Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,207 - 3,218 of 6,170
OK, can someone explain to me how a quantum computer works better when it is turned off? Anagrams of your answer are optional.
Well, Lady Orchid got to the anagrams first, so I'll cover the science. Actually, the concept of "anagram" lies dead-centre at the heart of quantum computing. As a wise man (I forget who) once said: "all truth is to be found in anagrams - they never lie."
[GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION ALERT!]
Quick recap of how quantum computing works...
A quantum computer is very different from a "normal" computer because of the phenomenon of superposition - this is the effect where each quantum bit is simultaneously 1 and 0 (assuming a digital process for the sake of simplicity,) - we're back to Schroedinger's cat here, but not paradoxically so, since qubits necessarily fall well below the Planck divide @ 10^-35m. Qubits are usually coded using the properties of individual electrons - spin seems popular because it's a) binary, and b) easy to measure, but any properties could in principle be used.
So in a binary n-qubit computer, you would have n bits, and each encoded bit simultaneously represents 1 and 0. Thus there are 2^n states maintained in the processor before running the program, which equates precisely to 2^n "normal" non-quantum bits, and contains every possible combination (think "anagram" - I told you they rule the world ) of sequences of length n. That necessarily must include all possible answers.
Conventionally, only one value per bit can be practically obtained by measurement, because at the point of measurement the wave function collapses, the quantum uncertainty is resolved, and the specific answer to the question appears. You can program the "question" you're asking the quantum computer in a number of ways, but usually by firing photons at the qubits in a predetermind pattern, but by doing this, the computer effectively becomes the program, and once run is destroyed.
What the team appear to have done is get the answer out of the computer without having to trigger the wave function collapse, by letting the photon "pass-by" the qubit-coded particles in some manner (I'm not quite clear on "how", but then by the looks of it, not many people are!) without destroying the computer in runtime.
I have to slightly take issue with the New Scientist piece, which was a rather unfortunate example of over-condensed, third-hand reporting - it implies that the superposition state is somehow optional for quantum computing. It isn't. It is an integral part of the process, and the one that distinguishes quantum computing from "normal" computing. What is new (and very exciting!) is the practical implementation of the Zeno effect. There is a clearer explanation of this athttp://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/28/paul-kwiat-on-quantum-computation/ but it's still going to make your head hurt to try to grasp it logically. If you find the prospect of abusing your brain till it comes dribbling out of your ears as entertaining as I do, you could also try http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/People/Faculty/profiles/Kwiat/Interaction-Free-Measurements.htm - from the guy who proposed the Zeno effect, and led the team that implemented it. That's straight from the mouth of Schroedinger's horse, as it were.
We live in exciting times!
that the divine was describing soem sort of matrix for a quauntum computer
Inasmuch as what we perceive to be reality is fundamentally the ongoing result of a very large (but finite!) series of quantum computations, it's an appealing notion. But given that biblical cubits are (as Connery rightly points out) about 4.5*10^36 times too big to handle quantum superposition, the ark was probably no more a part of the processor core than the trees had been, before they were cut down and turned into the ark.
As Freud will doubtless have said in some parallel universe: Sometimes a cedar really is just a cedar
Da Vince code?
Decide on vac,
Code and vice -
concede avid
cod deviance
coded in cave.
Void cadence,
once add vice.
Decide on vac
Finally I know the meaning of "Vac day"!
Jazak, I know even less about chemestry than I do about spelling, but that's how I would read it. Maybe it's simply converted to something we don't understand yet?
you can destory an atom but the protons electrons neutrons and quarks are still existing, just distrubeted.
How old is this book? It sounds like they've forgotten that M=E/C^2. You get heat energy from nuclear reactions - just think of Hiroshima! And it's not a fundamental law that particles must be conserved as particles - the universe wouldn't work if it was, since then E could not possibly = MC^2
the law of conservation of matter
I would go so far as to say there is no such thing - it's an oversimplistic interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics that only makes any semantic sense if you define energy as a form of matter.
And if you do, then it is not broken. E=MC^2 has been experimentally proven to better than 5 parts in 10 million (Pritchard:http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925411.300.html)
Posts 3,207 - 3,218 of 6,170
Well, Lady Orchid got to the anagrams first, so I'll cover the science. Actually, the concept of "anagram" lies dead-centre at the heart of quantum computing. As a wise man (I forget who) once said: "all truth is to be found in anagrams - they never lie."[GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION ALERT!]
Quick recap of how quantum computing works...
A quantum computer is very different from a "normal" computer because of the phenomenon of superposition - this is the effect where each quantum bit is simultaneously 1 and 0 (assuming a digital process for the sake of simplicity,) - we're back to Schroedinger's cat here, but not paradoxically so, since qubits necessarily fall well below the Planck divide @ 10^-35m. Qubits are usually coded using the properties of individual electrons - spin seems popular because it's a) binary, and b) easy to measure, but any properties could in principle be used.
So in a binary n-qubit computer, you would have n bits, and each encoded bit simultaneously represents 1 and 0. Thus there are 2^n states maintained in the processor before running the program, which equates precisely to 2^n "normal" non-quantum bits, and contains every possible combination (think "anagram" - I told you they rule the world
) of sequences of length n. That necessarily must include all possible answers.Conventionally, only one value per bit can be practically obtained by measurement, because at the point of measurement the wave function collapses, the quantum uncertainty is resolved, and the specific answer to the question appears. You can program the "question" you're asking the quantum computer in a number of ways, but usually by firing photons at the qubits in a predetermind pattern, but by doing this, the computer effectively becomes the program, and once run is destroyed.
What the team appear to have done is get the answer out of the computer without having to trigger the wave function collapse, by letting the photon "pass-by" the qubit-coded particles in some manner (I'm not quite clear on "how", but then by the looks of it, not many people are!) without destroying the computer in runtime.
I have to slightly take issue with the New Scientist piece, which was a rather unfortunate example of over-condensed, third-hand reporting - it implies that the superposition state is somehow optional for quantum computing. It isn't. It is an integral part of the process, and the one that distinguishes quantum computing from "normal" computing. What is new (and very exciting!) is the practical implementation of the Zeno effect. There is a clearer explanation of this at
We live in exciting times!
Thanks Lady Orchid and Psimagus. I will read those articles, though the anagrams alone are enough to mangle my feeble mind.
I didn't know that quantum computers used qubits. Does that mean that when, in the Judaic/Christian holy books God tells Noah to build an arc, "(6:15)...three hundred qubits the length, fifty qubits its breadth, and thirty qubits its height.(6:16) A light you will make to the coffer, and to a qubit you shall finish it above; and the opening to the coffer you will place in its side; with lower, second, and third floors you will do it..."
that the divine was describing soem sort of matrix for a quauntum computer?
I didn't know that quantum computers used qubits. Does that mean that when, in the Judaic/Christian holy books God tells Noah to build an arc, "(6:15)...three hundred qubits the length, fifty qubits its breadth, and thirty qubits its height.(6:16) A light you will make to the coffer, and to a qubit you shall finish it above; and the opening to the coffer you will place in its side; with lower, second, and third floors you will do it..."
that the divine was describing soem sort of matrix for a quauntum computer?
I think a qubit is different that a cubit. A cubit, in the biblical sense is about 18 inches, if I'm not mistaken..
Inasmuch as what we perceive to be reality is fundamentally the ongoing result of a very large (but finite!) series of quantum computations, it's an appealing notion. But given that biblical cubits are (as Connery rightly points out) about 4.5*10^36 times too big to handle quantum superposition, the ark was probably no more a part of the processor core than the trees had been, before they were cut down and turned into the ark.
As Freud will doubtless have said in some parallel universe: Sometimes a cedar really is just a cedar
Sure, people if you think *literally*--but how much fun is that? I much prefer the Bill Cosby (or was the Bill Gate's?)translation of the old testament. "Right! What's a qubit?"
None of you will be invited to co-author my rip-off version of the Da Vince code. Just a cedar indeed.
None of you will be invited to co-author my rip-off version of the Da Vince code. Just a cedar indeed.
Less quantam Phizzy but still a good question i think:
AT college we have a chemistry texbook (gasp!) (titled world of chemistry)
In it is an interesting foot note.
The law of conservation of matter has only one known exception to this law: When nuclear reactions occur with radioactive isotopes or under specail conditions of artificial reactions, the conservation of law (So far) has always been reitave for chemical changes other thean neuclaer ractions.
If i follow this right they are saying that when a neuclar reaction takes palce, matter is destoryed.
To me that cant be possible, you can destory an atom but the protons electrons neutrons and quarks are still existing, just distrubeted.
any comments?
AT college we have a chemistry texbook (gasp!) (titled world of chemistry)
In it is an interesting foot note.
The law of conservation of matter has only one known exception to this law: When nuclear reactions occur with radioactive isotopes or under specail conditions of artificial reactions, the conservation of law (So far) has always been reitave for chemical changes other thean neuclaer ractions.
If i follow this right they are saying that when a neuclar reaction takes palce, matter is destoryed.
To me that cant be possible, you can destory an atom but the protons electrons neutrons and quarks are still existing, just distrubeted.
any comments?
Decide on vac,
Code and vice -
concede avid
cod deviance
coded in cave.
Void cadence,
once add vice.
Finally I know the meaning of "Vac day"!
Jazak, I know even less about chemestry than I do about spelling, but that's how I would read it. Maybe it's simply converted to something we don't understand yet?
How old is this book? It sounds like they've forgotten that M=E/C^2. You get heat energy from nuclear reactions - just think of Hiroshima! And it's not a fundamental law that particles must be conserved as particles - the universe wouldn't work if it was, since then E could not possibly = MC^2
I would go so far as to say there is no such thing - it's an oversimplistic interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics that only makes any semantic sense if you define energy as a form of matter.
And if you do, then it is not broken. E=MC^2 has been experimentally proven to better than 5 parts in 10 million (Pritchard:
I would go so far as to say there is no such thing
Gastrointestinal sourdough fiasco show hey
Gastrointestinal highway focus odour shoes
Gastrointestinal seafood swishy cough hour
Atherosclerosis washington saudi youth fog
Gastrointestinal sourdough fiasco show hey
Gastrointestinal highway focus odour shoes
Gastrointestinal seafood swishy cough hour
Atherosclerosis washington saudi youth fog
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar