Quantum Computing:

[wolven7]

Found by CSO wacko1138: "If Moore’s Law holds for another 10-15 years," says Dr. Raymond Laflamme, "we’ll have transistors the size of atoms."

My problem, here, is this idea: '"Computers never really do what we want them to do," he says. "It’s more of an approximation." But he believes that when we take computers to the quantum level, we just might be able to get those pesky machines to do exactly what we want them to do.'

Why do we think that a field with an Uncertainty Principle is going to be more predictable than traditional computing?

Thoughts?

{EDIT: 7.53pm: And Storage.}

Comments

Life's too short to proofread.

[lupusfeuer.livejournal.com]

I think this is a misunderstanding as to the application of the concept of "Quantum" machines. Computers, now, essentially doing nothing but moving electrons about in a controlled manner, are still dependant upon the uncertainty principle.

When we talk about quantum computers, we really mean difference engines that calculate based upon molecular orientation rather than on electron flow. While the probablistic (if that's a word) motion of quantum particles will affect "quantum" computers somewhat the outcomes will be far more determisitc than those of conventional machines. Think of it in terms of moving parts. In a certain mode of thinking quantum/molecular computing machines will have many fewer operating elements, involving only a few atoms rather than tens of billions of electrons, and thus will operate more efficiently and more determinsitcally.

Also, it should be noted that the uncertainty principle is often taken out of context. While the philisophical principle of "That which you observe you therefore alter" is a good one, Heisenberg was not talking about the world at large, nor was he making a philisophical statement. Too many people ignore this.

Re: Life's too short to proofread.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Most quantum computing aspects talk about using the uncertainty of unobserved particles to store information and perform operations.

And yeah, probabalistic is a word

Re: Life's too short to proofread.

[lupusfeuer.livejournal.com]

Yes but to make a comparison that I'm not smart enough to have come up with m'self.

Standard computing, for that matter most deterministic math is based on the idea that a solution is a bull's eye on a target and the calculation is the act of shooting at that bullseye with a high powered rifle. Probability based math, that used for Quantum calculations, presumes a moving target but you have a very big shotgun and are at point blank range.

After some asking about, it seems the big barrier to true quantum computing involves "entanglement," the perpensity for the probability factors of neighboring particles to become entwined and gum up the mathematics. I'll dig on this some more but it does not seem to be an insurmountable obstacle.

Re: Life's too short to proofread.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

In certain areas, entanglement can be quite helpful, if it can be direted. It allows a way of observing, without observing, in some cases, such that we don't ruin a state.

Heh.

[karishi.livejournal.com]

The first quantum machine will be powered by a golden bucket.

The real problem I've noted with computers isn't that they don't do as they're told. The problem is that they don't just listen to me. My computer has been told things by other people who want my money, and some of the time it's been told things by people who thought they knew what I'd want.

Perhaps a field with an inherent uncertainty principle will not be "more predictable," but will instead be more in line with human expectation. It will be more closely tied to the way we change the world with our thoughts.
Your Winamp will be yet more creepily accurate.

Re: Heh.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I would absolutely love a slightly empathetic computer.

Re: Heh.

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, just as long as they're not like the doors of Douglas Adams...or, for that matter, the trash cans of North Dekalb Mall.

Re: Heh.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Exactly. That's why "Slightly."

[pallandrome.livejournal.com]

Since you predict that the uncertainty principle will make the predictability of a quantumn computer uncertain, then certainly the reactions of the quantumn computer will be unpredictably predictable. Except for I just predicted that. Quick! Someone predict otherwise, to get me out of this predicament!

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Fish. I predict rains of fish.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

Maybe the precision and one-or-the-otherness of a normal, circuit-binary computer actually creates problems when it comes to certain complex things, where the uncertainty would allow for a bit of 'elbow room'?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That's entirely possible, but I don't think that gets us "exactly" anything. Unless what he's looking for Is that elbow room... Hm.

Interesting idea, that.