is this true chat? what the fuck is (((quantum computing))) anyway

Is Ask Jeeves broken?

>>105791955 (OP)
Quantum Computing is when they use qubits instead of bits. A bit is just a 1 or a 0 but a qubit is like a schizophrenic bit that does a lot of crazy things and has more than 2 values lol.

>>105791955 (OP)
Yeah that's not happening
Error correction is still an unsolved open problem in QC and every attempt to make "alternative" qubits avoiding the need for error correction has failed

>>105791982
So you can store any of the infinite values between 0 and 1 in a qubit? Like... really infinite decimals no precision? How the fuck does that work?

>>105792013
AI will solve it

>>105791955 (OP)
Clickbait topic, we have already accounted for these advancements a decade ago and they'll simply implement more advance encryption techniques(that are already in use btw) quantum computing isn't breaking shit

>>105791955 (OP)
It's fake based on fake science

CERN is basically Tesla of science.

>>105791955 (OP)
>is this true chat?
We can't know yet. I don't mean the time frame, we can't know if the proposed algorithm will actually scale on quantum computers. There are both expert voices saying yes or no.
>what the fuck is (((quantum computing))) anyway
Qubits (instead of bits) can be 1, 0, tending towards 1 or tending towards 0. That means qubits can store way more data than the same amount of bits. That's why we spend billions (or rather companies and researchers do) to create these highly sensitive, super cooled computers that can barely do anything currently in hopes that we can finally go beyond traditional computing and moore's law for... Well don't know yet but maybe it can help with highly complex computations!

>>105792073
So the idea explained for a retarded like me is that in the future, in the same space occupied by a bit that currently stores a binary value, any value in the infinite range between 0 and 1 can be stored with infinite precision?

>>105792104
>in the same space occupied by a bit that currently stores a binary value,
Well you need these super special computers that are extremely restricted and might not ever be viable for home use.
>any value in the infinite range between 0 and 1 can be stored with infinite precision?
Only before you read it. Once you try to read the qubit it falls into one of the four categories I listed.

It's actually in 2 more week, not by 2034, so please renew your grant.

>>105792141
>Only before you read it. Once you try to read the qubit it falls into one of the four categories I listed.
How the fuck does that work. Does it have a probability associated with it? Is it magic?

>>105791955 (OP)
Who cares? Stuff is already getting patched with quantum-resistant algorithms. And it's not like you're going to suddenly have access to every encrypted file in history, these are symmetric encryption and the only thing quantum memeputers are really good at is finding prime numbers.

>>105792169
I'll be honest, I got now clue. As soon as quantum physics are involved it all turns more into what we consider philosophy. They're fun thought experiments but I can't take quantum physics seriously.

>>105791955 (OP)
Quantum computing isn't real
Physics has been nothing but lies for decades now.
Physicists make equations to explain real phenomena, but at the subatomic level it's impossible to measure. So they guess. And then come up with theory based on that, and more guessesbasedon that.
It's all a house of cards of lies with lies as foundation.
Pretty much anything with 'quantum' is physicists abusing or extrapolating imperfect theory beyond reality.
The end goal is secure funding for research.
It's all just money laundering.

>>105791982
>>105792060
it's all made up bullshit that doens't exist in real life
>>105792208
this guy knows whats up

>>105792141
>Only before you read it. Once you try to read the qubit it falls into one of the four categories I listed.

I have two pieces of paper. I write 'A' on one and 'B' on the other. I put each in an envelope and send one to you. Each of our envelopes contain both letters. You open your letter and observe that it is 'A'. I open my letter at the same time, hundreds of miles away, without you telling me anything, and somehow my letter 'knows' that yours is an 'A' so it collapses to be a 'B'
This is what physicists actually believe.

Schrodinger wrote that shit about the cat to make fun of how stupid it was, problem is physicists didn't get the joke and took him seriously.

>>105792169
not that anon but I spent some time researching this shit.
>is it magic
pretty much yes. but it's all just maths in the end, but if you don't know that it's magic. Here's the most approachable explanation on how it all works I've seen if you actually want to understand it (microsoft jumpscare warning): https://youtu.be/F_Riqjdh2oM?si=P6b6FwftkOoB-9kJ
a good analogy is how if you have a series of waves you can take an audio recording, apply the fourier transformation on it, apply a filter and add them up again to make it sound like the audio was recorded for example in a church. But thinking too much about it makes my brain hurt plus we don't have any workable quantum computers nor will we have them for the forseeable future. It's all probabilistic and they're trying to reduce failure rates. but we'll probably never reach 0. so throw it all in the trash.

>>105792208
You talk like quantum physics is just some physicist quackery when it has been widely used in engineering and materials science for a long time.
>>105792253
Quantum entanglement is not a funny thought experiment, it's easily measured.

>>105792298
1. No it hasn't
2. No it isn't
There is a difference between deriving and then reapplying (I.e. classical physcs) vs deriving and then extrapolating beyond physical limits (I.e. quantum computing)
Yes I just measured quantum engagement in my experiment did you read it? The bell inequality disproves it but then it's based on well understood mechanism of action right? Or is it based on wave partical duality woowoo bullshit?

>>105792253
This would make perfect sense in a simulated universe. The whole process is like those Super Mario World glitches where you do precise movements to overwrite values in RAM and warp to some different location. It doesn't have to make sense within the world that's being simulated.

>>105792298
>it has been widely used in engineering and materials science for a long time
wrong, you are gay

It doesn't actually exist

>>105792331
Wave particle duality is not woowoo just because you don't like how the world works. Isn't picrel a direct enough proof for you?

>>105791955 (OP)
>>105791982
A bit is either 0 or 1. That's the total value of the information encoded. True or false, that's all a bit can be.
A qubit is either 0 or 1, but before you check to see whether it is 0 or 1, it also encodes the all possible ways you could have gotten a 0 or 1.

With a qubit you can do the same process over and over and get 0 sometimes and 1 others. You can then look at how often you get a 0 or 1 and get more information about the process.
With a bit, if you do the same process over and over you get the exact same result over and over.

>>105792462
>With a bit, if you do the same process over and over you get the exact same result over and over.
And how is that a bad thing? Imagine if every time you read it, it had mutated. No thanks.

>>105792208
You are a retard lol

>>105792462
i am officially filtered by this shit
we're in a simulation right?

>>105792462
If the quantum computer works properly then the computations will be deterministic otherwise why would you try and compute anything on it?
>>105792677
Don't worry about it

>>105792462
>A qubit is either 0 or 1
Yeah, like a bit!
>but before you check to see whether it is 0 or 1
... Yeah!
>it also encodes the all possible ways you could have gotten a 0 or 1.
what

>>105792753
It's in a superposition of 0 and 1 until readout which is to say that it's not possible to know whether it is 0 or 1 until then
Whether it is 0 or 1 depends on the other qubits in the system (ie what program you're running)
Whether it is "both" is a philosophical question about the interpretation of quantum mechanics which has nothing to do with what it is or how it works, dont worry about it

what the hell are you retards talking about in here
quantum states are just an extension of the minimization of action
when you're talking about computers you need to define them before you can make your absolutely dogshit assertions about bit states and shit
a computer is the machine that makes choices, a *blank* computer is a *blank* calculator attached to a computer
so an analog computer is a machine that makes choices and performs calculations for the data to make those choices using an analogy of the system (hence analog) while a digital computer is an analog computer who's analogy is math itself, or the functions of digits, hence "digital" so it's a computer with a digital calculator (often called in the core an "ALU")
these machines have things they do well and things they don't do well, analog machines are very good at calculating trigonometric functions like sine because there's only 1 possible outcome state to begin with, digital computer are very good at getting precise answer, but not necessarily fast answers, we only see them as fast because we made them incredibly small, but try calculating sine on a digital computer and it'll just eat up your resources, but for 99% of uses a precise answer is not necessary
now when we analyze possible outcomes to maths problems it turns out there's a very specific set of maths with a very niche use case in which there is, much like analog computers, only 1 stable answer, picture it like trying to calculate the diameter of a circle as a cross section of a sphere with a specific volume as a fraction of the whole, complicated ass problem, hard as hell to calculate without all manner of pi, or you could just pour some god damn water into a spherical jug and hold a damn rule up to it. It's the same fucking thing, it's just on a very tiny scale the math gets weird.
quantum computers can break encryption because there's only 1 stable answer to the math problem involved, that's about it.

>>105792777
Checked + thanks.

>>105791955 (OP)
In 2 weeks Sam Altman will drop an AI that will create a string theory computer that will break quantum cryptography.

>>105792958
no problem also this bong is correct >>105792809 but it is foolish for him to assume anyone here knows what a computer does

>>105792013
Even microsoft`s new approach?

>>105793056
Investigated and shown to be either fake, or still requires error correction

>>105792777
So how does this break asymmetric cryptography? It sounds like a quantum computer just generates random numbers.

>>105791955 (OP)
It's a Talmud computer that can hold contradictory principles and will change its response based on who's asking and who benefits.

>>105793060
>Investigated and shown to be either fake
>Investing 17 years into something only for it to be called fake
microsoft cannot stop losing and become macrohard. the absolute state.

>>105793087
It breaks hashes that's it there have been resistant crypto algorithms for a long time because everyone has anticipated quantum supremacy
Doesn't mean it won't fuck a lot of shit up when it happens
>>105793060
It is real and scalable so error correction is no problem now problem is it's made by MBE which is slow as balls and not good for mass manufacturing so they need to redesign every process to make the damn thing from the ground up

>>105793383
>It is real and scalable
proofs? every peer review of it is just slamming it and saying "no you still haven't solved error correction, this won't scale"

>>105792060
it's just magic brother

>>105791955 (OP)
>chat

>>105793392
I read it in Nature
Not sure what "peer reviews" you're talking about the technology seems sound
Time will tell and frankly I don't care because I sell chemicals not chips
Also I'd be happy to see Microshit go bankrupt

>>105793383
>It breaks hashes that's it
hashes are symmetric encryption and not breakable by qc as far as anyone knows.

>>105793383
>>105793865
That's complete horseshit. You can't believe everything published in Nature these days. Nobody has a scalable quantum computer, nor will they IMO. It's a big fat meme and quantum cryptography is a subterranean Jewish grift.

>>105793901
Must be a coincidence that every major nation on earth is pouring zillions of dollars into their quantum computing programs and collecting every encrypted message ever transmitted with the intention of one day cracking the cryptography
>>105793966
Ok schizo I read the paper and believe what I read there's no product being sold anyway
It's the chip architecture itself and how they exploit topological insulators that is scalable nothing about the actual particular design, materials, or fab process is scalable which is what I said

>>105794010
I'm not a schizo. I have a phd in le physics. People are constantly trying to pretend they have a scalable quantum computer, but I guarantee you they are bullshitting on some level. The topological shit has been around for decades, and yes it's scalable in principle if you make the magic number small enough, but in reality there is no way to do that.

>>105794010
>Must be a coincidence that every major nation on earth is pouring zillions of dollars into their quantum computing programs and collecting every encrypted message ever transmitted with the intention of one day cracking the cryptography
assymetric cryptography = key exchange
symmetric cryptography = shared secret keys
get it? In order to do symmetric crypto (like aes) you need to have shared keys. You can either share them in person (which is 100% secure and not broken by qc) or you can do key exchange over some insecure channel. If someone can break the key exchange (assymetric crypto) then they can get the key so exchanged. Once they have the key, then they decrypt the symmetric encrpytion. So the key exchange is the "lynch pin" of the whole endeavour. post quantum crypto is focused on asymmetric algos for this reason.

>>105794092
The government reads everything anyway.

>>105792725
It is deterministic, but quantum mechanics is probabilistic, so anything you'd want to do with a quantum computer will likely require multiple runs to do.

>>105792642
It makes some tasks impossible. Like trying to find the prime factors of very large numbers.

>>105792677
No simulation theory is a weak argument.

>>105792753
Qubits are in a superposition until you measure them. Yeah they're not really "in all states at once", because a superposition is a state unto itself, but it's the best way to explain it to normies.

>>105794138
Currently it still takes them too long. They just store it and decrypt it later so you can be sued 30 years later :)

how about we switch to quantum cryptography then

>>105793089
kek

I dunno if that anon got the explanation they needed yet, but let me try my hand at it.

Qubits are interesting because, as anon said, they exist in an intermediate state that seems to approximate being in multiple states at once until they are measured—and after measurement, they probabilistically take one of the possible states.
As in, a qubit that is evenly balanced between both states has a 50/50 chance of being either when measured.
The fascinating thing is that, as long as you don't explicitly measure it and force a state, the qubits can interact with one another and do "math" as if they truly the probabilistic mix of both states.
So if you had a quantum circuit like, "x AND y", the output of x being 50/50 and y being 50/50 is a qubit that is 25% true and 75% false.
To calculate the same thing using truth tables and regular bits, you'd need to test 4 combinations. But the quantum bits and quantum circuit can return the probabilistic result immediately—well, with the caveat that to actually "measure" that the output is 25% true and 75% false, you'd need to run it several times in a row and measure that the output is true 25% of the time and false 75% of the time! So it's not a free lunch.
But the reason this is exciting is that imagine something like trying to find the single 64-bit number that solves an equation. With qubits and an appropriate quantum circuit, you can test all 2^64 possible solutions at once. But, again, the caveat is that you need to repeat the circuit test multiple times to increase the probability of the correct output to determine which possible solution is the most likely one. It's "faster" than the deterministic method of testing every possible input to find the correct output, but it's not magic.

The downside is that quantum circuits are hard. You can't do assignment operations to qubits, like saving a value to memory. So it may be literally impossible to do certain types of algorithms.