Quantum computing infeasibility due to quantum tomography?

[minkwe]

Hmm?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04341.pdf

From the results presented in the foregoing sections, we draw the following
conclusions:
• For some systems of two and four qubits, qualitative agreement with quantum
theory was observed.
• Errors could not be identified by the user nor be corrected using quantum
error-correction, and could not be attributed to the specified gate errors.
• The data showed strong variations between calibrations.
• Sequences of identity operations provide simple, scalable algorithms to validate
the correct operation of the device [4].
• The current IBM-QE device does not meet the two elementary requirements
(see section 1) for a computing device.
• The IBM-QE allows a theoretician to perform real laboratory experiments.

[Joy Christian]

***
Quantum Computers Compete for "Supremacy": https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... supremacy/.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Russian and US Scientists Team Up to Create World's Most Advanced Quantum Computer: https://sputniknews.com/amp/science/201 ... -computer/.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

The different forms of quantum computing skepticism: https://windowsontheory.org/.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

Race for quantum supremacy hits theoretical quagmire: http://www.nature.com/news/race-for-qua ... re-1.22993.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

Race for quantum supremacy hits theoretical quagmire: http://www.nature.com/news/race-for-qua ... re-1.22993.

***

If you read this article carefully, you will notice that it is an attempt to preemptively downplay the idea of "quantum supremacy" before it gets discredited in Google's planned experiment to test it by the end to this year. Huge hype has been built up around the so-called "quantum computers" and their "supremacy" over the classical computers. Consequently, the proponents of quantum computers cannot afford to be accused of promulgating the "fake-news" of "quantum supremacy" if the planned experiment fails them. Hence this propaganda piece published in Nature just in time for the possible end-of-the-year apocalypse.

See also "The different forms of quantum computing skepticism": https://windowsontheory.org/2017/10/30/ ... ment-42742.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

Major Quantum Computing Advance Made Obsolete by Teenager: https://www.quantamagazine.org/teenager ... -20180731/

***

[minkwe]

Just saw that too. Is there anything else keeping the "quantum supremacy" myth alive? Scott (you know who) admitted on his blog that he was disappointed by this result from his student.

BQP = BPP

[Joy Christian]

Just saw that too. Is there anything else keeping the "quantum supremacy" myth alive? Scott (you know who) admitted on his blog that he was disappointed by this result from his student.

BQP = BPP

Scott (you know who) is either incredibly stupid or an outrageous fraud.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

Want a well-paid high-tech job? Do quantum computing: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/tech ... XbNKKR8U_s

In this post-truth era of "alternative facts" in science, anything is possible!

Joy Christian

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Europe is investing one billion euros in the fantasy of quantum computers: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586- ... C8Uc6eAn-g

Meanwhile, I am hopeful that someone someday will perform my proposed experiment for free: https://www.academia.edu/24765800/Propo ... ls_Theorem

The success of the experiment would boost my research program considerably: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5/5/180526

***

[minkwe]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/har ... g.amp.html

In light of all this, it’s natural to wonder: When will useful quantum computers be constructed? The most optimistic experts estimate it will take 5 to 10 years. More cautious ones predict 20 to 30 years. (Similar predictions have been voiced, by the way, for the last 20 years.) I belong to a tiny minority that answers, “Not in the foreseeable future.” Having spent decades conducting research in quantum and condensed-matter physics, I’ve developed my very pessimistic view. It’s based on an understanding of the gargantuan technical challenges that would have to be overcome to ever make quantum computing work.

Count me in on "never". What will soon happen, is face saving, by moving goal posts. Expect the definition of "quantum computer" to start changing within the next 5 years.

[Joy Christian]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/the-case-against-quantum-computing.amp.html

In light of all this, it’s natural to wonder: When will useful quantum computers be constructed? The most optimistic experts estimate it will take 5 to 10 years. More cautious ones predict 20 to 30 years. (Similar predictions have been voiced, by the way, for the last 20 years.) I belong to a tiny minority that answers, “Not in the foreseeable future.” Having spent decades conducting research in quantum and condensed-matter physics, I’ve developed my very pessimistic view. It’s based on an understanding of the gargantuan technical challenges that would have to be overcome to ever make quantum computing work.

Count me in on "never". What will soon happen, is face saving, by moving goal posts. Expect the definition of "quantum computer" to start changing within the next 5 years.

I saw that too and made a post about it yesterday on my Facebook. Most clear explanation of the impossibility. But, as you say, the fraud will continue. It is way too lucrative to give up!

***

[Joy Christian]

***
One good thing that may come out of the fantasy of quantum computers is that it will provide an excellent quantitative measure of the asininity of some disingenuous quantum supremacists (such as Scott Aaronson) in terms of the billions of dollars wasted for decades on the fantasy, with nothing to show in the end. In the commercial world that would be a sufficient reason for indictment (and even imprisonment) of some supremacists. Unfortunately, in the scientific world, there is no accountability for a misconduct of this type.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
More skepticism is surfacing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/com ... -computing

***

[FrediFizzx]

***
More skepticism is surfacing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/com ... -computing

***

And that doesn't even take into consideration what you have discovered that it is impossible via "entanglement". Though, I still wonder if the strong correlations of QM can be taken advantage of in some fashion.

[Joy Christian]

***
More skepticism is surfacing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/com ... -computing

And that doesn't even take into consideration what you have discovered that it is impossible via "entanglement". Though, I still wonder if the strong correlations of QM can be taken advantage of in some fashion.

They can be. Although I don't know how.

What is significant in the National Academies of Science report is that it is written, not by skeptics, but by the quantum computing enthusiasts and some truly smart people (not like Scott Aaronson, who is all words and no brains). And yet, they paint a very bleak picture for quantum computers.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Michael Nielsen asks: "In what sense is quantum computing a science?" (in other words, is it not just c****pot?): http://cognitivemedium.com/qc-a-science ... PpMIt32JUY

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Yet another amusing blog-post about QC: https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019 ... s***/

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Yet another amusing blog-post about QC: https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/category/physics/

***