Cloud-based quantum computer takes on deuteron and wins
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
7
(10
/
-3)
Take a good quantum physics class and you should be able to understand it (and I am majoring in ECE not physics)
Upvote
-1
(11
/
-12)
My wife piped up the other day whilst watching some science channel program "I have decided I HATE quantum weirdness....". To which I replied "that is understandable...quantum stuff is not understandable".
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
Yes. At 2,000 fps. But instead of going in straight lines, your shots will hit anything in view with a probability equal to the square of your gun's wavefunction.
Upvote
73
(73
/
0)
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Sorry for disagreeing, but quantum physics does not violate causality. To shoot before you pull the trigger Thiotimoline must be involved.
Upvote
20
(21
/
-1)
It's really confusing for non-physicists the way physicists from different subfields use contradictory definitions for terms like "the strong force". As I understand it, the strong force binds quarks together into nucleons (protons & neutrons), mediated by gluons, whereas nucleons are bound together by the residual strong force, which is mediated by mesons, not gluons. But apparently atomic physicists call the residual strong force the strong force, and the strong force the color force? VERY confusing. Why can't physicists use consistent terminology, especially when there doesn't seem to be any real advantage to using two sets of incompatible definitions, other than not having to say "residual".
Upvote
20
(21
/
-1)
I wonder if these guys/gals get the same palpable excitement like those select few in the early days of the Homebrew Computer Club where getting a computer to do something exciting and new was no mean feat.
This is really cool stuff. Like Sigmund_Jung, I want to pretend I understand this.
I really, really want to see this lead to better, if not unbreakable, encryption.
This is really cool stuff. Like Sigmund_Jung, I want to pretend I understand this.
I really, really want to see this lead to better, if not unbreakable, encryption.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
For the moment I fear that it will lead to completely broken encryption. Communication protected by quantum physics has its applications, but requires a bit of infrastructure and is still vulnerable if you adversary can MitM your channel in clear during the key exchange.
And on the other side I don't think that we have any production ready post quantum cipher available.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Not going to argue with you there. I'd just like to think of "what could be", no matter how naive that might be at the moment.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Yes, as long as you don't mind your main character being both alive and death at the same time.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
As a computer scientist for most my life, I was excited to see quantum computers come along with the promise of complexity-theory-smashing advances in speed of current algorithms. Over the years, this hope has been pretty thoroughly dashed.
However, as a physics groupie, I am excited to see how these systems are actually being used. They are probes, just like colliders, discovering and codifying the behaviors of quantum systems that underlie all existence.
This will lead to some amazing technological breakthroughs, just not the ones I first imagined. We won't discover faster ways to do known algorithmic mathematics. Instead, we'll discover that lots of solutions to problems we care about can be attacked by controlling the underlying patterns of reality.
However, as a physics groupie, I am excited to see how these systems are actually being used. They are probes, just like colliders, discovering and codifying the behaviors of quantum systems that underlie all existence.
This will lead to some amazing technological breakthroughs, just not the ones I first imagined. We won't discover faster ways to do known algorithmic mathematics. Instead, we'll discover that lots of solutions to problems we care about can be attacked by controlling the underlying patterns of reality.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Is that imperial cubits, or metric cubits?Photo Caption":1mj44mme said:
Seriously, I think you meant qubits. Did a copy editor "fix" it?
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
That’s only if you shoot behind you while you’re hidden. If you or the enemy can see the shot then it goes in a straight line again.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
It will hit things out of view as well, however you won't know until you check.
*edit, actually it will technically hit and miss everything in the universe, but you still need to check. you monster.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
You can violate causality with quantum decisions. https://meincmagazine.com/science/2012/04 ... eforehand/
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox seems to disagree with you. Quantum physics is non local but does not violate causality as you cannot transmit a signal (trigger action -> shoot) faster than light.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
It was definitely harmed/not harmed.
Watch the video to collapse the wave form and kill/free the cat.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
From a renormalization group point of view, it makes sense.
Quantum field theory has to reconcile two aspects: on the one hand, the quantum component of the theory forbids an elementary particle from being point-like (due to Heisenberg indetermination); on the other hand, the relativistic component forces it to be point-like.
In order to do that, QFT introduced the idea of scale: you have to specify the scale at which you study and describe your particle. At an infinitely small scale (= infinitely high energy), the particle is "bare".
As the scale grows (you're looking at the particle from further away, so to speak), the particle-antiparticle pairs that appear and disappear around the bare particle have to be taken into account. What you call particle at this scale is the bare particle *and* all those pairs. It's called the "dressed" particle.
Let's apply this concept to the strong interaction. I'll try to make this as self-contained as possible, so my apologies for any redundant information.
First, the equivalent of electric charge for the strong interaction is called color. It has nothing to do with actual color, but it's a clever mnemonics: a colored particle is sensitive to the strong interaction, while a "white" particle isn't (roughly speaking).
This force, at the smallest scale, is described in terms of gluons (which are colored particles). The dynamics of gluons generates the well-known properties of the strong force between two quarks (also colored): negligible when the quarks are close to each other, and growing in strength as they get further apart. There is a threshold at which the force becomes so strong that you have enough energy to create a quark-antiquark pair between the quarks that you were trying to separate.
This can be summed up as: you can observe colored objects at very small scales, but only white objects at larger scales. This means that what you call "quarks" changes with scale:
- The quarks at a very small scale (almost bare) are called "current quarks". They interact very strongly with each other, and you can have any number of them in a proton (including exotic quarks).
- As you increase the scale but remain below the threshold mentioned above, the quarks become more and more dressed, but their properties remain similar.
- After the threshold, what you call quarks are very different beasts. Physicists call them "valence quarks". When you're saying that a proton is made of three quarks, these are the quarks you're talking about.
- If you increase the scale even further, you no longer see the valence quarks individually and all you see is white particles like protons and neutrons.
Along the same lines, the particle mediating the strong force also changes with scale: the gluons are more and more dressed, until a threshold is reached and they get "replaced" by white particles like the meson.
In this sense, the force mediated by gluons is the same as the force mediated by mesons. But with the difference of scale, its exact properties are very different. In particular, since protons, neutrons and mesons are white, they are almost insensitive to the strong force. What little strong interaction remains between them is the so-called residual force.
Just to be clear: this residual force might be just a shadow of the fundamental strong interaction, but its effects are far from negligible, as any nuclear physicist will tell you.
I haven't followed recent developments in this field but, as far as I know, deducing the properties of the residual strong interaction from the study of current quarks and gluons is still a very difficult problem. On the other hand, the theory of the interactions between hadrons mediated by mesons predates quantum chromodynamics.
Sorry for the long post, I hope you'll find it clear enough.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
Levels of simplification.
For chemistry, the nuclear forces rarely bother results (isotopes are usually chemically interchangeable)
Nuclear physics treat protons and neutrons as basic particles, so the residual strong force and nuclear strong force are effectively the same thing
Quark physics treats protons and neutrons as "molecular" particles composed of quarks bound by the strong force with the range of the force being great enough to bind the quark "molecule" to other similarly formed particles. (Molecule is not an actual term as used here, it is only an analogy)
To keep track of which definition is used, check the category of physics in use. QCD and Nuclear Physics have separate terminologies due to the level of detail each works at. Developing a master terminology that embraces every Quantum physics research field as well as every level of simplification up to Elementary School Chemistry is not needed. Researchers that work at multiple levels of simplification learn the multiple definitions of shared terms as part of the process of learning each field of study.
Confusing for lay readers, but the researchers know what they mean when they use the terms defined by their field of study
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
CircleBreaker
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Quantum supremacy when?
Seriously though, quantum computers are useless for many traditional applications. It won't be able to run Crysis.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
From a renormalization group point of view, it makes sense.
...
Sorry for the long post, I hope you'll find it clear enough.
Thanks! Great explanation.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
No level of understanding 5/2 fraction quantum Hall states will aid in rendering glib comments intuitively over the internet.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This optimization is great! Now with quantum computing, instead of taking 10 nanoseconds to break all existing encryption, it takes only 5 nanoseconds.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
However, we can only hope that an optimized quantum computer in tandem with a sophisticated AI will develop Half Life 3.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
You could certainly use that setup to communicate faster than light. Send photons to Victor and then wait for a decision to be made there. After the decision, Alice and Bob can compare correlations without waiting for light to come back to them from Victor.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
if
no theory
then
how a about a complexity hypothesis?
Type
Point
Beyond SpaceTime To MassTime
No Science No Math No Logic
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)