SciPhysicsForums.com

Joy Christian wrote:.
Will Quantum Computing Ever Live Up to Its Hype?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -its-hype/
.

It can’t live up to the most stupid and biggest hype but it might turn out to be able to do something useful. In the meantime, it stimulates fundamental research into quantum mechanics and quantum interpretations.

Protein folding problems are quantum mechanics problems which take too long to solve numerically, accurately enough, while at the same time requiring larger digital computers than we’ll probably ever have. Solving such problems could enable drugs research, and the search for new catalysts in industrial chemical synthesis, and so on. A quantum computer might turn out to be an effective analogue device for solving just those problems. It might even be able to solve more general optimisation problems. There has been incredible progress in neural networks (“deep learning”) in recent years and some of the ideas there might be transferable to “quantum learning”.

But recently there have been big drawbacks concerning the use of Majorana particles which previously were seen as a very interesting avenue for quantum computing. They are virtual particles which supposedly could be found in single molecule thick films made of a regular arrangement of carbon atoms. A big Nature paper has been withdrawn and Microsoft lost a big investment.

I think the era of crazy hype has passed its peak now. Fashions change.

Joy Christian wrote:

Heinera wrote:
Congratulations to Scott Aaronson, who has just been awarded the 2020 ACM prize in computing. It comes with a nice $250,000.

That does not surprise me. He is always after money. He would do anything for money. Here is a nice review of his book from Amazon.com.

Joy Christian wrote:
Will Quantum Computing Ever Live Up to Its Hype?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -its-hype/

Here an important sub-question is: When the community wakes up to the reality of QC fraud, will the fraudsters who made a huge amount of money from the fraud made to pay it all back?
.

Joy Christian wrote:Here an important sub-question is: When the community wakes up to the reality of QC fraud, will the fraudsters who made a huge amount of money from the fraud made to pay it all back?
.

Unfortunately, you are assuming the community will "wake up" in their lifetimes. I don't think it would and they are counting on that.

minkwe wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:
Here an important sub-question is: When the community wakes up to the reality of QC fraud, will the fraudsters who made a huge amount of money from the fraud made to pay it all back?

Unfortunately, you are assuming the community will "wake up" in their lifetimes. I don't think it would and they are counting on that.

You may be right about that. Your comment reminds me of a funny story by Michel Dyakonov about how to get a grant to teach a donkey how to read: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3562:

Michel Dyakonov wrote:
The [Quantum Computer] story says a lot about human nature, the scientific community, and the society as a whole ...

A somewhat similar story can be traced back to the 13th century when Nasreddin Hodja made a proposal to teach his donkey to read and obtained a 10-year grant from the local Sultan. For his first report he put breadcrumbs between the pages of a big book, and demonstrated the donkey turning the pages with his hoofs. This was a promising first step in the right direction.

Nasreddin was a wise but simple man, so when asked by friends how he hopes to accomplish his goal, he answered: “My dear fellows, before ten years are up, either I will die or the Sultan will die. Or else, the donkey will die.”

.

Joy Christian wrote:

Michel Dyakonov wrote:
The [Quantum Computer] story says a lot about human nature, the scientific community, and the society as a whole ...

A somewhat similar story can be traced back to the 13th century when Nasreddin Hodja made a proposal to teach his donkey to read and obtained a 10-year grant from the local Sultan. For his first report he put breadcrumbs between the pages of a big book, and demonstrated the donkey turning the pages with his hoofs. This was a promising first step in the right direction.

Nasreddin was a wise but simple man, so when asked by friends how he hopes to accomplish his goal, he answered: “My dear fellows, before ten years are up, either I will die or the Sultan will die. Or else, the donkey will die.”

.

Apt!

Michel Dyakonov wrote:Also, it is much easier to understand the workings of the funding system, than the workings of Nature, and these two skills only rarely come together.
The QC story says a lot about human nature, the scientific community, and the society as a whole, so it deserves profound psycho-sociological studies, which
should begin right now, while the main actors are still alive and can be questioned.

Michel Dyakonov, physicist, professor emeritus at the University of Montpellier, honorary member of the Physico-Technical Institute in St Petersburg, explains to us what the quantum computer project consists of and what are the insurmountable difficulties that arise.

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/au-c ... -atteindre
.

The 2020 ACM Turing Award is a step against diversity, equity, and inclusion.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2021/05/1 ... inclusion/

Moreover, borderline criminal activities of the recipients are overlooked even though they are displayed in broad daylight: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem
.

gill1109 wrote:Protein folding problems are quantum mechanics problems which take too long to solve numerically, accurately enough, while at the same time requiring larger digital computers than we’ll probably ever have. Solving such problems could enable drugs research, and the search for new catalysts in industrial chemical synthesis, and so on. A quantum computer might turn out to be an effective analogue device for solving just those problems. It might even be able to solve more general optimisation problems. There has been incredible progress in neural networks (“deep learning”) in recent years and some of the ideas there might be transferable to “quantum learning”.

Sorry, this is fanciful fiction. Won't happen.

.
Quantum Computing Hype is Bad for Science: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum- ... litski-1c/
.

Joy Christian wrote:.
Quantum Computing Hype is Bad for Science: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum- ... litski-1c/
.

It’s good for the timeliness of Joy Christian’s research and for that of my research! It’s an ill wind …

Haven't they demonstrated the basic concepts of quantum computing with simulations on classical computer? If so, then how can you say that quantum computing is a fiction?

friend wrote:Haven't they demonstrated the basic concepts of quantum computing with simulations on classical computer? If so, then how can you say that quantum computing is a fiction?

Of course you can still say it is a fiction. The problem is the scalability. You can simulate a 10 qubit quantum computer on a classical computer, but not a 100 qubit quantum computer. Suppose you want to factor large integers. You’ll need a lot of qubits to represent interesting large integers used in present day cryptography. Basic error correction requires an overhead of maybe a factor 10. Number of qubits. My guess is we’ll *never* have a quantum computer which breaks present day internet cryptography as used in banking etc.

Some people think we’ll have quantum computers which can do useful protein folding calculations in 10 years, maybe? Small molecules but still such that the computations will still be too difficult for classical computers while also interesting for industry.

.
A world without quantum computers: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=101 ... 2238534509.
.

.
"So-called topological quantum computing would avoid many of the problems that stand in the way of full-scale quantum computers. But high-profile missteps have led some experts to question whether the field is fooling itself."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/major-qu ... -20210929/
.

LOL. Good one, Joy.

minkwe wrote:

gill1109 wrote:Protein folding problems are quantum mechanics problems which take too long to solve numerically, accurately enough, while at the same time requiring larger digital computers than we’ll probably ever have. Solving such problems could enable drugs research, and the search for new catalysts in industrial chemical synthesis, and so on. A quantum computer might turn out to be an effective analogue device for solving just those problems. It might even be able to solve more general optimisation problems. There has been incredible progress in neural networks (“deep learning”) in recent years and some of the ideas there might be transferable to “quantum learning”.

Sorry, this is fanciful fiction. Won't happen.

Well, that’s what some experts believe. Other experts don’t agree. It’s an exciting open scientific problem. If there is no real success within, say, 5 years, I think quantum computing will go out of fashion. So: we live in interesting times.

friend wrote:Haven't they demonstrated the basic concepts of quantum computing with simulations on classical computer? If so, then how can you say that quantum computing is a fiction?

Leaving aside the nonlocal entanglement nonsense, quantum computing is just a form of analog computation. The required precision and stability is not obtainable. That is why the world moved to digital computation. Just as there is no analog supremacy, there will never be quantum supremacy.

It has already been way more than Gill's five year criterion. minkwe is right; quantum computation is a fiction, a sad joke.

local wrote:

friend wrote:Haven't they demonstrated the basic concepts of quantum computing with simulations on classical computer? If so, then how can you say that quantum computing is a fiction?

Leaving aside the nonlocal entanglement nonsense, quantum computing is just a form of analog computation. The required precision and stability is not obtainable. That is why the world moved to digital computation. Just as there is no analog supremacy, there will never be quantum supremacy.

It has already been way more than Gill's five year criterion. minkwe is right; quantum computation is a fiction, a sad joke.

My criterion was: 5 years from now.

By the way, I also doubt they will make it. But I keep an open mind.

The Bell inequalities are meaningless no matter which way you try to understand them. It is because of ONE simple fact that you Bell fanatics can't seem to wrap your mind around. NOTHING can exceed the bound on the inequalities!!!!!!!!!!!!
.