3d graphics, we will see an end to it soon

[antlers]

We're straying off the 3d reservation here, but I will mention that there is reason to believe that the difficulty of entangling n qubits scales like n!

It's not something technological advancement can overcome--it's more like perpetual motion. Quantum computing will remain a theoretical exercise. Keeps some physicists in grant money, though.

 

[jvd]

Well there is one quantum computer that manages to put out some pretty decent 3D visuals. Not really a PC so much as a shared multi-user sort of deal...

I thought you meant the house full of sorority girls living next door to me

 

[flf]

]personally I prefer Quantum Torpedos....

If you're going to be a nerd, at least get it right. Perhaps the word you were searching for is Photon?

 

[alexsok]

We're straying off the 3d reservation here, but I will mention that there is reason to believe that the difficulty of entangling n qubits scales like n!

It's not something technological advancement can overcome--it's more like perpetual motion. Quantum computing will remain a theoretical exercise. Keeps some physicists in grant money, though.

Technology can do wonders m8!

Seriously though, if what you say is indeed correct, why are NEC so positive a fully functional quntum computer would be introduced in 2020?

 

[andypski]

]personally I prefer Quantum Torpedos....

If you're going to be a nerd, at least get it right. Perhaps the word you were searching for is Photon?

If you're going to have a go at him for being a nerd, at least be up to date - photon torpedoes are yesterday's news. Everyone knows that quantum torpedoes are where it's at...

 

[Heathen]

Equipped on the Sovereign and Defiant Class vessels for Starfleet and Galor class for the Cardassians.

Yes I'm a Trekkie and no I don't care.

 

[Dio]

Don't worry - Andy is too. You're in good company.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

antlers4:

That may indeed be the case, but I don't believe it's been proven, and there are a lot of minds a lot smarter than either of us working on it. Saying that it's something that can't be overcome is naive, and saying it's simply keeping some physicists in grant money is rather insulting. If you'd like to provide a proof of why quantum entanglement in the general case scales in difficulty with the number of qubits to be entangled, by all means....

Nite_Hawk

 

[Slides]

I would have a more educated opinion on this topic if I knew what a quantum computer was.

Help educate Slides!

 

[RussSchultz]

A Quanta computer would describe just about every laptop sold by dell, toshiba, IBM, HP, etc.

Oh, you said Quantum!

(sorry for the obscure reference to the largest OEM of laptops)

 

[Chris123234]

qubits can be in like 8 states @ one time if i remember right. So a computer that can be in 8 states @ a time seems pretty powerful to me. It could take a gfx card anyday.

Well anyday 20 years from now

 

[jvd]

That be hot if i went to my kids one day . I remember when I used a cpu that was made on silicon ..... Man its like when my father told me he bought an intelevision and was playing it with his brothers the day he brought me home from the hospital ...

 

[arjan de lumens]

For somewhat in-depth information on how quantum computing works, check out the tutorials at qubit.org. Other than the first one, they may be rather heavy reading, though.

 

[WaltC]

We all have heard of quantum computers?
So what use have video cards got on such massive computers? Surely a quantum PC has so much processing power that everything can be done in software opengl or whatnot?

When such PCs become available, will we see an end to video cards?

Comparing the state of Quantum computing today with the state of coventional computing technology is a bit like comparing a prehistoric man hurling a rock to a nuclear ICBM. Quantum computing is 99.99999% jumbled and confused theory, with its theorists in wide and confused disagreement, with possibly the remaining percentile consisting of public relations efforts designed to elicit grant money. 99.999999% of the articles you read on the Internet about "quantum computing" are such public relations efforts, or offshoots from them.

Let's see these guys nail unified theory well enough to extrapolate some practical benefit from it first, IMO....

 

[KimB]

Let's see these guys nail unified theory well enough to extrapolate some practical benefit from it first, IMO....

We know enough of the physics to describe very accurately the behavior of atoms and molecules. A unified theory isn't going to mean much for quantum computing.

In fact the theory, as far as the pure physics is concerned, has been around since roughly the 70's. Few of the advancements since that time have had any relevance to quantum computing.

The primary obstacle to accurately modelling physical systems on a small scale (as is required to properly construct a very small scale computer) is current computational techniques. Quite simply, the approximations used are frequently not good enough. In some cases, solid state physicsists are happy to get within 20% of the experimental value. These systems are just so incredibly complex that it is nearly impossible to accurately model them on a computer.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Oh great, so now we will be stuck with silicon POS for a while eh?

 

[antlers]

antlers4:

That may indeed be the case, but I don't believe it's been proven, and there are a lot of minds a lot smarter than either of us working on it. Saying that it's something that can't be overcome is naive, and saying it's simply keeping some physicists in grant money is rather insulting. If you'd like to provide a proof of why quantum entanglement in the general case scales in difficulty with the number of qubits to be entangled, by all means....

Nite_Hawk

Well, I think there is a proof of a sort. I think it's been shown that if you can solve NP problems in polynomial time with polynomial energy expenditure, you'll be able to build a perpetual motion machine.