Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Electronic Quantum Processor Created

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the baby-steps dept.

Science 205

ScienceDaily is reporting that the first rudimentary solid-state quantum processor has been created by a team led by Yale University researchers. "Working with a group of theoretical physicists led by Steven Girvin, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics & Applied Physics, the team manufactured two artificial atoms, or qubits ('quantum bits'). While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states. These states are akin to the '1' and '0' or 'on' and 'off' states of regular bits employed by conventional computers. Because of the counterintuitive laws of quantum mechanics, however, scientists can effectively place qubits in a 'superposition' of multiple states at the same time, allowing for greater information storage and processing power."

cancel ×

205 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Love (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28515895)

Do something small and thoughtful that really surprises and delights someone you care about.

Re:Love (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28515969)

Honey, I got you these two solid-state qubits that hold their quantum states for a microsecond and can be used to perform rudimentary algorithms.

What's up with pseudonyms? (1)

Sybert42 (1309493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516107)

Why can't people use a real name in Slashdot or Reddit?

Re:What's up with pseudonyms? (3, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516357)

Why can't people use a real name in Slashdot or Reddit?

I'm sorry you feel that way, Mr. Sybert42.

Re:What's up with pseudonyms? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516397)

Why can't people use a real name in Slashdot or Reddit?

My name is Mr.Coward you insensitive clod!

Re:What's up with pseudonyms? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517221)

Why can't people use a real name in Slashdot or Reddit?

I don't know Sybert42, why can't they?

Most Excellent (2, Funny)

TheGeniusIsOut (1282110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28515943)

The possible applications for this technology are an exciting prospect. Handheld supercomputers, true real-time physics simulations for research and gaming, maybe even time travelling phone booths...

Re:Most Excellent (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516771)

It's "time travelling police booths"

Re:Most Excellent (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516911)

Parent is correct (assuming he was making a Bill and Ted reference).
It would be a time travelling "Police Box" if he'd botched a Doctor Who reference.

Re:Most Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517099)

It's "time travelling police booths"

If you want an excellent adventure it's a phone booth.

Re:Most Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517569)

If you want an excellent adventure it's a phone booth.

Otherwise it'll be a bogus journey.

I want.. (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517517)

Google Maps - Traveling Salesmen.

Imagine how much fuel could be saved by UPS or FedEx in a given year.

Lab Site & Papers (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28515989)

You can find the lab site here [yale.edu] with several papers freely available in pre-publication form on arxiv [yale.edu] from the researchers. I'm trying to find the "basic algorithms" the article alludes to that these rudimentary processors can perform. I thought only a handful were applicable (Shor's algorithm) to quantum computing. Anyone know?

Re:Lab Site & Papers (5, Interesting)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516055)

There's a bunch. Shor's is not the only quantum algorithm. For the search the article mentions, maybe they mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm [wikipedia.org]

Re:Lab Site & Papers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516163)

Niggers just aren't ready for the desktop yet. They may be ready for the cell phones that they use to distribute their upskirts of white girls and 50-Cent ringtones across the world wide web, but the average nigger isn't going to spend months learning how to use a GUI and then hours installing malware so that they can get a MySpace page to post blingy graphics or booty calls with, especially not when they already know a white guy running Windows who can do it for them perfectly well and are backed by a job, as opposed to niggers which are only supported by a their unemployed mammies living in a crackhouse somewhere. The last thing I want is a 5-year black parolee (haha) providing me my OS.

Simulating? (2, Informative)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516001)

While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states.

Does this sound like they're using real atoms to simulate qubits? Perhaps I'm misinterpretting, but it looks like it's still going to take an exponential amount of resources to "make" each additional qubit.

Re:Simulating? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516551)

what?

Re:Simulating? (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516593)

Why would it take an exponential amount of resources? One of these qubits only amounts to around 1.66 Ã-- 10e-14 percent of a mole of aluminum. For every mole of aluminum they can create 6 quadrillion qubits. I'm not sure how many qubits would be needed for a quantum computer but I'm doubting it's much more than that.

Re:Simulating? (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516615)

That should be "1.66x10e-14 percent".

Re:Simulating? (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516713)

Well that's my question. Does it scale linearly with the number of qubits? The article is not very clear about that.

Re:Simulating? (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517365)

Well that's my question. Does it scale linearly with the number of qubits? The article is not very clear about that.

I see no indication that the number of atoms per qubit will scale at all in relation to anything but time spent in a quantum state. It's purely speculation (given a single data point) to assume that this number will scale at all just because qubits are added. It's also speculation to assume they won't, but it seems the more logical guess. The obvious correlation would be between number of atoms and ease of reading them.

As for being only 2 qubits, that's just to make the prototype simpler to create.

Re:Simulating? (4, Funny)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517181)

640K qubits ought to be enough for anybody

Re:Simulating? (2, Funny)

SUB7IME (604466) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517323)

Actually, that is true.

Re:Simulating? (3, Informative)

dlenmn (145080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517003)

There's no simulation -- the large group of atoms forms one qubit. That's why this is interesting. Normally, only very small things (like one atom) exhibit quantum behavior. This system is large for something able to exhibit quantum behavior. All the parts effectively join together to act like one quantum system.

This is the day we've been waiting for people! (0)

Garbad Ropedink (1542973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516015)

We all knew this day would come. We're now officially living in the future. We can expect even greater leaps and bounds in scientific progress now. Like electric cars and drawing energy from the very air we breathe. Our ancestors in the 1950's would be proud.

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (2, Informative)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516175)

Not quite yet. FTFA:

Next, the team will work to increase the amount of time the qubits maintain their quantum states so they can run more complex algorithms. They will also work to connect more qubits to the quantum bus. The processing power increases exponentially with each qubit added, Schoelkopf said, so the potential for more advanced quantum computing is enormous. But he cautions it will still be some time before quantum computers are being used to solve complex problems. "We're still far away from building a practical quantum computer, but this is a major step forward."

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (-1, Offtopic)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516207)

Is this in response to my post? I don't see how it's at all related.

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516295)

See that button that says "Parent"? If you click on that the confusion about which reply relates to what post will magically clear up and you can avoid looking like a cl00l355 n00b. Don't miss the next lesson, "How to preview and edit your post".

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516489)

l33t writing makes you look like a clueless noob.

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516633)

l33t writing makes you look like a clueless noob.

-- Joke --

o
/|\ -- You --
/ \

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516643)

oh "clueless"! I was having difficulty figuring out what the guy meant.

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516861)

Please don't skip ahead. We'll cover that 2 lessons from now, in "Avoiding Pinhead Rage By Posting Anonymously".

Re:This is the day we've been waiting for people! (1)

Garbad Ropedink (1542973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516323)

But still I've been hearing about this for so long, any news is good news.

Apparently the mods don't approve of my enthusiasm though.

Yay! (1)

S810 (168676) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516019)

Soon a PC with a Quantum Processor, Holographic Memory and optical storage.

Re:Yay! (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516125)

Soon a PC with a Quantum Processor, Holographic Memory and optical storage.

Running Duke Nukem Forever on a three dimensional console inside your flying car as it pilots itself to your workplace ...

Re:Yay! (1)

Futile Rhetoric (1105323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516343)

Your workplace? Snicker. How quaint!

Re:Yay! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517149)

All that requires an operating system. I suggest Hurd.

Re:Yay! (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517009)

And running Windows 9 :(

Re:Yay! (1)

chaoticgeek (874438) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517131)

At which time you get a BSOD your car crashes into a building and your computer explodes killing you and everyone in a 10 block radius...

Re:Yay! (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517389)

And running Windows 9 :(

...slowly.

excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516057)

Will the production model allow us to upload our consciousness to the Universal Computer?
In that case, I might actually queue up for it (and let others queue for the iPhone).

Article is incorrect. (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516075)

I am not trying to split hairs. This is actually a rather important point: they did not manufacture "two artificial atoms, or qubits". They manufactured two clusters of atoms that acted as qubits.

Re:Article is incorrect. (5, Informative)

bostongraf (1216362) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516483)

they did not manufacture "two artificial atoms, or qubits". They manufactured two clusters of atoms that acted as qubits.

A qubit [wikipedia.org] is not actually a quantum particle. It is a unit of quantum information. Now, do you consider the qubit to be the system or the state?

Re:Article is incorrect. (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516871)

Riiiiight. What's a qubit?

Re:Article is incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517317)

Riiiiight. What's a qubit?

LOL. Great reference Cosby's very funny Noah's Ark routine. (This was being modded interesting... when it is 100% funny)

Re:Article is incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517333)

Cosby returns!

It's like cutting off Sampson's hair... (2, Funny)

Qubit (100461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517455)

Riiiiight. What's a qubit?

If I tell you, I'll lose my superposition high and collapse.

Re:Article is incorrect. (1, Offtopic)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517335)

I am not trying to split hairs. This is actually a rather important point: they did not manufacture "two artificial atoms, or qubits". They manufactured two clusters of atoms that acted as qubits.

If the quality of journalism we see for politics or for useless celebrity trivia became just like the quality of journalism we see for technical matters, there would be significant backlashes against it. Joe Sixpack might not care about the distinction between abstract qubits and their physical implementation, but by God they better not misreport how many times $POP_SINGER has been divorced!

Though I'm not so sure that blatantly inaccurate (or misleading) statements are worse than the way more mainstream news items are handled. For the mainstream items, they are very careful about which stories become "big news that everyone knows" and which don't, or they selectively omit facts which don't suit their agenda or that they otherwise find to be inconvenient. They do that while being careful that any positive statements that they do choose to make are impeccable.

There's nothing absurd or magical about this. It's not unlike the way Microsoft doesn't make all of their file formats free open standards because they, in a similar fashion, find the idea to be inconvenient and incompatible with their intentions. That doesn't become impossible and unthinkable merely because accurate news is important to you. It just means that it's unwise to be the naive person who takes everything at face value and doesn't question like this:

"Of all the events that happen in the world every day, why promote this thing?"
"If you look carefully at what becomes big news and what doesn't, do you see independent people who stand up for themselves, or do you see victims who need to be rescued from something? Why?"
"Do you see that the news corporations value freedom above all else, or do they call for its removal in the name of safety? Can you pick up any newspaper or turn to any news channel and easily find good representatives of both views? Why or why not?"
"Is the nature of presented debate concerning whether or not it is the role of government to get involved, or does the debate consist merely of two competing proposals for what government should do after it gets involved? Is this a careful consideration of available options before solutions are proposed?"
"Do people like Ron Paul (whether you hate him or love him) get coverage because their ideas are radically different, and so they stand out more? Or do such folks become marginalized because their views are not mainstream? Does this help people to make up their own minds? Does this mean that we have real debate, including dissent, or some mockery of real debate?"
"Do these things, when taken together as an abstract, reflect an agenda? Is that agenda statist in nature? Did it get there by accident?"

The way tech stories are handled can be described as "merely low-quality" or "someone didn't do their homework" ... the way the mainstream items are dealt with is really much worse because it takes far more discernment to see what is (deeply) wrong with it. I remember once hearing this on radio news a few years ago (I believe it was Fox): "This new proposal authorizes warrentless wiretapping, which officials state is necessary in order to protect us from the threat of terrorism and will help us to prosecute the War on Terror. However, some civil liberties groups cite privacy concerns *end of show*." Nice how they didn't bother to explain what those concerns are or what the reasoning behind them might be. To quote Bill Hicks, "you'd think that'd be newsworthy ..."

Re:Article is incorrect. (0, Offtopic)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517659)

It's difficult to talk about what's wrong with tech news reporting without also talking about what's generally wrong with news as an institution. That's because these kinds of problems don't happen in isolation but rather, they reflect the priorities and motivations of the institution. Sort of like the saying "no man is an island."

I am reminded of a sig I have seen belonging to more than one poster, something like "Slashdot does not have a -1 DisagreeAndWishToCensor, and no, Flamebait, Offtopic, and Troll are not substitutes." Now if you don't like what I said and think that there is absolutely no way that the case could be made that it belongs here, at least *try* to look like you have a legitimate reason to feel that way, please. "Offtopic" is a bit too transparent.

Problem Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516087)

So in theory, one of the greatest scientific inquiries can now be solved by a quantum computer.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

Re:Problem Solved (3, Funny)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516119)

So in theory, one of the greatest scientific inquiries can now be solved by a quantum computer.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

The answer, of course, is 'Yes'.

Re:Problem Solved (2, Funny)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516127)

With probability 1/2

Re:Problem Solved (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516303)

The answer, of course, is 'Yes'.

And "No".

The first chicken was named Schrodinger.

Re:Problem Solved (1)

neovoxx (818095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516379)

You fool! You changed the outcome by looking at it!

Re:Problem Solved (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516813)

Nah, the correct answer is: 42

Re:Problem Solved (2, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517115)

Actually, the question, as written, is obvious. Chickens do not predate dinosaurs; dinosaurs had eggs; thus, eggs came first.

The question should be: which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?

Re:Problem Solved (3, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516331)

That has been long since solved with evolutionary genetics.

The egg.

What produced it just happened not to be a chicken. Something close, but not quite.

Re:Problem Solved (5, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516803)

Ah, so then you agree that it wasn't a chicken egg? ie Chicken came first (from non-chicken egg), then laid chicken egg.

Re:Problem Solved (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517211)

Eh, looking from the Chicken's POV, its egg came first.

Re:Problem Solved (4, Informative)

Loko Draucarn (398556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517483)

No, no, you've got it backwards.

A non-chicken laid a chicken egg (i.e. the egg's genes were those of a chicken), from which hatched a chicken.

Re:Problem Solved (2, Insightful)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517521)

That depends on what makes it a chicken egg, what's inside it, or what produced it.

Re:Problem Solved (2, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517731)

What produced it just happened not to be a chicken. Something close, but not quite.

Except when posed in evolutionary terms, the whole question comes down to a problem of the human desire for classification versus nature's complete lack of giving a shit about that desire.

What precisely makes a chicken a chicken versus a chicken-minus-one-generation proto-chicken? Given that any population naturally has a degree of genetic variation, there's no "gold standard" for a chicken genome, and it is entirely possible that every gene we see in chickens was already present in the population of proto-chickens. It could be that the only thing differentiating the chicken from its proto-chicken parent is that the chicken was born into an environment where its only potential mates were other proto-chickens with the same subset of genes from the larger proto-chicken population. Then proto-chicken becomes chicken not by a mutation that completes the chicken genome, but by a quirk of fate that isolated a certain set of genes, and what was once a sub-species of proto-chicken is now its own species, the chicken.

Or it could be that in the list of traits we recognize as chicken-like, a hen laid an egg with the mutation that completed the last of these traits and thus was the chicken born to dominate the proto-chicken. Or a hundred thousand other possibilities I can't think of. I guess I'm just trying to add back in some mystery to an old philosophical question that science seems to give an answer too. :)

Oh and this is unrelated, but proto-chicken seriously needs to be a boss monster in some rpg.

Re:Problem Solved (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516339)

Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

It's obvious the egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs. Dinosaurs lived before birds, including chickens, evolved. So eggs existed before chickens did.

Re:Problem Solved (3, Insightful)

edalytical (671270) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516499)

New question: what came first the dinosaur or the egg?

Doesn't change much does it?

Still Problem Solved (4, Funny)

Suzuran (163234) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516691)

Fish.

Re:Still Problem Solved (1)

shelterpaw (959576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516945)

Fish or fish eggs?

Re:Problem Solved (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516807)

The question has always been inane. We choose to define what is a "dinosaur" or what is an "egg", but nature doesn't care about our definitions. There must've been creatures with very similar reproductive or incubation systems that are not quite eggs. These creatures are also not quite "dinosaurs".

Re:Problem Solved (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517505)

Depends on which one you are looking at.

Re:Problem Solved (4, Funny)

d474 (695126) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516811)

Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

Neither: It was the Rooster who came first (it happens to every guy once in a while).

Re:Problem Solved (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517761)

it happens to every guy once in a while

Once in a while?!

Does it run Linux? (2, Funny)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516137)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously, I wonder if this comes to pass and we continue on the binary process forever. (IIRC, some mainframes back in the '40s and '50s used decimal processing, which was too slow then, so all switched eventually to binary.)

Re:Does it run Linux? (2, Interesting)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516327)

Given that there is no real advantage to switching away from binary, why not? Decimal is far slower and less information packed, from the computer's perspective. And since it only takes a cycle or so for the computer to translate for the humans, just let it.

The only really viable alternative is trinary computing, which is slightly less optimal generally. (The actual ideal would be base e, but it's really hard to build a system around irrational numbers.)

Re:Does it run Linux? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516841)

The actual ideal would be base e, but it's really hard to build a system around irrational numbers.

The mind boggles

Re:Does it run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517649)

I disagree with base e, the evidence suggests that the square root of pi * the hypotenuse would be better.

Re:Does it run Linux? (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516449)

Of course. Windows hasn't been ported yet.

Re:Does it run Linux? (3, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516469)

Obligatory slashdot answer on any topic regarding quantum mechanics: Yes and No.

Re:Does it run Linux? (-1, Troll)

Suzuran (163234) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516999)

Go ahead and mod me troll, but that is NOT true! Observe!

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION.
4 Corner TIME, CUBES EARTH.

FREE SPEECH in AMERICA is "BULL SHIT",
EVIL EDUCATORS block and suppress www.timecube.com.
You are educated evil, and I possess the proof. USA ripe for holocaust.
Man evolves from teen - in cube metamorphosis but ignores teenager to worship a male mother,
guised in woman's garb, churchman called father. Adult god is adult crime upon their own children.
More holocaust deserved.

The 12 hour or 1/2 Day clock is an intended EVIL against humanity - indicting every human on Earth as Dumb, Educated Stupid and Evil -
for imaginary Cubed Earth has 4 Days within simultaneous rotation. One God would equal a God Dunce as Humans evolve from Children.
This was an awful lot of setup for such a lame joke, but that's what makes this worth spending moderation points.
I would be very surprised if you read this far down. Here is more text to make sure people reading only the end of the message don't see this.

Americans are dumb, educated ONEstupid and they worship ONEism Evil. It is not immoral to kill believers, for the stupid bastards EVOLVE from son
or daughter who precedes them. NOT one damn human adult has ever been created - for ONLY babies are CREATED - and every adult has within them
the LIFE given by children who DIE to give-up their lives to their parent image - so their mom or Dad can live. Adults are EVIL to deny they evolved from
children - and claim their adult EGO image is a god likeness. Such damn evil AMERICANS should have their tongue cut out for the heinous hoax they are
perpetrating upon their own children. I know now why the Jews deserved their holocaust - worshipping their own adult EGO image as a damn god while
ignoring and betraying they very children who sacrifice their LIFE so their Moms and Dads could Live. There is nothing godly about stupid and evil adults
who betray their own children who gave them Life.

I AM WISER THAN ANY DAMN MAN OR GOD WHO EVER EXISTED. IF THE HALF AND HALF CO-CREATED
JESUS RETURNS TO EARTH, I WILL PERSONALLY KILL THE BASTARD MYSELF. ALL CREATION OCCURS
BETWEEN AND AS OPPOSITES. YOU DUMB-ASS, EARTH, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERY LIVING THING IN IT
EXISTS BETWEEN A TOP AND BOTTOM, BETWEEN A FRONT AND BACK, BETWEEN OPPOSITE SIDES,
AND INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. ALL YOU DUMB EVIL BASTARDS EARN A HOLOCAUST AND IT IS NIGH UPON YOU.
HIRED SICK TEACHERS ARE PAID TO TEACH YOU EVIL TO ENSLAVE YOU STUPID AND YOU NOW POSSESS
AN IDIOT CYCLOPIC MENTALITY. YOU LACK THE BRAINS TO KNOW THAT 4 SIMULTANEOUS DAYS ROTATE IN
AN IMAGINARY CUBED EARTH. KEEP IGNORING ME AND YOU WILL PAY HELL FOR CLAIMING YOUR ADULT
IMAGE AS A DAMN GOD WHILE YOU BETRAY YOUR PRIOR SONS AND DAUGHTERS WHO SACRIFICED
THEIR LIFE SO YOU COULD LIVE AN EVIL LIE. BIBLE GOD NEVER CREATED A SINGLE DAY
NOT A SINGLE ROTATION -
LEFT THE EARTH STANDING STILL.
I CREATED 4 DAYS IN ON EARTH ROTATION. EVERY HUMAN DESERVES DEATH FOR IGNORING SUCH A
SUPERNATURAL TRANSCENDENTAL PRINCIPLE. GREENWICH MEAN TIME IS WRONG AND EVIL, SO IS
3 DIMENSIONAL MATH. YOU CAN"T KILL ME, FOR I AM 82 + CANCER. CHILDREN - STOP THE EVIL ADULTS
BEFORE THEY DESTROY YOUR LIFE ON EARTH!

But remember... (4, Funny)

Qubit (100461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517255)

This idea was invented by Shampoo.

Re:Does it run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517355)

Quantum Processors are only good for certain algorithms; more likely, in the medium-to-long term as quantum architecture becomes possible, either (1) specialized coprocessors will be built for quantum operations, (2) eventually perhaps a quantum ALU will be added on-chip on some systems, or (3) Quantum computing will be tightly regulated by the government. (Because it invalidates most encryption schemes other than one-time-pads.)

Stallman says (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516277)

Qubit states should be copyrightable but not patentable.

That way I can make a qubit state that copies all the innovations within commercially produced Qubit states, slap a viral copyright notice on it, give it away for nothing and then babble incoherantly about my personal definition of the word "freedom".

Re:Stallman says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516801)

Don't forget that you should also be able to change the state of the qubits on the server running your cloud applications.

Re:Stallman says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516829)

More evidence of the MS shill campaign going on at slashdot...

Re:Stallman says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517267)

If you see people poking fun at a man who has essentially set himself up as a giant joke to be a conspiracy inspired by Microsoft, I recommend you ignore the doctor's instructions and double up your dosage.

Re:Stallman says (1)

Loko Draucarn (398556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517581)

In fact, due to the state superposition, any set of qubits longer then the number of bits in the GPL will necessarily contain the GPL.

Ditto for the Windows EULA. (what's worse, you can get the Windows EULA superposed over the GPL, and wind up with a completely undistributable state.)

Sooo Excited... (1)

Steegest (1317083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516293)

Wow. I'm very excited for the future of computing right now. I hope when I'm 65 and this technology is finally implemented I'll still know how to use computers. If my parents are any indication...unlikely...

I know what this means.... (0, Offtopic)

htwf_and_ip (1248696) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516347)

My iPhone is obsolete again.... sigh

In UR Multiverse ... (0, Troll)

lysdexia (897) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516391)

... cracken' UR codez.
In one of those universes, this meme is still funny, and I'm not a dipshit.
Probably not.

Quick! (2, Funny)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516443)

Feed 42 to it and let us know how it goes!

Wasn't there a quantum computer a while back? (1)

louiswins (1017272) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516513)

I thought I remembered reading about a multi-qubit quantum computer that implemented Shor's algorithm for a small input?

It appears that Wikipedia says it was 15 = 3×5 [wikipedia.org] . That page says they used photonic qubits - as opposed to the aluminum qubits here, I guess. Can anyone enlighten me as to why these are better, or why this is a big deal? It seems that these decay just as quickly as the photonic ones.

Re:Wasn't there a quantum computer a while back? (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516779)

Electronic systems are much easier to manipulate. Just think about your current computer. We have a whole toolbox of knowledge to deal with these.

Beowulf Cluster (0, Offtopic)

Pepebuho (167300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516525)

How far till we have a Beowulf Cluster of Quantum Processors?

Real test (0, Offtopic)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516737)

I don't yet know what kind of porn this enables. I just know that I want it.

Bose-einstein condensate? (3, Insightful)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 5 years ago | (#28516837)

While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states.

This sounds a like a bose-einstein condensate, where many atoms will act is if though they are all part of a larger, single atom. Also, it gains some pretty interesting properties, neither of which can be described exactly as solid, liquid or gas.

The article didn't mention anything about near absolute zero temps, though.

Qubert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28516991)

I'm confused. What does any of this have to do with our beloved Qubert? Nothing to see here, lets move on...

The first, really? (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517011)

"First Electronic Quantum Processor Created".. Sorry to spoil the fun, but does anyone do facts checking with these articles before posting? Guess not, because these [dwavesys.com] guys presented a 28 qbit prototype and working quantum processor back in 07 [zdnet.com] .

Re:The first, really? (4, Informative)

smallfries (601545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517319)

Yes the first. The Dwave guys aren't building quantum computers. Their system lacks entanglement between the qubits, which is essential to running quantum algorithms. They have also been less than forthcoming about the coherence in their system.

Little boats (1)

carpefishus (1515573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517105)

Moses: 300 qubits? That's awfully small, dude.

I'll get crap for this but... shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28517139)

Quantum memory does not make a quantum computer. These are 2 data stores... not a *processor* ( and by that I simply mean a device that can receive a series of signals and perform actions based upon them )

Every bit of quantum computing is utter BS until someone can illustrate how you can interface with these objects with traditional "newtonian" electronics. Quantum computers may be able to act in a magical simultaneous manner, but it still eventually has to get serialized for the human.

I Will Be Impressed/Unimpressed (1)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28517439)

Until you read this message.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?