Remember me
▼ Content

Google and NASA achieved quantum supremacy in 2019



Page 2 of 2<12
13-11-2022 00:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:Google and NASA Achieve Quantum Supremacy


.
Attached image:

15-11-2022 17:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLVtCYHVO8
15-11-2022 20:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
A nice piece. She does seem to have a good way of explaining quantum mechanics as well.
20-11-2022 05:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Into the Night wrote:A nice piece. She does seem to have a good way of explaining quantum mechanics as well.

Attached image:

20-11-2022 19:48
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
It still seems extremely odd, that it's so hard to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations. I can see being secretive about the chips, but the logic functions, math operations... There are high-level languages, compiled to run on the quantum computer, but absolutely zero on the lower level operations. I can see how a lot of the newer stuff, might be hidden behind a paywall. But seriously, there is a huge block of basic information missing here. I was learning logic gates, years before there were personal computers. Didn't really have access to 74xx chips until my second year in high school. We used transistors to form the basic gates. Even if the hardware isn't widely available, no reason people can't play around on paper to prepare for the eventual chance at the 'real' thing. I'm guessing that decades of high-level programming, few are taught what is going on in the chips, and only a few even care. High-level languages are portable, and the harware seldom matters.
20-11-2022 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It still seems extremely odd, that it's so hard to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations. I can see being secretive about the chips, but the logic functions, math operations... There are high-level languages, compiled to run on the quantum computer, but absolutely zero on the lower level operations. I can see how a lot of the newer stuff, might be hidden behind a paywall. But seriously, there is a huge block of basic information missing here. I was learning logic gates, years before there were personal computers. Didn't really have access to 74xx chips until my second year in high school. We used transistors to form the basic gates. Even if the hardware isn't widely available, no reason people can't play around on paper to prepare for the eventual chance at the 'real' thing. I'm guessing that decades of high-level programming, few are taught what is going on in the chips, and only a few even care. High-level languages are portable, and the harware seldom matters.

There are no quantum chips. There is no such thing as a 'qubit'. There are no math operations performed with buzzwords. There are no logic functions for buzzwords.

Condenser languages (such as Pascal, Python, some Lisps, Java, Ruby, or Perl) can run on any hardware, but performance suffers badly as a result. These languages are condensers...that is they compile to token code. They do not compile to machine code. They interpret the tokens, slowing down execution by an order of magnitude. Their advantage is that they can run on any hardware the interpreter is built for, the disadvantage is that they are slow.

Interpreter languages (such as Bash, some Lisps, most programmable calculators), are even slower. There is no condensing going on, so interpretation is on the source code itself. The advantage of interpreters is that code can be self modifying, and there is no condensing step.

Compilers compile to in intermediate 'binary' image, known as 'object' files. These are not executable. They act as input files for the linker, which produces an 'executable' file, that is, one that is an input file to the system loader.

The loader is the only thing that takes linker output files and converts them to a final image in memory (directly executable machine instructions).

It is the loader that determines the capabilities of an operating system more than any other program.

There is no such thing as a quantum computer. There are no machine instructions. The term 'quantum computer' is strictly a meaningless buzzword.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-11-2022 20:20
20-11-2022 20:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
HarveyH55 wrote:It still seems extremely odd, that it's so hard to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations.

You are spot on. Your observation should cause all rational adults to become dubious.

1. We are told that qubits are elementary particles, that use quantum mechanics principles to "superposition" their states.

2. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle renders point #1 impossible.

Hmmmmmm.

As you said, there's a huge block of information missing if the above impossibility is to be possible.



Ergo, regarding Quantum Bank:

The more you know where your money is,
The less you know how much you have.

The Quantum Bank slogan: "Know that your money is in Quantum Bank!"
20-11-2022 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:A nice piece. She does seem to have a good way of explaining quantum mechanics as well.



Nice piece of work. Your memes are getting pretty good!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-11-2022 20:36
20-11-2022 21:17
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4463)
When two qubits entangle, they both have the same state. Do they need to be in the same state, before the can entangle? Do they have some rule to follow, as to which state the entangled pair will take on? One qubit is in one state, other given a different state, doesn't entanglement produce a predictable third state? Have seen anything about how qubits are untangled. Pretty much seems like they mate for life. Qubits also seem to be monogamous. They don't entangle with any other qubits, just the one they are mated to. Maybe all this stuff is so basic, that it's buried deep in Google, since popular links would be 'cutting-edge'. Still, for the next generation of computing power, you'd think that there would be a huge variety of information, easy to access. Just to get everyone to jump on board, and want involved in this new technology.
20-11-2022 22:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
HarveyH55 wrote:When two qubits entangle, they both have the same state.

Yeah, the verb "entangle" is a misnomer. "Entangled" particles are created by splitting existing particles, with the resulting pair obviously being of the same state.

The bogus aspect of all this is the unsubstantiated claim that if one of the pair changes state, that the other somehow changes state for no other reason than its entangled mate changed. To make the claim even more bogus, the change occurs instantaneously at all distances, not at any speed, e.g. the speed of light.

Gullible people, e.g. Swan, readily believe such claims, no matter how unbelievable.

HarveyH55 wrote: Do they need to be in the same state, before the can entangle?

Yes, because they are the same particle before they are split. Both parts are obviously in whatever state the unsplit particle is before it is split.

HarveyH55 wrote: Have seen anything about how qubits are untangled.

There is no such thing as "entangling," there is only "splitting." Therefore there is no such thing as "untangling" either..

HarveyH55 wrote:Pretty much seems like they mate for life.

Well, more like the orginal particle is split for life, and yes, that is the claim, except with the addition of a magical, instantaneous link between the split pair that stretches over any distance. The magical link defies General Relativity. Just as warmizombies need to prove thermodynamics and black body science false for Climate Change to work, quantimbeciles need to prove General Relativity and quantum mechanics false for quantum entanglement to work.

HarveyH55 wrote: Qubits also seem to be monogamous. They don't entangle with any other qubits, just the one they are mated to.

Yes, that is the claim. What doesn't get mentioned is that one of each qubit pair must be transported to wherever it needs to be in the universe. This requires both entangled particles to be identified up front, and one placed at point A and the other placed at point B. There is no way to do this. This is not possible.
20-11-2022 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
HarveyH55 wrote:
When two qubits entangle, they both have the same state. Do they need to be in the same state, before the can entangle?

There is no such thing as a 'qubit'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Do they have some rule to follow, as to which state the entangled pair will take on? One qubit is in one state, other given a different state, doesn't entanglement produce a predictable third state? Have seen anything about how qubits are untangled.

There is no such thing as a 'qubit'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Pretty much seems like they mate for life.

Quantum mechanics isn't sex. Particles do not mate.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Qubits also seem to be monogamous. They don't entangle with any other qubits, just the one they are mated to.

Particles do not mate.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe all this stuff is so basic, that it's buried deep in Google, since popular links would be 'cutting-edge'. Still, for the next generation of computing power, you'd think that there would be a huge variety of information, easy to access. Just to get everyone to jump on board, and want involved in this new technology.

If you mean a money making scam, yes it is.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Google and NASA achieved quantum supremacy in 2019:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r6701-11-2022 04:08
Quantum internet alliance to build unhackable quantum internet7930-10-2022 02:08
What Is Quantum Entanglement? A Physicist Explains QE for really dumb people2428-10-2022 19:48
Mastercard Develops Quantum-Safe Payment Cards4527-10-2022 22:56
Quantum Entanglement Has Now Been Directly Observed at The Macroscopic Scale7025-10-2022 15:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact