Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

steel_member OP t1_iuptvrx wrote

“Scientists were able to show that neutral-atom processors such as Aquila are suited to arranging atoms in graph patterns, and solving certain combinatorial optimization problems. Namely, these machines can encode the maximum independent set (MIS) problem, which has broad applications in optimization such as resource allocation, network design and others. The MIS problem can be cast as a variational problem which can be computed using iterative optimization cycles that combine a hybrid of quantum and classical operations.”

108

Joddodd t1_iuqgx2a wrote

But can it run Skyrim?

79

disciplinemotivation t1_iuqi09g wrote

Can it run cyberpunk full graphics with mods and shaders?

38

Thagyr t1_iuqk7dg wrote

Can it run a full public lobby of VRChat with no avatar filters applied?

17

BrightSkies42 t1_iutlbl5 wrote

Amateurs! A true test of power will be if it can run Cities: Skylines with 5000 mods and assets. /s

2

semi5onic t1_iuscorc wrote

let's see if it can run from games workshops ip department. did they copyright that word yet?

1

KamaKairade t1_iupytwr wrote

Cue the bit about never needing more than 256 qbits

89

Rogaar t1_iuqbsxv wrote

What makes me always laugh is people think they are going to replace standard computers and we will all be walking around with quantum computers in our bags or powering our smartphones.

Everything I have ever read about quantum computers tells me they are built for very specific tasks and complex mathematics. The type of mathematics that takes super computers years to compute could be done in minutes or seconds with the right quantum computer.

46

kzeetay t1_iuqfatg wrote

I’ll come back to this post to laugh at you once I buy my first quantum home computer that will probably be left abandoned in the living room and used sparingly by my son to print his homework.

98

flashingcurser t1_iurd4cv wrote

To be fair, there was a long gap between ENIAC and useful/inexpensive home computers. This, I think, is a similar jump in technology.

11

HerbHurtHoover t1_iuu9opv wrote

The point is that from the most basic standpoint, quantum computing isn't going to replace binary processors. It just does different things.

1

Komnos t1_iurkeep wrote

I'm not sure even a quantum computer can make printers work, thanks to Schrodinger's inkwell.

10

[deleted] t1_iuqof66 wrote

[deleted]

−10

itchyfrog t1_iuqqois wrote

"One day every major city in America will have a telephone"

Alexander Graham Bell.

12

MrPinguv t1_iuqqy5p wrote

I think it could be a possible case of a problem that didn’t happen yet so we don’t need a solution right now.

6

ISuckAtFunny t1_iuqunbt wrote

It’s called a joke. Do you even know what that is?

3

VertigoWalls t1_iuqwqpa wrote

You really missed the meaning on that one. You must be the life of the party.

2

LaughCatalyst t1_iuqfpwi wrote

A carriage with no horses? Poppycock!

An automobile that can fly? Boulderdash!

A flying machine that can leave earth? Preposterous!

52

Rogaar t1_iuqftow wrote

Machines that fly to space? No way.

So where is your rocket to space mate? Not everything invented ends up in your home or civilian hands.

10

SatansF4TE t1_iuqifvo wrote

Give it a couple decades

15

HerbHurtHoover t1_iuua1as wrote

No. Theres a reason why 80 since the first rockets flew that they are still only launched by large organizations with large financial backing. The technology is just mot compatible with personal use. Rockets are never going to be safe enough or efficient enough that you can park one in your backyard and take a joyride to space.

1

aohige_rd t1_iuqqj0n wrote

I could tell you Mr Bond, but then I'd have to kill you.

8

KamaKairade t1_iur3k09 wrote

>So where is your rocket to space mate? Not everything invented ends up in your home or civilian hands.

When I was a young teen, my potassium nitrate + sugar rockets made it to just shy of 4000m before I ruined my mother's kitchen and had to stop.

I guess my point is: Everything is already in civilian hands, but a residence is not suitable for working with extremely high (or low) energy densities.

2

KelbyGInsall t1_iur4lk5 wrote

I bet a diligent person could find enough explosives to get at least some of themselves into space.

1

LaughCatalyst t1_iuqpmpi wrote

You edited your comment to have a different point after i replied. That's low

0

Liammellor t1_iuqz2c6 wrote

Commercial space flight is becoming a very real thing. Can't wait to see where it's at in another 50 years.

0

HerbHurtHoover t1_iuua88t wrote

No its not. Even the budget, edge of space options are far, far too resource intensive to ever be affordable.

The "but some people said cars wouldn't catch on" thing is a fallacy.

1

LaughCatalyst t1_iuqfy0a wrote

Idk where technological advancements are in your timeline, bur if you haven't heard of rockets or the ISS, ive got some exciting news for you...

−1

fgerber72 t1_iuqcjsr wrote

Since "normal" computers started off only being able to do basic calculations, perhaps the potential of quantum computers is vaster.

Perhaps it will create Facebook 2.0 and humanity can finally put down its spade and sword, take a breath and say "It is over. We've made it."

22

StalkMeNowCrazyLady t1_iuqm4h0 wrote

Exactly. Your OP is ignoring the fact that for ~40 years computers weren't considered to have a application or use in the life of an average person by tons of people, yet here we are. It may take 100 years but eventually the average person will have something more powerful than this particular quantum computer in their pocket everyday.

15

Harbinger2001 t1_ius643k wrote

That depends. There are some material science aspects of this that might not have a room temperature solution. I doubt We’ll be carrying around super-cooled computers.

4

ifuckedyourgf t1_iuw4t16 wrote

The point is that, for 99.9% of all use cases, a quantum computer is going to be vastly slower than an "equivalent" classical computer. Think of it as the computing equivalent of an idiot savant. Sure it'll factor numbers exponentially faster, but it's not like it'll improve the graphics of a video game.

Assuming it's even possible to mass produce miniaturized room temperature quantum co-processors suitable for consumer devices, it's not currently obvious (to me, at least) what that might be useful for. I'm not saying we won't ever find a use case, but I just don't know what that would be. Especially when we weigh the pros and cons against a cloud compute solution. My best guess is that there might be potential applications related to military/weapons technology and/or space travel, or other contexts without fast and reliable Internet access, but that's just speculation on my part.

1

Unable-Fox-312 t1_iuqiyap wrote

More realistic to imagine a conventional machine with some quantum capabilities

9

phriot t1_iurznpq wrote

That was my first thought when I read the "not going to replace standard computers" comment. If/when room temperature quantum computers with sufficient miniaturization exist, they'll probably be co-processors for their optimal calculations. This would be like today's neural processing units that help with AI/ML tasks.

3

Unable-Fox-312 t1_iuu8i5i wrote

First I think we'll see QaaS. I think we'll see that regardless of its potential for consumer applications, but that's where the early building and testing for those would happen.

2

joemc04 t1_iuqqsj7 wrote

Yeah. I’d buy a traveling salesman card if they made one.

2

residentmouse t1_iuqk9q8 wrote

You may want to consider that an example of one of these “very specific tasks” is cryptography, or efficient machine learning algorithms.

Either of these would justify having one in our pocket.

3

Yeuph t1_iur2prf wrote

No, no it wouldn't. We have classical quantum proof cryptography.

Granted there always exists a chance some brilliant mathematician will discover math to break cryptography that thousands of other PhDs over the course of generations haven't been able to see or discover; with quantum cryptography you're relying on known laws of physics for unbreakable cryptography - so in theory it's more secure, but only trivially so and in practice there is no reason to suspect our quantum proof cryptography is vulnerable to Classical or quantum algorithms

1

Teamprime t1_iurfd7u wrote

The only classical quantum proof cryptography we know is immune to quantum attacks is symmetric, which is much less practical asymmetric. If someone invents an algorithm breaking current asymmetric encryption we may need to use quantum computing to create a new algorithm for that

1

grandcity t1_iurdo5x wrote

“Quantum computer? Figure out how to make quantum computers smaller and more efficient.”

2

CevvalPortakal t1_iurije2 wrote

This is how traditional computing started already. Somehow we got vr porn and Goat Simulator 3 now.

2

Dr_ice_it t1_iur7pry wrote

Aka: your big brother decryption machine. ;)

1

nirehtylsotstniop t1_iutuayo wrote

haha yeah this rhetoric is so off point. I would play DA though that no-one with real skin in the game thinks that is the case. the inside-industry/academia opinion from my experience tends to be that Q-computation will NEVER replace classical, and hybrid algorithms have been the main advocacy from those groups for some time.

1

Pixel_Knight t1_iuuzuzl wrote

Does anyone actually think that? Outside of people who are completely ignorant on the subject of quantum computers?

I haven’t seen a single person or article ever make that claim anywhere.

1

Rogaar t1_iuv0hyo wrote

Plenty of people on social media seem to think so. Just read through the responses to my post.

People are comparing it to similar instances where years ago no one thought we would have computers at home as no regular person has any need for a computer.

They think it's just a natural evolution of technology that quantum computers will replace classical computers. Just like cars replaced the horse and cart.

Like your said, it's the ignorant people that don't understand there is a major fundamental difference.

1

jfranci3 t1_iur33jp wrote

Have you seen Amazon’s search results lately? They need all 256 Qs!

1

spindoctorPHD t1_iuq0stb wrote

Can anyone ELI5 why a quantum processor is still on a base 2 count? Was it intentional or just a byproduct of the design? (256 = 2^8)

29

anon_113606752 t1_iuq2u5o wrote

Generally speaking, computing is easier when working in base two. I can't speak for this computer or quantum computing specifically, but for parallel computing, pretty much every algorithm is simpler to implement on a base 2 number of processors. Not that it can't be done in non base two, just that base two eliminates tons of edge cases. I'd guess something similar is being done here too.

18

Semyaz t1_iuqfxwq wrote

The most likely reason is that it gives an easy analogy between classical computing and quantum. The types of problems quantum are supposed to separate themselves with involve a lot of iterative steps for classical computers.

The output of classical computers can be larger than the number of bits that the processor works with. For instance, in some mathematics software you can do math with numbers much bigger than 2^64. Quantum computers can’t really do that. They have to fit each step of the problem into their bits at the same time to process. In essence, you can only solve problems that will output how ever many qbits you have, or less.

In fact, quantum computers must interface with classical computers to set the inputs and read the outputs. This requirement for interfacing with classical computers means that using a power of two makes some sense.

Finally, qubits represent a binary state, so the data representation is analogous to binary. The resulting qubits will always represent a 0 or a 1. For most computer scientists, it makes sense to conceptualize binary results in base 2.

These reasons are not important or required.

13

Savimbas t1_iuqsvhv wrote

If you look at Google and IBM superconducting quantum processors, they don't use this base 2 for quantum processors (Google's paper on quantum supremacy for instance had 53 qubits and the new IBM one claim to have is 127). It might be due to this architecture with atoms instead of superconducting circuits, but on theory there is no need for base 2.

8

unableToHuman t1_iuqccpl wrote

The Quantim Processing Unit is built on top of basic entities called QuBits. This is a physical realization of the quantum equivalent of a bit. However unlike a bit which can only take one or the other state (0 or 1) the QuBit can exist simultaneously in both states. The QuBits are on an atomic level electrons (the type of their spin are their states) or photons (their type of polarization are the states). TLDR: QuBits can take a continuous range of states and is not limited by the power of 2

I could be wrong. This is based on my very limited understanding of quantum computing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

3

DHermit t1_iuqpqcw wrote

In general they are not. There are plenty with numbers of qubits that are not a power of 2. Especially because when building one, not everything will be perfect and it can happen that you can't use a few of the Qubits.

1

LeaCTrockboys t1_iuqnkrd wrote

I cant wait to use it to run a GameCube emulator so I can play EA Sports Fight Night 2005 with its robust career mode and create-a-champ feature!

16

tucci007 t1_iuqavbx wrote

L'Aquila is a city and comune in central Italy. It is the capital city of both the Abruzzo region and of the Province of L'Aquila.

*translated, L'Aquila means "the eagle"

9

Brumblebeard t1_iuri6d7 wrote

I feel like that whole article should be cross posted on the explain like I'm five reddit.

7

gentlemannosh t1_iuqtyaz wrote

At what point do we run an advanced AI on a quantum computer?

2

RacingMindsI t1_iureyj6 wrote

When we have advanced AI algorithms for them? I wonder if there are groups developing those.

3

Boontcha t1_iury228 wrote

Ohh geeez just wait til Linus flexes on all of us with this…

2

FuturologyBot t1_iupxtw0 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/steel_member:

“Scientists were able to show that neutral-atom processors such as Aquila are suited to arranging atoms in graph patterns, and solving certain combinatorial optimization problems. Namely, these machines can encode the maximum independent set (MIS) problem, which has broad applications in optimization such as resource allocation, network design and others. The MIS problem can be cast as a variational problem which can be computed using iterative optimization cycles that combine a hybrid of quantum and classical operations.”

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yjtzxq/launch_of_aquila_the_first_neutralatom_quantum/iuptvrx/

1