https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3237538/chinese-scientists-claim-record-smashing-quantum-computing-breakthrough
Paper says JiuZhang 3 is a million times faster than its predecessor and light years ahead of the world’s fastest supercomputer.
I'll still hold back any enthusiasm for this stuff until a quantum computer can actually solve a real problem and not just a quantum computer benchmark.
The only real problem I am aware of is breaking some types of public key encryption. Which is kinda bad because post quantum encryption is still in its infancy.
There's a lot you aren't aware of then. There's a lot of uses in biology and pharmacy, as well as physics research, machine learning, and weather predictions, just to name a few. (I know weather predictions doesn't sound sexy but it might be the most important one in the list)
And I’m sure there’s lots of stuff it could be useful for that we haven’t really thought of yet. I hope it ends up being a net positive technology if it does pan out. Part of me thinks it’d be funny if by the time we end up with quantum computers we’ve moved entirely to quantum resistant cryptography (and hopefully a little before that to mitigate store and decrypt later attacks), because I’m sure a bunch of investment in it is for breaking cryptography.
I read about it here :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiuzhang_(quantum_computer)
because there is nothing interesting in that scmp article.
How is it valid to call this a computer ? Seems like if I said : I am making fluid flow calculations by using a pipe and water. Do get Do I get it right ? These are not calculations ; these are experiments.
To be fair, there's no real constraint to what a computer should look like, as long as it computes. You can build the foundational circuits of modern CPUs using dominos, and if you had the space you could build a one time use adder. It would compute the sum of two numbers, so it's technically a computer. Your pipe and water example is technically also a valid computer if built as such.
I understand your statement here and I agree with it. Yet I guess both you and the other user here (@cyd@lemmy.world) are missing what I am trying to describe. Maybe my explanation is not accurate and my understanding is not well developed.
Let me illustrate with an example : we can study new planes models :
a)- in a wind tunnel equipped with instrumentation (camera, smoke trail and so on), or
b)- with numerical simulations on a computer.
One method (a) is very specific to a very precise problem, it cannot be (easily) adapted to calculate various random problems. The other (b) is meant to be a versatile programmable computer and so can switch to a completely different problem in one microsecond.
For what I understand, so-called quantum computers (of today) are more like option (a).
Does this makes sense to you ?
I think what you're missing is that quantum computers aim to tackle computational problems that are classically intractable. In other words, option (b) does not exist, or takes the on the order of the age of the universe to run. Then, for all the numerous practical disadvantages of using a quantum system to perform the calculation, it would be the only game in town.
These are not calculations ; these are experiments
Alan Turing discovered, long ago, that calculations can be phrased as physical experiments. It's the basic idea behind the whole field...
I understand your statement here and I agree with it. Can you say the same about my previous comment ?
Oops, I just noticed a typo in my previous comment ((Do get Do I get it right ?))
Didn't they claim something about superconductivity the other week? I'm going to claim the ability to levitate my own body. Lifting myself by my own bootstraps, so to speak, and other lies.
It's a shame the LK-99 hype has lead to LK-99 backlash because influencers couldn't make it in their backyard.
LK-99 isn't "the one" but most signs show it's on the right track and if we can work out the manufacturing technique for this class of materials it will change everything.
Ah, yes, you are correct. I was mistaken. I was thinking of the levitating video that claimed to support the claim.
All I have to say is: