together something that might function like the fantasy. Even if the performance falls short of the fantasy, it should provide some interesting uses. A lot of research is trial/failure, learn,and try again. If they ever do get qubits of the fantasy, they'll have laid the foundation for what to do with them. Either way, they are taking a new direction on computing. Won't know, until they get a stable, functioning model to play with.

But, you should sell all your Apple stock, and get in on the ground floor. You should still make lots of money, even if it eventually fails. The hype, hysteria, momentum will keep the price growing rapidly. These are a good ways from commercial use, so nobody will really know how they perform, or function.

Actually, I am already in on the ground floor. The fact is that quantum computing is advancing far faster than binary computers advanced in the 40's and 50's. Enjoy your bud light weirdo

So you are on the 'ground floor' of something that doesn't even exist. Too funny!

Are you really sure that Apple and Alphabet do not exist?

Too funny!

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

You copy/paste/regurgitate... Barely reading past the headline, and still clueless.

Quantum computers only need to be based on, and function like. Doesn't have to actually be as fantasized. You still have all the same players at work with the fantasy, submitting their ideas how they might pull it off. Meanwhile, you have others who are trying to throw together something that might function like the fantasy. Even if the performance falls short of the fantasy, it should provide some interesting uses. A lot of research is trial/failure, learn,and try again. If they ever do get qubits of the fantasy, they'll have laid the foundation for what to do with them. Either way, they are taking a new direction on computing. Won't know, until they get a stable, functioning model to play with.

But, you should sell all your Apple stock, and get in on the ground floor. You should still make lots of money, even if it eventually fails. The hype, hysteria, momentum will keep the price growing rapidly. These are a good ways from commercial use, so nobody will really know how they perform, or function.

Actually, I am already in on the ground floor. The fact is that quantum computing is advancing far faster than binary computers advanced in the 40's and 50's. Enjoy your bud light weirdo

So you are on the 'ground floor' of something that doesn't even exist. Too funny!

Are you really sure that Apple and Alphabet do not exist?

Too funny!

Apple doesn't build 'quantum computers'. Neither does Alphabet.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

You copy/paste/regurgitate... Barely reading past the headline, and still clueless.

Quantum computers only need to be based on, and function like. Doesn't have to actually be as fantasized. You still have all the same players at work with the fantasy, submitting their ideas how they might pull it off. Meanwhile, you have others who are trying to throw together something that might function like the fantasy. Even if the performance falls short of the fantasy, it should provide some interesting uses. A lot of research is trial/failure, learn,and try again. If they ever do get qubits of the fantasy, they'll have laid the foundation for what to do with them. Either way, they are taking a new direction on computing. Won't know, until they get a stable, functioning model to play with.

But, you should sell all your Apple stock, and get in on the ground floor. You should still make lots of money, even if it eventually fails. The hype, hysteria, momentum will keep the price growing rapidly. These are a good ways from commercial use, so nobody will really know how they perform, or function.

Actually, I am already in on the ground floor. The fact is that quantum computing is advancing far faster than binary computers advanced in the 40's and 50's. Enjoy your bud light weirdo

So you are on the 'ground floor' of something that doesn't even exist. Too funny!

Are you really sure that Apple and Alphabet do not exist?

Too funny!

Apple doesn't build 'quantum computers'. Neither does Alphabet.

You are a wannabee
...removed mindless cut and paste...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, I think qubits are a fantasy. If anything, they are doing a hardware emulation of how a 'qubit' would work. Traditional computers work on base-2 number system, binary, since switches were what we had. Relatively simple and cheap. Semiconductors were never limited to binary, just a good solid foundation, and lots of room to go faster, more powerful more powerful microprocessors. We knew we'd hit a peak eventually, with not much improvement. Quantum computers are just another approach, architecture, still based on silicon semiconductors. Naming it 'quantum', just makes it sound 'smart', and futuristic, rather than some marketing chosen name. Like Apple...

You do not think, you just respond like a shark sniffing blood

You copy/paste/regurgitate... Barely reading past the headline, and still clueless.

Quantum computers only need to be based on, and function like. Doesn't have to actually be as fantasized. You still have all the same players at work with the fantasy, submitting their ideas how they might pull it off. Meanwhile, you have others who are trying to throw together something that might function like the fantasy. Even if the performance falls short of the fantasy, it should provide some interesting uses. A lot of research is trial/failure, learn,and try again. If they ever do get qubits of the fantasy, they'll have laid the foundation for what to do with them. Either way, they are taking a new direction on computing. Won't know, until they get a stable, functioning model to play with.

But, you should sell all your Apple stock, and get in on the ground floor. You should still make lots of money, even if it eventually fails. The hype, hysteria, momentum will keep the price growing rapidly. These are a good ways from commercial use, so nobody will really know how they perform, or function.

Actually, I am already in on the ground floor. The fact is that quantum computing is advancing far faster than binary computers advanced in the 40's and 50's. Enjoy your bud light weirdo

So you are on the 'ground floor' of something that doesn't even exist. Too funny!

Are you really sure that Apple and Alphabet do not exist?

Too funny!

Apple doesn't build 'quantum computers'. Neither does Alphabet.

You are a wannabee
...removed mindless cut and paste...

Mantra 40a.

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Swan wrote:LOL, someone as brilliant as you are should be working for Google or IBM with a million-dollar salary and stock options, instead of masturbating in public here.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, someone as brilliant as you are should be working for Google or IBM with a million-dollar salary and stock options, instead of masturbating in public here.

Swan, Into the Night, ... I need your help figuring this out.

If an entangled qubit behaves at great distance exactly as it would were it not entangled, and supposing the entangled halves are at opposite ends of the galaxy, wouldn't that effectively force that "photon" into an essentially zero-frequency path, effectively forcing it to operate at a wavelength of 100,000 light years, which would effectively suck the energy out of it (Planck's law). It seems that such a qubit wouldn't be able to operate with any equipment.

Is that how you read it?

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

LOL, someone as brilliant as you are should be working for Google or IBM with a million-dollar salary and stock options, instead of masturbating in public here.

You may now resume fingerpainting

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Heh. Obviously, photons are not conductors. I'd like to see someone try to solder a wire to one!

The 'blue screen of death' is no more. It has been replaced by the 'invisible screen of death'. The system now reboots automatically, to cover up the evidence.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

LOL, someone as brilliant as you are should be working for Google or IBM with a million-dollar salary and stock options, instead of masturbating in public here.

You may now resume fingerpainting

I don't want to work for either Google or IBM with their inferior products.
I make my money selling industrial sensors.

I don't need stock options. I own the company.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Heh. Obviously, photons are not conductors. I'd like to see someone try to solder a wire to one!

The 'blue screen of death' is no more. It has been replaced by the 'invisible screen of death'. The system now reboots automatically, to cover up the evidence.

Wrong again. Your streak is perfect

Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons. I clearly heard a symphony conducted on FM radio earlier today, thanks to the photons that conducted it to me.

You may resume fingerpainting

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Heh. Obviously, photons are not conductors. I'd like to see someone try to solder a wire to one!

The 'blue screen of death' is no more. It has been replaced by the 'invisible screen of death'. The system now reboots automatically, to cover up the evidence.

Wrong again. Your streak is perfect

Radio waves and microwaves; infrared and ultraviolet light; X-rays and gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons. I clearly heard a symphony conducted on FM radio earlier today, thanks to the photons that conducted it to me.

You may resume fingerpainting

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Heh. Obviously, photons are not conductors. I'd like to see someone try to solder a wire to one!

The 'blue screen of death' is no more. It has been replaced by the 'invisible screen of death'. The system now reboots automatically, to cover up the evidence.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Heh. Obviously, photons are not conductors. I'd like to see someone try to solder a wire to one!

The 'blue screen of death' is no more. It has been replaced by the 'invisible screen of death'. The system now reboots automatically, to cover up the evidence.

In reality photons conduct very well, as radio demonstrates.

You may now continue fingerpainting

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Heh. Obviously, photons are not conductors. I'd like to see someone try to solder a wire to one!

The 'blue screen of death' is no more. It has been replaced by the 'invisible screen of death'. The system now reboots automatically, to cover up the evidence.

In reality photons conduct very well, as radio demonstrates.

You may now continue fingerpainting

Photons are not amphibians... Electricity is electrons. Photons are electromagnetic energy.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
@Swan, so these part didn't snap you out of your trance?

Swan wrote:
CORRECTING MISTAKES
When an error occurs — the chip can automatically spot the problem and fix it.

A qubit cannot be read out without its full quantum state being irretrievably lost, which means that its information cannot be simply copied onto redundant qubits.

But theoreticians have developed elaborate 'quantum error correction' schemes to address this problem.

Joe Fitzsimons, a physicist at Horizon Quantum in Singapore, says that various laboratories have made big steps towards effective error correction, and that Google's latest result has many of the required features.

But qubits also need to store information for sufficient time for the computer to carry out calculations, and Google's team has yet to achieve that feat.

Google has set a quantum-computing roadmap for itself with six key milestones. Quantum advantage was the first, and the latest result was the second. Milestone six is a machine made of one million physical qubits, encoding 1,000 logical qubits. "At that stage, we can confidently promise commercial value," says Neven.

Superconducting qubits are only one of several approaches to building a quantum computer, and Google still thinks it has the best chance of succeeding, says Neven.

@Into the Night - I have a few questions for you because I'm confused about this superconducting quantum computing, and I was hoping you could help me out.

* do photons make good conductors?
--* how much resistance do photons normally have? how about blue photons?
* how can I make my photons become superconductors?
--* is it just a question of freezing them in liquid nitrogen?
--* can I just shine a flashlight into a vat of liquid N2 to produce superconducting photons "in bulk" for my distributed, global operations?
* how do you normally attach electrical leads to split photons?
--* is it really necessary to attach equivalent leads in the exact same way to each photon half in order to avoid the "blue screen of death" on cold boot?
* is 10-million times the speed of light a "synchronous" or "asynchronous" connection?
* does a 10-million times the speed of light-connection induce jitter between intertial frames of reference?
--* will I still be able to synchronize my satellites with superconducting qubits?

Heh. Obviously, photons are not conductors. I'd like to see someone try to solder a wire to one!

The 'blue screen of death' is no more. It has been replaced by the 'invisible screen of death'. The system now reboots automatically, to cover up the evidence.

In reality photons conduct very well, as radio demonstrates.

You may now continue fingerpainting

Photons are not amphibians... Electricity is electrons. Photons are electromagnetic energy.

Photons are extremely good at conducting.

Swan wrote:
The photon is a fundamental carrier of information,

Swan wrote:
possessing numerous information carrying degrees of freedom including frequency, phase, arrival time, polarization, orbital angular momentum, linear momentum, entanglement, etc.

Swan wrote:
Because optical photons are approximately a million times more costly (i.e., energetic) than their radio frequency counterparts, photons are a valuable resource for many military applications ranging from communications systems to visible and infrared sensing platforms.
...deleted excess jabberwocky...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Nope. I don't have a time machine.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Nope. I don't have a time machine.

Kid ...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Nope. I don't have a time machine.

Kid ...

Mantra 40a.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Nope. I don't have a time machine.

Kid ...

Mantra 40a.

You ...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Nope. I don't have a time machine.

Kid ...

Mantra 40a.

You ...

Assumption of victory fallacy. Mantra 40a.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Nope. I don't have a time machine.

Kid ...

Mantra 40a.

You ...

Assumption of victory fallacy. Mantra 40a.

Repetitive...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, I've gotten the impression that photons are theoretical 'particles', or a unit of reference. It's an observation that need a name, and measurement. Seems like there is some confusion in what has been observed and measured, and what is in theory. Probably why they work so well in quantum computers...

There is, of course, no such thing as a 'quantum computer'.

Many particles have both a wave like behavior and a particle like behavior, not just photons.
You really should study the works of Heisenberg. He addresses this dual nature of these particles with his mathematics in a very elegant way.

Essentially, it comes down to frequency analysis of a particle being related to it's speed.

Kid you are literally living in the past.

Nope. I don't have a time machine.

Kid ...

Mantra 40a.

You ...

Assumption of victory fallacy. Mantra 40a.

Repetitive...

Mantra 1d.