QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER

QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER
2 Comments by: Al Williams
February 17, 2023

[img]https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/q.png?w=800[/img]

If you are a retrocomputer fan, you might remember when serial ports were a few hundred baud and busses ran at a few megahertz at the most. Today, of course, we have buses and fabric that can run at tremendous speeds. Quantum computing, though, has to start from scratch. One major problem is that jockeying quantum states around for any distance is difficult and slow. Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly, so you don't have much time. They are also generally susceptible to noise and perturbation by outside forces. So many quantum machines today are limited by how much they can cram on one chip since there isn't a good way to connect to another chip. The University of Sussex thinks it has improved the outlook for quantum interconnects with a technique they claim can move qubits around at nearly 2,500 links per second.

The technique, called UQ Connect, uses electric field links to connect multiple chips using trapped ions for qubits. If you want to read the actual paper, you can find it in Nature Communications.


Like most of quantum computing, the transport mechanism isn't perfect. But they did manage a 99.99993% success rate. That's better than some modems we've used. The motivation is to allow very large-scale quantum computers to exist. In the paper, they use an example of simulating a particular molecule important to agriculture. The simulation could have real-world benefits but would require a million qubits. Using current technology, the paper explains, a single quantum chip could hold around 2,600 qubits. To assemble a million would require interconnecting many chips, something that hasn't been feasible without UQ Connect.

The technology reminds us of radio, where electrodes on each module align but don't touch. The distance in the test, though, wasn't very large, only 648 μm so you still won't have a lot of room to pack in modules. But it is an interesting first step and one can imagine a fabric of quantum chips, with each chip edge connecting to other modules.

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/17/quantum-interconnects-get-faster/

QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER
2 Comments by: Al Williams
February 17, 2023

[img]https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/q.png?w=800[/img]

If you are a retrocomputer fan, you might remember when serial ports were a few hundred baud and busses ran at a few megahertz at the most. Today, of course, we have buses and fabric that can run at tremendous speeds. Quantum computing, though, has to start from scratch. One major problem is that jockeying quantum states around for any distance is difficult and slow. Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly, so you don't have much time. They are also generally susceptible to noise and perturbation by outside forces. So many quantum machines today are limited by how much they can cram on one chip since there isn't a good way to connect to another chip. The University of Sussex thinks it has improved the outlook for quantum interconnects with a technique they claim can move qubits around at nearly 2,500 links per second.

The technique, called UQ Connect, uses electric field links to connect multiple chips using trapped ions for qubits. If you want to read the actual paper, you can find it in Nature Communications.


Like most of quantum computing, the transport mechanism isn't perfect. But they did manage a 99.99993% success rate. That's better than some modems we've used. The motivation is to allow very large-scale quantum computers to exist. In the paper, they use an example of simulating a particular molecule important to agriculture. The simulation could have real-world benefits but would require a million qubits. Using current technology, the paper explains, a single quantum chip could hold around 2,600 qubits. To assemble a million would require interconnecting many chips, something that hasn't been feasible without UQ Connect.

The technology reminds us of radio, where electrodes on each module align but don't touch. The distance in the test, though, wasn't very large, only 648 μm so you still won't have a lot of room to pack in modules. But it is an interesting first step and one can imagine a fabric of quantum chips, with each chip edge connecting to other modules.

Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be. I get that most programmers have only learn high-level languages, and ignorant of what is actually going on at the chip level. But, if you have limited resources to work with, you can leverage all of it in machine language.

From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value. It'll be an expensive lab-toy, of limited function. Basically, it's a wild idea, that could be cool, if it could be built. Unfortunately, physics, and the environment are severe limiting factors. Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences. But a computer is useless, if you can't interact with it.

HarveyH55 wrote:Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be.

HarveyH55 wrote:From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Swan wrote:Actually quantum computers are at least hundreds of millions of times faster than binary computers in the processes that they can do.

HarveyH55 wrote:Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value.

HarveyH55 wrote: Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be.

Wise move. You won't get any of your life back that you spent trying to find that information. It would be the same result if you looked for information telling you what tattoos Bigfoot has under his fur.

HarveyH55 wrote:From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Yet Swan will insist:

Swan wrote:Actually quantum computers are at least hundreds of millions of times faster than binary computers in the processes that they can do.

... and you know that Swan wouldn't just make shit up.

HarveyH55 wrote:Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value.

I like what you did there, i.e. you left open a remote, non-zero possibility that quantum computers might one day be given away as novelty gifts at birthday parties.

As a matter of fact, the next time I see one of those baloon-twisting clowns, I'm going to ask him to make one into a quantum computer. If he says "I don't know what one looks like. There aren't any." ... I'll stick Swan on him.

HarveyH55 wrote: Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences.

Did you notice when the article mentioned "Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly"? Ignoring the bogus claims of magically defying Heisenberg uncertainty, even the parlor magicians measure the lives of their qubits in microseconds. The elephant in the room is the fact that qubits cannot survive long enough for values to be assigned to them.

Swan, do you care?

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/17/quantum-interconnects-get-faster/

QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER
2 Comments by: Al Williams
February 17, 2023

[img]https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/q.png?w=800[/img]

If you are a retrocomputer fan, you might remember when serial ports were a few hundred baud and busses ran at a few megahertz at the most. Today, of course, we have buses and fabric that can run at tremendous speeds. Quantum computing, though, has to start from scratch. One major problem is that jockeying quantum states around for any distance is difficult and slow. Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly, so you don't have much time. They are also generally susceptible to noise and perturbation by outside forces. So many quantum machines today are limited by how much they can cram on one chip since there isn't a good way to connect to another chip. The University of Sussex thinks it has improved the outlook for quantum interconnects with a technique they claim can move qubits around at nearly 2,500 links per second.

The technique, called UQ Connect, uses electric field links to connect multiple chips using trapped ions for qubits. If you want to read the actual paper, you can find it in Nature Communications.


Like most of quantum computing, the transport mechanism isn't perfect. But they did manage a 99.99993% success rate. That's better than some modems we've used. The motivation is to allow very large-scale quantum computers to exist. In the paper, they use an example of simulating a particular molecule important to agriculture. The simulation could have real-world benefits but would require a million qubits. Using current technology, the paper explains, a single quantum chip could hold around 2,600 qubits. To assemble a million would require interconnecting many chips, something that hasn't been feasible without UQ Connect.

The technology reminds us of radio, where electrodes on each module align but don't touch. The distance in the test, though, wasn't very large, only 648 μm so you still won't have a lot of room to pack in modules. But it is an interesting first step and one can imagine a fabric of quantum chips, with each chip edge connecting to other modules.

Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be. I get that most programmers have only learn high-level languages, and ignorant of what is actually going on at the chip level. But, if you have limited resources to work with, you can leverage all of it in machine language.

From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value. It'll be an expensive lab-toy, of limited function. Basically, it's a wild idea, that could be cool, if it could be built. Unfortunately, physics, and the environment are severe limiting factors. Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences. But a computer is useless, if you can't interact with it.

Actually quantum computers are at least hundreds of millions of times faster than binary computers in the processes that they can do.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/17/quantum-interconnects-get-faster/

QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER
2 Comments by: Al Williams
February 17, 2023

[img]https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/q.png?w=800[/img]

If you are a retrocomputer fan, you might remember when serial ports were a few hundred baud and busses ran at a few megahertz at the most. Today, of course, we have buses and fabric that can run at tremendous speeds. Quantum computing, though, has to start from scratch. One major problem is that jockeying quantum states around for any distance is difficult and slow. Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly, so you don't have much time. They are also generally susceptible to noise and perturbation by outside forces. So many quantum machines today are limited by how much they can cram on one chip since there isn't a good way to connect to another chip. The University of Sussex thinks it has improved the outlook for quantum interconnects with a technique they claim can move qubits around at nearly 2,500 links per second.

The technique, called UQ Connect, uses electric field links to connect multiple chips using trapped ions for qubits. If you want to read the actual paper, you can find it in Nature Communications.


Like most of quantum computing, the transport mechanism isn't perfect. But they did manage a 99.99993% success rate. That's better than some modems we've used. The motivation is to allow very large-scale quantum computers to exist. In the paper, they use an example of simulating a particular molecule important to agriculture. The simulation could have real-world benefits but would require a million qubits. Using current technology, the paper explains, a single quantum chip could hold around 2,600 qubits. To assemble a million would require interconnecting many chips, something that hasn't been feasible without UQ Connect.

The technology reminds us of radio, where electrodes on each module align but don't touch. The distance in the test, though, wasn't very large, only 648 μm so you still won't have a lot of room to pack in modules. But it is an interesting first step and one can imagine a fabric of quantum chips, with each chip edge connecting to other modules.

Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be. I get that most programmers have only learn high-level languages, and ignorant of what is actually going on at the chip level. But, if you have limited resources to work with, you can leverage all of it in machine language.

From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value. It'll be an expensive lab-toy, of limited function. Basically, it's a wild idea, that could be cool, if it could be built. Unfortunately, physics, and the environment are severe limiting factors. Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences. But a computer is useless, if you can't interact with it.

Actually quantum computers are at least hundreds of millions of times faster than binary computers in the processes that they can do.

In theory only... Meaningless, until you can make them stable, interact (input, output). Is it really fast, if it takes a couple hours to setup and prepare to run a program. Then, another hour or so, to retrieve the results.

Can only guess, but seems like you've never programmed a computer. Not that I blame you, high-level languages kind suck, when they pushed the 'structured' programming thing. I lost interest after moving to IBM compatibles, and Windows took over.

Swan wrote:Funny how you would rather babble about quantum computers now, rather than discuss the Clinton FBI deliberately trying to ruin people's lives like they did to me and Carter Page

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/17/quantum-interconnects-get-faster/

QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER
2 Comments by: Al Williams
February 17, 2023

[img]https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/q.png?w=800[/img]

If you are a retrocomputer fan, you might remember when serial ports were a few hundred baud and busses ran at a few megahertz at the most. Today, of course, we have buses and fabric that can run at tremendous speeds. Quantum computing, though, has to start from scratch. One major problem is that jockeying quantum states around for any distance is difficult and slow. Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly, so you don't have much time. They are also generally susceptible to noise and perturbation by outside forces. So many quantum machines today are limited by how much they can cram on one chip since there isn't a good way to connect to another chip. The University of Sussex thinks it has improved the outlook for quantum interconnects with a technique they claim can move qubits around at nearly 2,500 links per second.

The technique, called UQ Connect, uses electric field links to connect multiple chips using trapped ions for qubits. If you want to read the actual paper, you can find it in Nature Communications.


Like most of quantum computing, the transport mechanism isn't perfect. But they did manage a 99.99993% success rate. That's better than some modems we've used. The motivation is to allow very large-scale quantum computers to exist. In the paper, they use an example of simulating a particular molecule important to agriculture. The simulation could have real-world benefits but would require a million qubits. Using current technology, the paper explains, a single quantum chip could hold around 2,600 qubits. To assemble a million would require interconnecting many chips, something that hasn't been feasible without UQ Connect.

The technology reminds us of radio, where electrodes on each module align but don't touch. The distance in the test, though, wasn't very large, only 648 μm so you still won't have a lot of room to pack in modules. But it is an interesting first step and one can imagine a fabric of quantum chips, with each chip edge connecting to other modules.

Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be. I get that most programmers have only learn high-level languages, and ignorant of what is actually going on at the chip level. But, if you have limited resources to work with, you can leverage all of it in machine language.

From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value. It'll be an expensive lab-toy, of limited function. Basically, it's a wild idea, that could be cool, if it could be built. Unfortunately, physics, and the environment are severe limiting factors. Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences. But a computer is useless, if you can't interact with it.

Actually quantum computers are at least hundreds of millions of times faster than binary computers in the processes that they can do.

In theory only... Meaningless, until you can make them stable, interact (input, output). Is it really fast, if it takes a couple hours to setup and prepare to run a program. Then, another hour or so, to retrieve the results.

Can only guess, but seems like you've never programmed a computer. Not that I blame you, high-level languages kind suck, when they pushed the 'structured' programming thing. I lost interest after moving to IBM compatibles, and Windows took over.

You wouldn't know a quantum computer if it crawled up your ass and had babies. But do please try again

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Funny how you would rather babble about quantum computers now, rather than discuss the Clinton FBI deliberately trying to ruin people's lives like they did to me and Carter Page

It's because I feel guilty. I didn't interview you either.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/17/quantum-interconnects-get-faster/

QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER
2 Comments by: Al Williams
February 17, 2023

[img]https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/q.png?w=800[/img]

If you are a retrocomputer fan, you might remember when serial ports were a few hundred baud and busses ran at a few megahertz at the most. Today, of course, we have buses and fabric that can run at tremendous speeds. Quantum computing, though, has to start from scratch. One major problem is that jockeying quantum states around for any distance is difficult and slow. Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly, so you don't have much time. They are also generally susceptible to noise and perturbation by outside forces. So many quantum machines today are limited by how much they can cram on one chip since there isn't a good way to connect to another chip. The University of Sussex thinks it has improved the outlook for quantum interconnects with a technique they claim can move qubits around at nearly 2,500 links per second.

The technique, called UQ Connect, uses electric field links to connect multiple chips using trapped ions for qubits. If you want to read the actual paper, you can find it in Nature Communications.


Like most of quantum computing, the transport mechanism isn't perfect. But they did manage a 99.99993% success rate. That's better than some modems we've used. The motivation is to allow very large-scale quantum computers to exist. In the paper, they use an example of simulating a particular molecule important to agriculture. The simulation could have real-world benefits but would require a million qubits. Using current technology, the paper explains, a single quantum chip could hold around 2,600 qubits. To assemble a million would require interconnecting many chips, something that hasn't been feasible without UQ Connect.

The technology reminds us of radio, where electrodes on each module align but don't touch. The distance in the test, though, wasn't very large, only 648 μm so you still won't have a lot of room to pack in modules. But it is an interesting first step and one can imagine a fabric of quantum chips, with each chip edge connecting to other modules.

Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be. I get that most programmers have only learn high-level languages, and ignorant of what is actually going on at the chip level. But, if you have limited resources to work with, you can leverage all of it in machine language.

From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value. It'll be an expensive lab-toy, of limited function. Basically, it's a wild idea, that could be cool, if it could be built. Unfortunately, physics, and the environment are severe limiting factors. Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences. But a computer is useless, if you can't interact with it.

Actually quantum computers are at least hundreds of millions of times faster than binary computers in the processes that they can do.

In theory only... Meaningless, until you can make them stable, interact (input, output). Is it really fast, if it takes a couple hours to setup and prepare to run a program. Then, another hour or so, to retrieve the results.

Can only guess, but seems like you've never programmed a computer. Not that I blame you, high-level languages kind suck, when they pushed the 'structured' programming thing. I lost interest after moving to IBM compatibles, and Windows took over.

You wouldn't know a quantum computer if it crawled up your ass and had babies. But do please try again

True enough, since it wouldn't be any faster, than a computer from the 90s. Sort of like having an 'impressive' 130 IQ, <cough, cough>, and only have the capacity of a middle school child. Fortunately, I wasn't born with your limitations. I'd be bored,if hanging out on this site all day, was my entire world. Never held much stock in IQ tests. But, then again, I don't hold an stock in Apple either...

Swan wrote:Actually

Swan wrote:Now a binary computer must count the 0 and 1's present and process them as open or closed,

Swan wrote:while a qubit is 0/1/or 0 and 1 concurrently.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually

Oops, Swan opened with the word "Actually" so what follows is sure to be incorrect.

Swan wrote:Now a binary computer must count the 0 and 1's present and process them as open or closed,

Incorrect. Who'd have guessed?

The ones and zeros ride on the data bus. They aren't counted, except for parity or in other specific applications. .

Swan wrote:while a qubit is 0/1/or 0 and 1 concurrently.

There aren't any qubits.. You are speaking in sci-fi as though it were real.

Scam artists who claim to be "researching" this guaranteed unsuccessful pursuit (thus guaranteeing an eternal need for research grants) are merely attempting to divide photons. Unfortunately, they always lose the divided photons within a matter of microseconds, but instead of referring to this as "losing the photon" they refer to it as the "qubit decay.". This is not technology. This is a scam. Every few months the scam artists release a new announcement concerning a new record length of time (a few additional microseconds) that a "qubit remained stable" in order to show promise for the "technology" and for the windfall of tremendous results that would surely befall the lucky organization that chose to continue funding this "research.". This illusion of developing qubit stability is really what the organization is buying because it keeps stock values high or ensures padded budgets.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/17/quantum-interconnects-get-faster/

QUANTUM INTERCONNECTS GET FASTER
2 Comments by: Al Williams
February 17, 2023

[img]https://hackaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/q.png?w=800[/img]

If you are a retrocomputer fan, you might remember when serial ports were a few hundred baud and busses ran at a few megahertz at the most. Today, of course, we have buses and fabric that can run at tremendous speeds. Quantum computing, though, has to start from scratch. One major problem is that jockeying quantum states around for any distance is difficult and slow. Part of it is that qubits decay rapidly, so you don't have much time. They are also generally susceptible to noise and perturbation by outside forces. So many quantum machines today are limited by how much they can cram on one chip since there isn't a good way to connect to another chip. The University of Sussex thinks it has improved the outlook for quantum interconnects with a technique they claim can move qubits around at nearly 2,500 links per second.

The technique, called UQ Connect, uses electric field links to connect multiple chips using trapped ions for qubits. If you want to read the actual paper, you can find it in Nature Communications.


Like most of quantum computing, the transport mechanism isn't perfect. But they did manage a 99.99993% success rate. That's better than some modems we've used. The motivation is to allow very large-scale quantum computers to exist. In the paper, they use an example of simulating a particular molecule important to agriculture. The simulation could have real-world benefits but would require a million qubits. Using current technology, the paper explains, a single quantum chip could hold around 2,600 qubits. To assemble a million would require interconnecting many chips, something that hasn't been feasible without UQ Connect.

The technology reminds us of radio, where electrodes on each module align but don't touch. The distance in the test, though, wasn't very large, only 648 μm so you still won't have a lot of room to pack in modules. But it is an interesting first step and one can imagine a fabric of quantum chips, with each chip edge connecting to other modules.

Gave up on trying to find anything about how qubits are manipulated to perform operations, or what those operations might be. I get that most programmers have only learn high-level languages, and ignorant of what is actually going on at the chip level. But, if you have limited resources to work with, you can leverage all of it in machine language.

From this article, it confirms that 'quantum' computers are actually stupid slow. Doesn't matter how fast the processor, if you can't move data and instructions in and out fast as well.

Still very doubtful that any quantum computer, will be of any commercial value. It'll be an expensive lab-toy, of limited function. Basically, it's a wild idea, that could be cool, if it could be built. Unfortunately, physics, and the environment are severe limiting factors. Qubits are just too sensitive to outside influences. But a computer is useless, if you can't interact with it.

Actually quantum computers are at least hundreds of millions of times faster than binary computers in the processes that they can do.

In theory only... Meaningless, until you can make them stable, interact (input, output). Is it really fast, if it takes a couple hours to setup and prepare to run a program. Then, another hour or so, to retrieve the results.

Can only guess, but seems like you've never programmed a computer. Not that I blame you, high-level languages kind suck, when they pushed the 'structured' programming thing. I lost interest after moving to IBM compatibles, and Windows took over.

You wouldn't know a quantum computer if it crawled up your ass and had babies. But do please try again

True enough, since it wouldn't be any faster, than a computer from the 90s. Sort of like having an 'impressive' 130 IQ, <cough, cough>, and only have the capacity of a middle school child. Fortunately, I wasn't born with your limitations. I'd be bored,if hanging out on this site all day, was my entire world. Never held much stock in IQ tests. But, then again, I don't hold an stock in Apple either...

Actually you are wrong and your ignorance is reflected in your rank or pay scale. Now a binary computer must count the 0 and 1's present and process them as open or closed, while a qubit is 0/1/or 0 and 1 concurrently. Much like a door in a home always being open but still keeping out the elements, if this type of door existed no one would ever need to waste time opening a door again, thus you can get in and out faster without the door's resistance.

130

Now finish peeling the potatoes little one.

HarveyH55 wrote:Your reading comprehension doesn't reflect a very high IQ. Are you sure it's not a typo... If you understood the article I posted, the 'door' is the problem. Qubits are really 'sensitive' to outside influences. But, there needs to be links to the outside. Otherwise you could never instruct the computer to do anything. Nor could you get any results back out. The 'breakthrough' in the article is very slow, compared to binary computers. Which means the quantum computer is going to be slow as well. You can't get full performance, if you can't communicate fast too. The processor has to wait most of the time, while you catch up. Fortunate, computers are more patient, than people.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Your reading comprehension doesn't reflect a very high IQ. Are you sure it's not a typo... If you understood the article I posted, the 'door' is the problem. Qubits are really 'sensitive' to outside influences. But, there needs to be links to the outside. Otherwise you could never instruct the computer to do anything. Nor could you get any results back out. The 'breakthrough' in the article is very slow, compared to binary computers. Which means the quantum computer is going to be slow as well. You can't get full performance, if you can't communicate fast too. The processor has to wait most of the time, while you catch up. Fortunate, computers are more patient, than people.

I see the problem as being rather insurmountable. The concept behind quantum entanglement is you split an elementary particle into two entangled halves. Then, you transport one of the halves half way across the galaxy and compute instantaneously over the vast distance because all you need to do is to manipulate the half you have at your end.

So you split your elementary particle and get it ready for transport across the galaxy, when before you even begin to walk down the hallway, your particle is lost ... ooops ... I mean "decayed."

How can you transport something over a great distance if it ceases to exist long before you can even begin transporting it?

Swan wrote:Says the fool who does not know that entanglement and qubits are not one in the same

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the fool who does not know that entanglement and qubits are not one in the same

Says the fool.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Your reading comprehension doesn't reflect a very high IQ. Are you sure it's not a typo... If you understood the article I posted, the 'door' is the problem. Qubits are really 'sensitive' to outside influences. But, there needs to be links to the outside. Otherwise you could never instruct the computer to do anything. Nor could you get any results back out. The 'breakthrough' in the article is very slow, compared to binary computers. Which means the quantum computer is going to be slow as well. You can't get full performance, if you can't communicate fast too. The processor has to wait most of the time, while you catch up. Fortunate, computers are more patient, than people.

I see the problem as being rather insurmountable. The concept behind quantum entanglement is you split an elementary particle into two entangled halves. Then, you transport one of the halves half way across the galaxy and compute instantaneously over the vast distance because all you need to do is to manipulate the half you have at your end.

So you split your elementary particle and get it ready for transport across the galaxy, when before you even begin to walk down the hallway, your particle is lost ... ooops ... I mean "decayed."

How can you transport something over a great distance if it ceases to exist long before you can even begin transporting it?

Says the fool who does not know that entanglement and qubits are not one in the same

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Your reading comprehension doesn't reflect a very high IQ. Are you sure it's not a typo... If you understood the article I posted, the 'door' is the problem. Qubits are really 'sensitive' to outside influences. But, there needs to be links to the outside. Otherwise you could never instruct the computer to do anything. Nor could you get any results back out. The 'breakthrough' in the article is very slow, compared to binary computers. Which means the quantum computer is going to be slow as well. You can't get full performance, if you can't communicate fast too. The processor has to wait most of the time, while you catch up. Fortunate, computers are more patient, than people.

I see the problem as being rather insurmountable. The concept behind quantum entanglement is you split an elementary particle into two entangled halves. Then, you transport one of the halves half way across the galaxy and compute instantaneously over the vast distance because all you need to do is to manipulate the half you have at your end.

So you split your elementary particle and get it ready for transport across the galaxy, when before you even begin to walk down the hallway, your particle is lost ... ooops ... I mean "decayed."

How can you transport something over a great distance if it ceases to exist long before you can even begin transporting it?

Says the fool who does not know that entanglement and qubits are not one in the same

Hey Swan, forgive me for being a bit ignorant about computers and all the terminology. I'm going to be a nice guy and toss you a hanging curve ball. This will be a real opportunity to show off that 30 IQ.

Could you please describe a little in depth the difference between entanglement and qubits? I always thought they were one in the same. Thanks in advance.

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

Swan wrote:Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

GasGuzzler wrote:OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

... but you know I will prove it for you. I'm sure you were simply waiting for the right time to ask me. I will tell you in advance what my response will be.

Verb: to contain Noun: containment
Verb: to entertain Noun: entertainment
Verb: to apportion Noun: apportionment
Verb: to entangle Noun: entanglement
Verb: to bereave Noun: bereavement
Verb: to testify Noun: testament

GasGuzzler wrote:OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

At first, it appeared you were responding to Swan, but then I noticed "OK genius" and so I knew you were addressing this to me.

"After I had entanglemented my shoe laces, I had to disentanglement them."

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

I already did retard. But since you are retarded, I will repeat another. Entanglement has been measured at 10,000 times the speed of light, if not faster. As such from a human perspective entanglement is instant between any two points on the Earth. See retard movement denotes a verb, like the retard is running or the particles are entangling which happens before any measurement can actually happen.

But you will never know, so just make sure that you finish peeling my potatoes, on time.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

I already did retard. But since you are retarded, I will repeat another. Entanglement has been measured at 10,000 times the speed of light, if not faster. As such from a human perspective entanglement is instant between any two points on the Earth. See retard movement denotes a verb, like the retard is running or the particles are entangling which happens before any measurement can actually happen.

But you will never know, so just make sure that you finish peeling my potatoes, on time.

Entanglement has no speed.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

I already did retard. But since you are retarded, I will repeat another. Entanglement has been measured at 10,000 times the speed of light, if not faster. As such from a human perspective entanglement is instant between any two points on the Earth. See retard movement denotes a verb, like the retard is running or the particles are entangling which happens before any measurement can actually happen.

But you will never know, so just make sure that you finish peeling my potatoes, on time.

Entanglement has no speed.

Sure it does and it has been measured.

Quantum "spooky action at a distance" travels at least 10,000 times faster than light

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
...a quantum bit and entanglement is a verb

I'm beginning to see the full extent of your reading comprehension problem.

30 LOL.

So, you still believe that a qubit and entanglement are the same thing. Consider your foolishness, the first qubit was invented in 1997, but entanglement was introduced in 1935 and proven in 1972. Furthermore, entanglement is a physical property of matter, so it is likely at least as old as the universe.

Yawning at a complete clown.



30, conservatively

So, tell me again why I should receive my quantum computer education from the shitzo who claims a 130 IQ but doesn't know a noun from a verb.

30 lol

Again a qubit is a noun, and entanglement is a verb as it is the act of entangling particles which may or may not be qubits. But you stay right there in your potato peeler pay grade, as you are very important at mealtime.

Seriously I like people like you, because ignorant buffoons like you always think that you can win, and frankly you are amusing, as was the DEA agent who blew off his own foot in a classroom of schoolkids. Me I would pay to lose just once to experience the sensation.

CIAO

Entanglement is a noun.

Prove it. Not only can't you prove this but you will not try because all you will do is continue to mock yourself as usual.

LOL you may continue your absentminded trolling now

OK genius. Please show us how dumb we are. Properly construct a sentence using "entanglement" as a verb. I've made popcorn, the floor is all yours.

I already did retard. But since you are retarded, I will repeat another. Entanglement has been measured at 10,000 times the speed of light, if not faster. As such from a human perspective entanglement is instant between any two points on the Earth. See retard movement denotes a verb, like the retard is running or the particles are entangling which happens before any measurement can actually happen.

But you will never know, so just make sure that you finish peeling my potatoes, on time.

Entanglement has no speed.

Sure it does and it has been measured.

Quantum "spooky action at a distance" travels at least 10,000 times faster than light

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Entanglement has no speed.

Sure it does and it has been measured.

Swan wrote:
Yup 10,000 times light speed and it does not even violate relativity because the traveling photons are massless. That said the red shift images indicate that the farthest galaxies are moving 5 times light speed which does violate relativity, but then according to Einstdum there is no red shift because the universe is not moving. All you can babble however is whatever your third grade teachers programmed you with

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Entanglement has no speed.

Sure it does and it has been measured.

You cannot measure a speed of something that has no speed.