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!

'Blind' Quantum Computing Proposed For the Cloud

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-relation-to-reality dept.

Cloud 89

judgecorp writes "Researchers at Vienna's Quantum Science and Technology Center have proposed that 'blind' quantum computing could be carried out securely in the cloud. When (if?) quantum computers are developed, they will be very fast, but not everyone will have them. Blind quantum computing will be useful, because it shows that users can encode 'qubits' and send them to a shared quantum computer to be worked on — without the quantum computer having any knowledge of what the data is (abstract). The data also cannot be decoded form the qubit while it is in transit. It's good to know that quantum computers will be secure when they exist. At the moment, of course, they are even more secure, by virtue of their non-existence."

cancel ×

89 comments

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

Vaporware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777177)

Quantum computers are the biggest load of vaporware since the Phantom console.

Re:Vaporware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777257)

no, no! just imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

Re:Vaporware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777349)

not to mention the best security through utmost obscurity!

A real physical cloud (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778083)

it's most basic component, a quantum of a cloud, if you will, is a water vapor

"vaporware" therefore is indeed the perfect marketing terminology for this combination of quantum and cloud computing hogwash

Re:Vaporware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38778123)

> Quantum computers are the biggest load of vaporware since the Phantom console.

Well, supposing that quantum thing actually work some day, it won't matter much in certain cases.

Considering what now has been proved possible in the US, New Zealand and Hong Kong, someone took the cloud idea to the back room and gave it a coup de grâce.

Who will trust the cloud now? And if someone is gonna use it, who will trust a cloud in the US now?

As a matter of fact, considering China attitude in letting all that happen in Hong Kong -- and it would be naive to think the US would move without asking China's permission first -- where in the world now is it safe to have a private cloud now?

quantum hype (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777189)

Quantum computing is just a rather basic branch of computer science which seems to be winning all the hype in the world at the moment because there's not much sexy in terms of hard non-biological research with a practical slant.

I'm not quite sure how the output remains unknown to the computer. I know most cloud services either haven't or won't last long enough to give you all the output you were expecting to get for free/absurdly low cost, but I'd be very impressed with a computing system which is able to deliver you something without knowing it's delivered it.

Of course, there are various computations which can be performed partly by a separate processor without the initial input and final output being known by that separate processor, but there's nothing quantum-y about that.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777389)

"I know most cloud services either haven't or won't"

They haven't and yet they have.

"able to deliver you something without knowing it's delivered it."

They both know and they don't know.

Re:quantum hype (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777521)

As a physicist working in the field, let me correct two things:
Quantum computing is not a branch of computer science; it is not logic and mathematics. It is a branch of physics. It is also why you find it hard to believe that both the input and output is unknown to the quantum computer.

@OP: They do exists, just not in stores yet, a natural result of having unsatisfactory shape.. Try paying a visit to a QC laboratory.

Re:quantum hype (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777613)

As a mathematician not working in the field, let me point out that any AC saying "as a X working in the field" probably deserves to have the rest of his post ignored.

Anyway, the production of quantum algorithms is a routine computer science problem. And the building of a quantum computer is an engineering problem. I'm not really sure what great contribution physics per se is making to quantum computing, i.e. what new science is being discovered and applied to quantum computers, but perhaps you'll enlighten us.

I know that the output is known because otherwise it couldn't be converted to classical form for sending across the 'net to the customer.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777667)

Lol, you're not even wrong. You don't even understand the problem!

The quantum computer sends the modified quantum state, from which the probabilistic result (or "output") is obtained by measurement.

More books. Less TV. It helps.

Re:quantum hype (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777787)

This is the same as saying "I won't send you a 5, but I will send you eight 5s, a three and an eight - the result is approximately some sort of average." IOW the cloud is sending the customer the output, however encoded, and anyone listening between the quantum computer and the customer can work out the output. (We ignore classical encryption because that's not a solution relevant to advancing quantum computing.)

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38778815)

I'm as skeptical as the next guy of Quantum Computing mumbo jumbo, but I actually okay with the idea that the QC may not know what it's solving. Here's why:

From the P vs NP official problem description [claymath.org] :

Of central importance in computability theory is the notion of reducibility, which Turing defined roughly as follows: A language L1 is Turing reducible
to a language L2 iff there is an oracle Turing machine M which accepts L1, where M is allowed to make membership queries of the form x \isin L2 ? which
are correctly answered by an “oracle” for L2 .

The oracle doesn't know anything about L1; it only understands L2. However, M can still use the oracle to solve its problem by encoding L1 as an instance of L2.

My position is that it's highly plausible that QC's have the same type of reduction property.

Re:quantum hype (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777685)

I know that the output is known because otherwise it couldn't be converted to classical form for sending across the 'net to the customer.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Even in classical computer science, there are algorithms whose output isn't known to be correct, or even known to exist altogether. This is the norm with so called randomized and stochastic algorithms. They'll give you an output all right, but there's a small chance that the output is meaningless. Or they'll give you an output with a terminating symbol (which tells you that the algorithm actually completed and everything that follows is filler/garbage), but there's a small chance the terminating symbol is missing, etc.

However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now. As to the line between engineering and physics, I'll leave that to others.

Re:quantum hype (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777711)

This is not a matter of the output being correct or not. Quantum computer doesn't yield an output at all. It yields a quantum state. The measurement performed by receiving end is the output, which doesn't exists before the measurement.

> However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now.
Those rules are called physics.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777889)

You can say the same thing about a Turing machine: The Turing machine doesn't yield an output, just an infinite tape with symbols on it. And yet, it is a basic object of study of computer science.

You're nitpicking by choosing to exclude from the quantum computer the apparatus required to interpret the state. If a computer prints out the millionth digit of pi in a forest and there is nobody to see it, did it really happen?

> However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now.

Those rules are called physics.

Only a tiny, tiny part of physics. The whole point here is that people can invent quantum algorithms even if they are completely illiterate about physics in general.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779573)

It's not that simple. You don't understand the subtlety of the measurement in QM.
This is why non-physicist can't make any significant contribution to physics.

Oh now it's tiny? Whatever adjective you choose to use, every single one of those "rules" are a part of physics.

How many quantum algorithms have you made so far? How many papers on QC do you have?
You don't even know QM, yet speaking as if an expert.
Gosh, people talking about stuff they don't understand! Jeez, this is waste of time. I won't ever read comments on any physics-related post on Slashdot ever again.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779681)

It's not that simple. You don't understand the subtlety of the measurement in QM.
This is why non-physicist can't make any significant contribution to physics.

While it sounds to me like you're just running out of arguments.

BTW, do *you* understand what a measurement in QM accomplishes? There's a nice little book from 1932 that explains it, by an admittedly somewhat obscure author called John von Neumann. Maybe your coursework hasn't gotten that far yet...

Re:quantum hype (1)

jlugert (698711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38799503)

It's not that simple. You don't understand the subtlety of the measurement in QM.
This is why non-physicist can't make any significant contribution to physics.

Oh now it's tiny? Whatever adjective you choose to use, every single one of those "rules" are a part of physics.

How many quantum algorithms have you made so far? How many papers on QC do you have?
You don't even know QM, yet speaking as if an expert.
Gosh, people talking about stuff they don't understand! Jeez, this is waste of time. I won't ever read comments on any physics-related post on Slashdot ever again.

"Measurement" is a technical term which is not the same as the usual meaning of the word. The input/"state" is "prepared/measured" & the output state is measured yielding a readable bit string. It's true that what's going on is subtle & it's easy in get it completely wrong talking about it. But the basic structure is quite trivial & the lingo surrounding it finite.

The guts, power, & mysteries are in the state, which no one understands/denies it's corporal existence etc. It's not necessary ( & not possible within the constructs of QM) to know about it--you just let it do the work. Not at all unlike some people's code which only they & god are privy to--just learn the interface and treat it as a black box. The physical dynamics behind the interface definitions are not known & the most complicated part of QM because it literally interfaces two very different worlds. Somewhat like trying to grasp one's fleeting dreams while being too awake.

The rules for using the interface, however, are not difficult. This is why physicists are so interested in re-branding themselves pragmatists in QM--it

Re:quantum hype (1)

jlugert (698711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38798877)

> However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now.

Those rules are called physics.

Only a tiny, tiny part of physics. The whole point here is that people can invent quantum algorithms even if they are completely illiterate about physics in general.

Agreed. Check out Mermin's book [google.com] (shut up & calculate guy). The algorithms appear to come from insights in number theory more than physics in general. The most compact & handy representations of the algorithms are... that's right--circuits. Open simulators are available for download.

The field is ripe for hackers to lend a hand. There's no reason to be intimidated by self appointed guardians of the turf. Most physicists didn't have a clue about the importance of entanglement--the primary resource making quantum computation possible--some ten years after it was demonstrated. [google.com] The Aspect experiments in 1982 are to this day often referred to as the turning point.

They also did everything in their power to discourage learning about entanglement in the decades prior. It's an attitude that's difficult to penetrate. Appears to be somewhat rooted in big egos in an environment hostile to one's reputation--i.e. the usual suspects. The field has been invigorated by those interested in building stuff, who aren't afraid of accepting some odd logic & learning the tool sets.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38778723)

I know that the output is known because otherwise it couldn't be converted to classical form for sending across the 'net to the customer.

You don't know that, you infer it from an assumption, viz. that this paper considers the internet rather than a hypothetical quantum-safe communication system.

Since that assumption is wrong, you look like an idiot.

Re:quantum hype (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38782049)

I know that the output is known because otherwise it couldn't be converted to classical form for sending across the 'net to the customer.

I haven't read the article, but I guess it's not classical bits sent over the Internet, but qubits sent to the customer via fiber (just like in quantum cryptography). Standard telecommunication fibers have been shown to be able to transport qubits reliably enough for quantum cryptography, therefore they should also be reliable enough to transport the results of quantum computing. Note that commercial quantum cryptography units already exist; this shows that the technology for quantum communication is already sufficiently developed.

Re:quantum hype (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777625)

Quantum computing is not a branch of computer science; it is not logic and mathematics. It is a branch of physics.

Why the Quantum's physicians didn't name them Quantum Physics, or Quantum Mechanics, or Quantum Chemistry, or Quantum Particle instead of Quantum Computing, or Quantum Logic, or Quantum Math, or Quantum Satisfiability, etc.?

The minimal quantum unit of information is the q-bit. Is the q-bit a particle in the Physics? I don't think so, the q-bit is in the "Ficticious World" of the Computer Science.

There's a mistake in the demonstration. It doesn't "preserve the data privacy", there's not proof of its confirmation of preservation of the data privacy (did they use the technique of obscurity through security?).

The Quantum Bisimulation may crack it!!!.

By example, it's about the classical Bisimulation of the State Reachability but in the Quantum Ficticious World.

JCPM: Quantum = every possible states, but all is ficticious, not always practically real now, when we have not a real Quantum Computer yet.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777871)

Next time just make your entire post in boldface and squeeze out that last drop of emphasis.

Re:quantum hype (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38781969)

Well, "they do exist" is only true if you already call a system of a few qubits, not capable of anything more complex than factorizing 15, already a computer. I'd say we have a proof of concept, but not yet a real quantum computer. Making qubit implementations which scale up to a larger number of qubits is still an active field of research.

Re:quantum hype (2)

m50d (797211) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777827)

One of the interesting things about quantum computing is that it's fundamentally impossible to copy a qbit (hmm, wait until hollywood hears about that). So the cloud service really couldn't have logged what it sent back to you before it sent it.

More to the point, I suspect this proposal works by sending entangled qbits into the service, keeping the corresponding pairs, and getting back something that can only be turned into your answer by combining it with what you kept. This isn't the same as what you're talking about - the client literally just stores a set of bits and combines them at the end, like an xor. So it's like that story from a few months ago with an encrypted database that could run queries on its data without decrypting it, but better in that a) it works for free, for any computation, you don't have to design your database for it b) it's quantum encryption and thus provably unbreakable

Re:quantum hype (3, Interesting)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778125)

There are some keywords at TFA that give a hint. The computer is "measurement based", what I'll understand as "the computer only does measurements", also, "without knowing the original states, nobody can decode the output".

Turns out that are infinite ways (normaly over a finite continuum space) to encode your original bits, and if your computer only does measurements, the answer will be encoded the same way you encoded the data. If the computer operators don't know your encoding, they won't be able to read your data.

The hard thing is getting those phothons already encoded through the world into the computer, and getting the results back. Also, the above assumes that you can't discover the encoding, but it doesn't survive known plaintext attacks.

Re:quantum hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38782119)

It must be "hype" and science fiction just because you don't understand it? Does it raise any questions that this was published by a renowed scientific journal? Good lord, hope I will never have to work with such a moron..

Re:quantum hype (1)

jlugert (698711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38800411)

Quantum computing is just a rather basic branch of computer science which seems to be winning all the hype in the world at the moment because there's not much sexy in terms of hard non-biological research with a practical slant.

Not even wrong. Quantum computation is a parallel process which scales exponentially with the number of computing elements (wetware appears to have this property BTW, speaking of computational biology). Computers can't compete in this space--not with a zillion cores. Quantum states inherently sort out their threads. In other words, it is the next DSP/FPGA/GPU but entirely different--dreadlocks not deadlocks. Had we pursued this path in the 40's instead of computers, we wouldn't be in the jam we are now.

Fundamental yes, basic no.

Why occultism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777233)

The arrow is into GRID of Quantum SAT solvers. Almost problems can be modelled polynomially to it.

JCPM

Why would we send them (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777235)

If we were doing in this in a pre-quantum-minicomputer era wouldn't it be easier to just entangle the qubits you need first & use quantum teleportation? I mean, I'm no physicist...

Say what? (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777289)

I'd run TFA through babelfish if I could work out what language it's supposed to be.

Re:Say what? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778819)

For some reason, the writing sometimes seems odd to those who aren't living four simultaneous days.

Blah blah (4, Informative)

qqe0312 (1350695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777297)

I work in this line physics, which is really a lot of fun. But: The idea that a practical quantum computer will be around in the foreseeable future is jus plain silly. To worry how such a device would be integrated with the cloud is just absolutely bonkers. What a waste of time this all is.

Re:Blah blah (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777767)

What a waste of time this all is.

Yoda ... is that you?

Re:Blah blah (1)

jlugert (698711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38779441)

This paper comes out of one of the best, possibly the best, experimental labs in quantum optics. A group of people who have knocked over one after another obstacles in this field. Some of which were considered to be not possible in the foreseeable future if I recall. I don't work in this line of physics, I'm not a mathematician, but I have bothered to read the paper. It's not at all bonkers. A useful property of quantum computers was uncovered. As mentioned in the paper, it was only recently that anything close to this was doable with a classical computer, & it took 30 years to achieve a softer result. It's quite interesting to me to see how a client-server quantum server might look. A practical quantum computer already exists, as demonstrated in this result. A tiny computer, to be sure, but perfectly adequate for this demonstration. I doubt anyone knows with much certainty in one direction or the other how long it will take to scale up the bit width of these boxen--this being the current major obstacle. Certainly a chemist working in NMR implementations is not going to know with any certainty what the potential is of addressable trapped ions, & there are a half a dozen or more very different flavors of implementations being prototyped. Having just come back from seeing the Peking acrobats, I can tell you I had know idea how many chairs could be stacked on top of four champagne bottles, one on top of another. Halfway up to the ceiling the crowd was in general disbelief that one more chair was possible. Chairs were subsequently stacked all the way to ceiling. The last one then balanced on two legs. With the dude then balancing on one arm on top of this. As evidenced from the ratio of ignorance & skepticism in many of these comments, versus inherent potential, to me the field appears rather under-hyped, not over-hyped. Quantum optics and quantum information science is incredibly solid theory & engineering--the most sound theory in the history of science to be sure. It has made steady & accelerating progress over the last 20 years. It does not deserve to be thrown in amongst other speculative, if not downright corrupt, realms of physics as is implied in comments like these. Naysayers, and those of you pretending to represent the field in it's entirety, please eat my shorts.

Re:Blah blah (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38782215)

A practical quantum computer already exists, as demonstrated in this result. A tiny computer, to be sure, but perfectly adequate for this demonstration. I doubt anyone knows with much certainty in one direction or the other how long it will take to scale up the bit width of these boxen--this being the current major obstacle.

Not really. Quantum computers are only practical in that scientists and engineers have managed, through herculean efforts, have made simple machines that can solve utterly trivial computing problems for which no apparatus whatsoever is necessary or desired.

A practical quantum computer would be a quantum computer suitable for solving practical computing problems on a basis that's competitive with other types of computers.

Maybe engineers will figure out how to make such computers in the next few decades, but maybe not. Meanwhile, the capacity of conventional computers continues to push out ahead.

Re:Blah blah (1)

jlugert (698711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38798291)

Not really. Quantum computers are only practical in that scientists and engineers have managed, through herculean efforts, have made simple machines that can solve utterly trivial computing problems for which no apparatus whatsoever is necessary or desired.

A practical quantum computer would be a quantum computer suitable for solving practical computing problems on a basis that's competitive with other types of computers.

Correct--quantum computers are not the next FTP server. Nor are graphics cards much good for Excel.

Maybe engineers will figure out how to make such computers in the next few decades, but maybe not. Meanwhile, the capacity of conventional computers continues to push out ahead.

Such authoritative predictions are littered throughout the commentary on the field. Perhaps produced by those uncomfortable with a technology built upon a mysterious process for which there is no authority. More useful than additional replicas, would be to provide a solid basis for these exuberant predictions. Somehow, despite the best efforts of the critics, the tech is picking up steam in overcoming showstoppers such as error correction.

For those interested in learning something about the history of the subject, The Age of Entanglement, When Quantum Physics was Reborn. [google.com] is well researched, intelligent, & engaging. For the latest advances--both fundamental & technical--the origin [quantum.at] of the paper in this post is a prolific producer of relevant work.

Re:Blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38786003)

Hold on, I am not saying that quantum computing is poor science. It is actually a very interesting and, dare I say, fun.. Who knows, given lots of time it may even become useful. Even more, work related to this has turned out to be useful: quantum cryptography.
Where I have a problem with this text is the statement that the quantum computer would be integrated with the cloud. I have little doubt that when, if ever, a quantum computer becomes viable the cloud would be a blast form the past, making the work presented here completely moot.

Re:Blah blah (1)

jlugert (698711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38810341)

Hold on, I am not saying that quantum computing is poor science. It is actually a very interesting and, dare I say, fun.. Who knows, given lots of time it may even become useful. Even more, work related to this has turned out to be useful: quantum cryptography.

Let's say quantum information science & engineering to avoid the hair splitting. Yup--there are QKD rack mount networking boxes more robust than the power & cooling they depend on. There are applications in astrophysics & metrology right around the corner.

The perspective I see throughout these posts is misplaced. In genomics, e.g. there were no science, tech, or market showstoppers, yet decades went by without fruiting as expected. Why? Bad attitudes & short sightedness. Contrast Burt Rutan & Von Neumann. Rutan digs QIS--sees the potential. Von Neumann was geared up in the 30's & poisoned the field for decades.

All these statements about QIS as suspiciously impractical or overwhelmingly difficult... It gets thrown into the same physics pile as speculative & aggrandizing--string theory, 50-years-of-bigscience--promises-for-bigcash--fusion, or over-hyped/overgrown--high energy physics. QIS is not the latest gee-wiz, watch me do cellular automata in a test tube with PCR. It's a rooting up of logic & representation that comes with parts you can do stuff with. Would it be so fun for you if it were squishy speculative theory with little hope for applications?

Where I have a problem with this text is the statement that the quantum computer would be integrated with the cloud. I have little doubt that when, if ever, a quantum computer becomes viable the cloud would be a blast form the past, making the work presented here completely moot.

There's hardly any mention of the cloud in the "text"--once in the discussion maybe, and of no consequence. Mostly they speak of client-server ideas. And so what a failed attempt in buzzword compliance? One can't expect them to be in sync with the IT industry flavor-of-the-month lingo--they are quantum optics nerds, not IT guys. Hell, I'm a UNIX wizard & I can't say I know what a cloud is. Someone elses VM [xkcd.com] , not mine? A vague signal meaning 'don't hand over cash or private data to this entity?' These are practical people with interesting results to share. And for this insult, the tech community crawls over them as if they were a boot in the ant hill. Teen slashdotters would be all over this stuff if they could penetrate the noise of the krusties & naysayers.

What's important here is that they are integrating conceptually the disparate realms of networks, crypto, computation, & introducing a distinction between client and server. This is how one goes about making a mishmash of tech & tech concepts useful. It took us decades to figure these things out, unfigure them out, & figure them out again. Here you have it in a single paper.

Let em have their qcloud--they worked for it.

Re:Blah blah (1)

edoules (2541340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38780243)

Wait a second -- does that mean that by the time this technology matures, the cloud would have precipitated into an ancient memory?

Whoa..quantum computer + Cloud! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777341)

Must resist...want to invest...

Re:Whoa..quantum computer + Cloud! (1)

Ouchie (1386333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777725)

Investment at this point makes sense if you have money to throw away like DARPA. There are few actual functioning quantum computers and most are experimental concept models only. I don't see the applications of quantum computing getting past the education, institution, research and governmental use any time soon. If you were able to get a functional array of quantum computers you would likely not find a shortage of paying customers at this point, and your price point would be considerably higher than your standard crowded cloud market.

The type of people I see investing at this point are those who are also researchers.

No no, it's: quantum + cloud + apple iProduct! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38778321)

1. Apple iProduct.
2. Cloud.
3. Quantum computing.
4. Profit!

Re:Whoa..quantum computer + Cloud! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779647)

What if we leverage e-verticalized Bitcoin chunnels [startupista.com] ?

We will get quantum computing... (5, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777359)

...the same time we get the following:
  • Cold Fusion
  • Flying Cars
  • World Peace
  • Intelligent Patent and Copyright laws
  • An end to hunger
  • A manned mission to Mars
  • Hell, a manned mission to anywhere beyond LEO
  • When samsaric existence ends and everyone attains Buddahood

Re:We will get quantum computing... (3, Funny)

tiffany352 (2485630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777405)

Don't forget Half-Life 3.

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777545)

We WILL get Half-Life three.
Damn you, don't jinx it.

What's a heaven for? (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777575)

We WILL get Half-Life three.

A man's reach must exceed his grasp. Damn it man, we'll not only get it, we'll have a Hurd port of it! And people will abandon their Linux desktops in droves for it.

Re:We will get quantum computing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38780335)

You mean Half-Life 2: Episode 3, right?

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

tiffany352 (2485630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38820199)

Half-Life 2: Episode 2: Part 1

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38782207)

Don't forget Half-Life 3.

You actually wanted to write "Duke Nukem Forever", but then thought "damn, it's out now, I need to use another game", right? :-)

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777507)

And the rise of the Linux quantum desktop and five years later the Hurd.

The quantum joke of the Quantum Windows 666. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777845)

Not all is always unbreakable, by example, a quantum virus could break the quantum operating system (ej, enjoyingly the Quantum Windows 666) due to the presence of its quantum bug.
This quantum bug is the quantum decoherence that many quantum researchers suffer from this quantum anomaly.

The quantum patches (aka, the Quantum Service Packs) don't solve all this problem. The bug decoherence may always exist, it's a defined property of the Quantum Theory, and could be minimized its presence under many certain quantum techniques or quantum heuristics, by example, to increase the precision/accuracy of the n-qbit to (n+k)-qbit, or to extend the stable lake of the entangled states incorporating more new entangled states, etc. (or to increase the quantum computing time, it's wasting more energy, but it's contrario to the quantum principle).

JCPM: ficticious as outside of Matrix, and real as inside of Matrix, or viceversa, this difference is insignificant, both are real and both are ficticious.

Re:The quantum joke of the Quantum Windows 666. (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778095)

What the..I don't even..

Re:The quantum joke of the Quantum Windows 666. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38782233)

I hate to think what you'd do with quantum markup! You'd probably present us text that's bold and not bold at the same time!

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778139)

Hell, a manned mission to anywhere beyond LEO

Didn't people get that a few times around the 60's?

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

Velex (120469) | more than 2 years ago | (#38782161)

Yeah, but then we found out that it's kind of risky. Someone might get hurt.

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

jouassou (1854178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778261)

Duke Nukem Forever. Oh wait...

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

joeyadams (1724334) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778773)

...the same time we get the following:

Cold Fusion

Check. [wikipedia.org]

Flying Cars

Street cars kill enough people as it is. Flying cars would be like World War II every year.

World Peace

We already have world peace. It's just that some countries don't want to participate.

Re:We will get quantum computing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779995)

Street cars kill enough people as it is. Flying cars would be like World War II every year.

So your argument is: "People are retarded. Let's keep it that way!
If we find a way where they only kill themselves when being too stupid to live, then that is a Good Thing!

Re:We will get quantum computing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779559)

And jetpacks!

Re:We will get quantum computing... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38779663)

All of this is actually possible and quite feasible, except "intelligent patent and copyright laws".

Those researchers are failing their demonstration. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777387)

Demonstration of Blind Quantum Computing

It doesn't show a mathematical demonstration, simply, they explain it informally that can have pitfalls in their comments.

They didn't use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window [wikipedia.org] to specify the formal steps that proved the blindness of the quantum computing. [1] Who (what thing) is the subject of the observation to prove its blindness? [2] What thing is being observed to?

How do they fit the photons to the cloud computing of remote non-photonic servers? Is there any formal proved relation between them?

JCPM: i've little faith in them when they are doing propaganda of their fake science.

Re:Those researchers are failing their demonstrati (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38782265)

And I have little faith in anything using excessive italics and bold text.

Mainframe (2)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777419)

Those who do not understand mainframes are bound to reinvent them. Poorly.

Re:Mainframe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38778599)

I abhor this push to move citizen's general computing and storage needs into corporate centralization. If I wanted to live in a fucking collective, I'd have voted commie last time.

Hey guys! (2)

neurogeneticist (1631367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777429)

I really think we should come up with a team to figure out how in-home cold fusion reactors can be integrated into the existing power grid. This is a pressing issue, and I know if we work together we can achieve seamless integration. How's 6pm on Thursday sound?

Re:Hey guys! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777567)

I really think we should come up with a team to figure out how in-home cold fusion reactors can be integrated into the existing power grid. This is a pressing issue, and I know if we work together we can achieve seamless integration.

How's 6pm on Thursday sound?

Sounds great! I'll bring the salsa & chips ( my salsa's a bit spice-wonky though: You have to stir it really well, or you get hot spots).

Re:Hey guys! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777779)

You have to stir it really well, or you get hot spots

That's fine, so long as there's no wire in it.

Location of the researchers' statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777589)

http://medienportal.univie.ac.at/presse/aktuelle-pressemeldungen/detailansicht/artikel/quantum-physics-enables-perfectly-secure-cloud-computing/

The link in the article is to a magazine called 'Techweek' that non-ironically uses the word 'boffins' in its headlines.

Quantum Computing Security (2)

hackus (159037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777595)

I like this quote: "It's good to know that quantum computers will be secure when they exist."

Gotta love slashdot, ya know.

First of all, if we ever get a real working quantum computer...and that is a gigantic _IF_ in caps, you can rest assured that someone will break it.

I would be very surprised if it couldn't be cracked.

-Hack

Re:Quantum Computing Security (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38778149)

There are real working quantum computers out there. They are just not powerfull enough to be usefull.

Also, "secure" on the phrase you quote has a completely different meaning from what you use on your comment.

Definitely "if".... (2)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38777975)

Currently there is no reliable indication that a) quantum computers of sizes that perform better than traditional computers are feasible engineering-wise and b) that the physics holds up.

While Quantum computing certainly has captured hearts and minds, at this time it is merely a dream, and one that quite likely will not come true. Incidentally, many experts in the field admit this, but not publicly as that would jeopardize their funding.

Re:Definitely "if".... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38778425)

Which experts?

Re:Definitely "if".... (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38787885)

What about "not publicly" is to hard for you to understand?

No Replacement for Trust and Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38777983)

Besides the fact that no such computer will exist for a few decades at least, I'm assuming it would be at the server end. What's to stop the provider from making a copy of your data for themselves and storing it elsewhere? Or providing snooping software to do the equivalent (anyone remember Carrier IQ?)? Even data enciphered with the currently usable one-time pad is vulnerable to eavesdropping - at one or the other end, but not in transit. Quantum computers will not fix treachery.

It's already here (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38779169)

I'm writing this from my iTab with Retinal Display which has no local storage aside from protein based RAM, since bandwidth is instantaneous and cheap with Data Teleportation so everyone stores their data on Facebook's Quantum Cloud Units, known as FQCU. In fact quantum computing combined with data teleportation is so fast that we found that time travel is indeed possible, for our data communications at least, which is what I'm doing right now.

Homomorphic encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779307)

This is a quantum version of something called homomorphic encryption. If you think of a computation as an operation on an input, homomorphic encryption allows you to perform an encrypted operation on encrypted data so that when it is decrypted, you get the computation you wanted to do. But the computer performing the operation doesn't know what it has done! It has been an active area of research (for classical computers) since least as far back as the discovery of RSA encryption. Only in 2009 was a fully homomorphic encryption scheme discovered (though it is pretty inefficient). The discovery of an algorithm to do this more efficiently on a quantum computer is exciting news!

You've been warned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779355)

A quantum computer will only solve problems you didn't ask it to solve, kind of like software engineers.

Who cares? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38779411)

I think the word "perfect" is too strong. A system is only as good as its weakest link.

Quantum systems are not able to provide any guarantees WRT to *what* the system is entangled with.

You still need "classical" source of trust to bind the quantum system to do anything useful. (See MITM..quantum proxy server..)

Questions:

What prevents the replacement of the quantum cloud service with an attacker who intentionally provides wrong answers?

Or simply ignores a request pretending they did not get it in a bid to gain additional knowledge about the question? (Thereby revealing distribution)

How do you prevent information leakage WRT state density and count of qubits needed to perform a computation?

Anyway I'm still a little fuzzy on what they mean by "The user prepares qubits â" the fundamental units of quantum computers â" in a state known only to himself and sends these qubits to the quantum computer"

It seems like they are tweaking the distribution, transfering the system to the quantum processor and reading back an outcome. What is hidden to the computer is the initial probability distribution which is needed to understand outcomes in a useful context? Does this sound right or am I missing something?

If it is right how is this really any different than asking a million questions, collecting a million answers and only choosing the one you intended to ask in the first place?

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779445)

If it is right how is this really any different than asking a million questions, collecting a million answers and only choosing the one you intended to ask in the first place?

Your close, it's not a million though, it is probably more like uncountably infinite.

Re:Who cares? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38779507)

Your close, it's not a million though, it is probably more like uncountably infinite.

How do you figure? I would have thought given the state of todays useless "quantum" computers a million is more than generous.

Re:Who cares? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38782351)

Actually the number of possible states of a single qubit is uncountably infinite (according to quantum mechanics). Of course the number of results of any given complete measurement of that qubit is exactly two, but then, the number of measurements you can do on it is uncountably infinite. In theory, at least. In practice the number may be very high, but certainly finite, because you cannot make your measurement apparatus settings infinitely precise.

Re:Who cares? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38784785)

Actually the number of possible states of a single qubit is uncountably infinite (according to quantum mechanics). Of course the number of results of any given complete measurement of that qubit is exactly two, but then, the number of measurements you can do on it is uncountably infinite. In theory, at least. In practice the number may be very high, but certainly finite, because you cannot make your measurement apparatus settings infinitely precise.

Thank you, my mistake seems to be the variation in ways the question can be prepared has no bearing on the count of possible output states.

Is this a better analogy?

I want to add 1 + 1 without revealing to the cloud I don't know what 1 + 1 is fearing I will be rained on if it found out.

My question is prepared with two parameters (1 + x) and (1 + y) where x and y are random numbers I want added.

The random numbers are known only to me and can be as large as ones own imagination almost uncountably infinite.

The cloud returns an answer. I subtract x and y from the clouds answer to get my 2.

Is this system just a useful version of the scheme above?

Re:Who cares? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38799041)

Yes, I think that's a good analogy. Apart from the fact that adding and subtracting arbitrary numbers is much harder than adding 1+1, of course. :-)

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38779689)

There is a semi technical introduction here [quantumblah.org] which should hopefully answer your questions as to how the protocol works. It's not as technical as either the experimental paper or preceding theoretical paper, but tries to give the reader a proper understanding of what has been done without too much hype.

Quantum computers... (2)

internet-redstar (552612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38779825)

Quantum computers... will probably work.
But I guess I'll stick with certainty...

Everywhere, Everywhen, Nowhen, Nowhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38780171)

Quantum space has been accused of being supposedly ubiquituous, multiply linked, "holographic", and pan- or multi- temporal with time being just another multiply linked expanse in it. Everything is everywhere - and everywhen. Nothing is nowhere - or nowhen (maybe). At the same time, or in all of them. Including now, before, or whenever.

That is going to be secure?

Besides, I don't think even tinfoil is any defense against it. Nope, not even thermite. We're doooomed! :)

Non-Quantum 'Blind' Computing (1)

ahto (108308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38785699)

For the same effect on classic hardware, you might want to look at https://sharemind.cyber.ee/ [cyber.ee] .

Yes, I do have some friends in the project team.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?