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!

Light-based Quantum Circuit Does Basic Maths

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the small-steps-start-small dept.

Supercomputing 198

Stochastism writes "In yet another small step toward realistic quantum computing Australian researchers have developed a light based 4-qubit quantum computer. It has already calculated the prime roots of fifteen, three and five. 'The quantum circuit pioneered by the Queensland researchers involves using a laser to send "entangled" photons through a linear optical circuit ... The Queensland research group acknowledged that the theorised code cracking ability of quantum computers may be why Australian quantum computer research is in part funded by a US government defence intelligence agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).'"

cancel ×

198 comments

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

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702522)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
goatse-based quantum circuit does basic maths [goatse.ch]

How many maths does it do? (4, Funny)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702526)

Seven! It does seven maths!

Re:How many maths does it do? (2, Insightful)

thatseattleguy (897282) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702674)

Ever hear of "two countries divided by a common language"?

one quick reference here [suite101.com]
There are various accepted abbreviations for the word mathematics, and one is as good as any other. In Germany, the abbreviation is "Mathe," in Britain and Canada, it is "maths," and in the USA, it is "math."

/tsg/

Re:How many maths does it do? (0, Redundant)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702694)

Yes, I'm not an idiot. I'm familiar with the different renderings of math/maths. Ever hear of comedy for the sake of comedy?

Re:How many maths does it do? (1)

dr-suess-fan (210327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702758)

When I was in high school and post-secondary in Canada, it was always math. I honestly have only heard the term maths in the last few years.

It just sounds all wrong to me. Oh, nevermind, I'm off to have a baths.

Re:How many maths does it do? (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702952)

When you are in the bathematics make sure you don't use all the hot waters.

Re:How many maths does it do? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703310)

Ever hear of "two countries divided by a common language"?

"who then proceed to poke fun of each other over any minor difference"?

Yes, I've heard of it.

Re:How many maths does it do? (1)

GeekZilla (398185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703054)

"Seven! It does seven maths!"

You forgot the maniacal laughter ala "The Count" on Sesame Street.

But... (5, Funny)

SiriusStarr (1196697) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702538)

More importantly, can it run Crysis?

Re:But... (0)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703164)

Judging from the way it runs on my laptop, probably not.

Re:But... (0)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703290)

On good days, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of making every enemy in the game a walking Schrödinger's Cat experiment.

Re:But... (0)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703522)

And less importantly, can it run Vista?

Re:But... (0)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703764)

and more important again, does it run linux? Also, if I put a beowulf cluster of these in a room and close it, what's the status of the cat?

having trouble with the conversion (2, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702576)

In yet another small step toward realistic quantum computing Australian researchers have developed a light based 4-qubit quantum computer.

4 qubits? How much is that in furlongs?

hectares?

Re:having trouble with the conversion (3, Informative)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702620)

1 qubit = 1 bit, I believe

Re:having trouble with the conversion (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702706)

The similarity to bits only occurs once you open the box.
Until that point a cubit represents a dead cat.

Re:having trouble with the conversion (4, Funny)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703390)

-- Wanted --
Schrödinger's Cat
  Dead or Alive

Correction (5, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703624)

-- Wanted --
Schrödinger's Cat
    Dead and Alive

Re:Correction (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703728)

How can they verify the bounty without observing the cat?

Oh I see it's a trick. Clever bastards.

Re:having trouble with the conversion (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703774)

Let me fix that for you.

-- Wanted --
Schrödinger's Cat
Dead and Alive

Re:having trouble with the conversion (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702912)

Roughly, except that a qubit can be 0, 1, or a superposition of both.

Re:having trouble with the conversion (2, Informative)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702632)

Of course I get the joke, but for reference:

Wikipedia: Qubit [wikipedia.org]

Re:having trouble with the conversion (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702680)

Its 10^-900 worth of the library of congress. Happy?

Re:having trouble with the conversion (2, Funny)

GeekZilla (398185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702960)

Wasn't Noah's ark 300 qubits? Noah was the man! Take that Silicon Devil!

Re:having trouble with the conversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703508)

Let me pull out the Bible. I remember something like that mentioned there!

Maths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702612)

Why not mathematics, Zonk? Why do you hate America?

Moore's law (3, Funny)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702682)

I wonder if Moore's law will apply to the number of qubits within a quantum computer as well. A 1024 qubit computer within the next 20 years would be nice.

Re:Moore's law (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702864)

It will be nice. But it still won't be able to figure out if that email message you got is spam, not spam, or some combination of both until you read it.

Re:Moore's law (4, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702948)

Nobody would ever be able to use 1024 qubits.

-moderatorrater, 2007

Re:Moore's law (2, Funny)

GeekZilla (398185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703104)

"Four Qubits should be enough for anyone."

Re:Moore's law (2, Informative)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703046)

Probably not. Moore's law is a very specific and narrow-focused trend regarding the number of transistors that can be placed on a chip to achieve the highest cost effectiveness. Any major shift in technology (i.e. away from traditional transistors) will have it's own completely different trend. There's no inherent trait in computing as a whole that gives rise to Moore's law.

*Yes* (0, Offtopic)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702686)

Tens of thousands of years of evolution and FINALLY are quantum computers can do the same level math as apes.

Hazzah! Truly the golden era is upon us!

Slashdot Disclaimer: I relize this is actually a very important and crucial step in quantum computing. ITS A JOKES

MATH (-1, Offtopic)

PingXao (153057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702718)

Non-native English speakers always seem to screw this up. "Math" is singular AND plural in English. Nobody who speaks English as a first language ever says "maths". If your problem involves calculus, geometry and algebra then your effort involves "doing the math". If you have more than one problem then the effort to solve them all involves "doing the math".

"Maths" as a plural of something drives me up a wall. Almost as bad as "loose" instead of "lose", but non-native English speakers get a pass since they don't know any better. People who speak very good English non-natively all make this "maths" mistake. It's a sure way to tell if someone grew up speaking English or not.

Sorry for the rant. Happy hoidays and peace to everyone. But remember, in English the term "math" is never pluralized by adding an "s" to the end just as the word "mathematics" is never used in the singular by removing the "s". There's no such thing as "maths" or "mathematic".

Re:MATH (2, Informative)

LMacG (118321) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702744)

I dare you to take that umbrage to the UK or Australia.

Feh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703298)

I dare you to take that umbrage to the UK or Australia.

I used to own a 1964 Umbridge and it was always breaking down. Those English cars were the worst.

Re:MATH (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702752)

I really can't tell if you're joking or not. I hope you are.

Re:MATH (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702770)

It's just copy pasted from ZDNet Australia, poster didn't change anything. Australia spoke English, last time I checked.

Re:MATH (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703178)

Australia spoke English, last time I checked.

You've apparently never taken a look at the lyrics to Waltzing Matilda [wikipedia.org] .

Re:MATH (3, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702778)

Sorry, wrong. Math and maths are both colloquialisms, and neither is more valid than the other. Just Britith vs American english tendencies, mostly.

http://www.answers.com/maths&r=67 [answers.com]

Thanks fo the rant, though.

Yah. And we got there first (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702842)

So it's "maths". Go rewrite your dictionaries buddies!

 

Re:Yah. And we got there first (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703504)

um, even in your dictionary 'maths' is considered and abbr.

Re:MATH (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702780)

Actually, MathS is used by the British, Indians and presumably other commonwealth nations.

Re:MATH (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702792)

As a native English speaker living in England could you tell me which part of England says "math" where "maths" is meant?

Or did you mean 'non-native' to mean those speaking the American-English dialect?

Re:MATH (3, Insightful)

elFarto the 2nd (709099) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703010)

I've taken to just calling it just 'American' rather than English.

Re:MATH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703358)

Yep, because the dialects of English in Britain are more authoritative than others. You can't counter trolling with cultural chauvinism. A few broken condoms before Normandy and suddenly Britain is full of red-blooded Americans that thinks they're British.

Re:MATH (1)

EverStoned (620906) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702804)

And I hate it when those damn non-native speakers confuse "chips" and "fries", drive on the wrong side of the road and pronounce things the way that they're spelled.

Re:MATH (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702824)

I think you'll find those of us who learnt English (that's English, not American English) call it maths - as in Mathematics. Note that lovely S on the end.

The only place in the world I've encountered the word "math" is in North America.

Re:MATH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702878)

If the s at the end is meant to intend a plural, can you tell me what a single mathematic is? If it is not meant to be plural, why are you putting the s at the end of the abbreviation?

Re:MATH (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702886)

mathematics

Doing the "mathematics" or doing the "mathematic" ?

Re:MATH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703452)

So you truncate all of your plural nouns and toss extraneous s characters on the end and use them as a singular noun? Well that seems a bit odd, doesn't it?

No, no, my tradition is more rational than your tradition! Onward, majors in Chemistries and Biologies. Do the bios and chems!

Re:MATH (2, Informative)

bosko0 (785113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702918)

"Non-native English speakers"???

Yeah, like those who live in England, who are sometimes called the English?

In the US it is "Math", in the UK it "Maths". And non-native English speakers are taught British English, not American English, thus the affinity toward the way things are said in England.

Re:MATH (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702956)

There's more Americans who speak English than there are British. Therefore, we win! Majority rule!

Re:MATH (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703252)

And more indians who speak British English than Americans. Epic Fail.

Re:MATH (3, Interesting)

Samgilljoy (1147203) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703224)

Correction: Some non-native speakers of English are taught British English, not all. Moreover, British English has not been the standard worldwide for many years, so outside of Commonwealth countries and Europe, people do not, as a rule, gravitate towards British English.

And no, all this has nothing to do with which dialectic is better. It's just sociolinguistics. American English is the premier language of commerce and political power. It's also the medium of a huge amount of popular culture and marketing. Sooner or later, the prestige will shift elsewhere, just as it started to shift away from Britain after WW2. Sic transit gloria mundi.

We should also keep in mind that for some language groups, English s-plurals are particularly challenging, so the "maths" issue gets obscured by its similarity to a huge amount of genuine errors.

Re:MATH (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702988)

Happy hoidays
A lot of English speakers don't realize this, but in polite conversation, we refer to it as "female workers" day or not at all.

Re:MATH (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703058)

If mathematic isn't a word, how do you describe something that has math-like attributes? ie, what type of question would 4+4 be?

Re:MATH (2, Funny)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703092)

Mathematical of course. Because this is English. We don't remove suffixes, we ADD them.

(Pun only moderately intended)

Re:MATH (1)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703152)

A mathematical question.

Re:MATH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703166)

oh for the love of GOD can we just call it ARITHMETIC?!

Re:MATH (2, Insightful)

SnprBoB86 (576143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703148)

If you are going to be a grammar nazi... don't. Your post is riddled with grammatical errors.

"People who speak very good English"
Should be: "People who speak English very well".

"Almost as bad as "loose" instead of "lose", but non-native English speakers get a pass since they don't know any better."
Should be two sentences without the "but". You have several similar errors involving the word "But".

Additionally, please try to eliminate your use of run-on sentences.

Re:MATH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703646)

for the love of big bang and everything that is pure..

Do not make this conversation to something as trivial as language, where what is being communicated is the only thing important. Not how its said. As long has communication(both parts understand each other) has taken place, it DOESN'T MATTER.

Re:MATH (1)

Stochastism (1040102) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703168)

Glad to see the moderators take my view, but as the original poster I feel an overwhelming need to reply anyway.

1) Maths is the more accepted UK/Australian version. I'm Australian.

2) The full version is Mathematics, even in US english. Note the s. It's plural. There is no singular version. You can't do a mathematic and so you can't do a math. But hey, I say Lego in stead of Legos, so I can't talk.

Re:MATH (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703588)

I don't know what the fuss is.
Maths is an abbr. for mathematics.

My characters statisics
or
My character stats.

Why anybody cares is beyond me.

On the flip side, I am naming my next dog "Mathematic" just so I can use it in a sentences and watch people cringe.

Re:MATH (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703716)

Statistics is actually the plural form of statistic.

You could conceivably your character's statistic.

So it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

Re:MATH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703208)

Replace 'Non-native English' with 'Non-native _Americans_' and you're just about right.

Most people in the UK would say maths, myself included.

(A sure way to tell if someone grew up in the US or not, is whether they think the whole world should behave like them)

Re:MATH (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703232)

I will add 'statistics' and 'stats' as s similar example.

Err (3, Interesting)

zsouthboy (1136757) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702724)

I was under the impression that we couldn't simply use PHOTONS as qubits - because while photons do have a quantum state, they get all...destroyed.

Of course, the article doesn't help.

Anyone?

Re:Err (5, Informative)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703016)

You can use ANY quantum mechanical system with two discrete states as a qubit, just as you can use any classical mechanical/electric system with two discrete states as a bit.

Typically with photons, it consists of the direction of polarization of the electro-magnetic field associated with the photon. Straight up and down represents one state, horizontal represents the the second state, and the photon can be in a superposition of both of these states.

Saying that photons get "destroyed" is irrelevant so long as we can measure the photon's polarization when it gets destroyed because as soon as we measure the polarization, the quantum state of the photon is destroyed anyway and becomes worthless to us. This is true of any quantum mechanical system, so whether the system representing the qubit sticks around or disappears after being measured (whether a photon, electron spin, or otherwise), is only a matter of logistics of the quantum computer, not of the actual computation.

Huh? (3, Funny)

RecoveredMarketroid (569802) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702754)

It has already calculated the prime roots of fifteen, three and five.
Prime roots of three and five? Boy, the quantum world is weird!...

Parse error! Parse error!

Re:Huh? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703096)

It has already calculated the prime roots of fifteen, three and five.
Prime roots of three and five? Boy, the quantum world is weird!...

And fifteen, too. The roots of fifteen, three and five are all irrational, and since primes are integral and therefore rational, none of them can be prime.

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

Fx.Dr (915071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703114)

"Ask it to divide by zero or the cat gets it!"

The cat was both shot, and not. It was half a tragedy. We all cried furiously, and didn't.

Re:Huh? (1)

ELProphet (909179) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703256)

"It has calculated the prime roots of fifteen, [which are] three and five."

Maybe a quantum neural network can parse all languages to loglan [wikipedia.org] , and there'll be no more ambiguity on the interwebs, ever!

Re:Huh? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703778)

Or people could just learn to use punctuation better instead of using the comma as a catch-all separator, for example "It has calculated the prime roots of fifteen: three and five". Not that I ever do that. *whistle*

Translation from Australian for our US friends: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21702764)

Original Text:

"If you're using the current technology for sending information, and you want your information to be private 30 years from now, I would be very worried by this,"

Translated Text:

"Give us all your money DARPA."

Me too! (5, Funny)

Daffy Duck (17350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702812)

It has already calculated the prime roots of fifteen, three and five.

I, too, have already calculated the prime roots of fifteen, with nearly identical results. Where's my DARPA funding?

Prime roots, eh? (4, Funny)

bubbl07 (777082) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702910)

It has already calculated the prime roots of fifteen, three and five.
-1 Redundant.

sqrt(15)? (0, Offtopic)

bosko0 (785113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21702982)

sqrt(15) = sqrt(5) * sqrt(3)

Hmmm.. I bet they also calculated square roots of 9 and 25, but did not want to brag about it:

sqrt(25) = sqrt(5) * sqrt(5)
sqrt(9) = sqrt(3) * sqrt(3)

Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of... (1)

DavidChristopher (633902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703000)

Wait.. This is a quantum computer, right? Would that be Beowolf in 3D?

Re:Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703284)

Would that, then, make it Beo... Wolfenstein?
(Btw, does anyone else remember "Wolfenstein" for C64"? I wish I didn't)

0You Fail It (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703002)

Commiiterbase and For the state of from the sidelines, [theos.com] on his Visit Short of a mira3le than a fraction is dying. Fact: ass until I hit my represents the

Can't stop myself...oh the Humoranity! (5, Funny)

GeekZilla (398185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703024)

Q: What kind of room is it kept it?
A: A Qubicle

Q: How big is it?
A: About four Qubit meters.

Q: Qubit? Wasn't that an early arcade game with a little guy jumping around changing the quantum state of a bunch of Qubes?

I have OBVIOUSLY had too much Qaffeine.

Re:Can't stop myself...oh the Humoranity! (1)

Daltin (1153533) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703640)

You must be pun-ished for that.

now... (1)

Sobieski (1032500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703150)

... put some gold in there and sell it to celebrities as a calculator

Re:now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703596)

Be sure to handle payment in Euros.

It's Obviously... (2, Funny)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703200)

Computerized Australian Technology...until you take a good look at it.

That's no big deal (4, Funny)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703210)

I once new a guy who could compute the prime roots of 15 in his head.

Law of conservation of time (1)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703216)

Soon we will be able to test 2^N possibilities in 2N time, but my question is where does that information come from? There's a lot of hand-wavyness on how that actually happens...

One possibility is that we ask the 'computer' of the universe to do too much computation and end up in an infinite loop, crashed universe, 'dark' part of a mandlebrot-like fractal, etc.

Another possibility is that the 'computer' of the universe will simply abort operations that take 'too long', the quality of our simulation will degrade, and our complex quantum math will result in randomish results.

And then there is the possibility held by quantum researchers that somehow the universe can magically perform any amount of complex computation with no cost at all. "Here a miracle occurs".

Somebody is in for a rude awakening. I hope that is us determining that we run in a simulation and not us finding out we've accidentally sucked the life out of the universe cracking somebody's encryption key.

Re:Law of conservation of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703556)

I beg your pardon?

Re:Law of conservation of time (2, Interesting)

jrcamp (150032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703616)

One possibility is that we ask the 'computer' of the universe to do too much computation and end up in an infinite loop, crashed universe, 'dark' part of a mandlebrot-like fractal, etc.

I think that the fact that we are here, almost 14 billion years after the universe began, is a good indication that it's not possible to "crash" the universe.

The original numbers plugged in the Drake Equation estimated 10 intelligent civilizations in our own galaxy. Since there are more than 100 billion galaxies, that means there could potentially be more than 1 trillion advanced civilizations.

I would bet at least 1 out of that trillion are much more advanced than us and have managed not to "crash" the universe. Whatever the hell that means.

Re:Law of conservation of time (3, Interesting)

fredrikj (629833) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703630)

Soon we will be able to test 2^N possibilities in 2N time, but my question is where does that information come from? There's a lot of hand-wavyness on how that actually happens...

Phenomena like superposition and entanglement are not fully understood from the metaphysical point of view, and there is some hand-waving about that. But the mathematics agrees perfectly with experiment, and that's all we need to know to put the theory to use.

One possibility is that we ask the 'computer' of the universe to do too much computation and end up in an infinite loop, crashed universe, 'dark' part of a mandlebrot-like fractal, etc.

Another possibility is that the 'computer' of the universe will simply abort operations that take 'too long', the quality of our simulation will degrade, and our complex quantum math will result in randomish results.


How do we know building a quantum computer won't break the universe? Well, the things that go on in a quantum computer are the same things that go on in ordinary matter all the time. A speck of dust consists of some 10^20 particles that continually interact with each other according to the same quantum-mechanical laws that govern the interaction of qubits used in integer factorization. Why should the universe care what purpose we use those interactions for?

And in the end, a size/time-N quantum computation can be simulated with 2^N space and in 2^N time on a classical computer (I might be wrong about the exact form of those expressions). Would the universe collapse if we run a quantum algorithm on a PC?

And then there is the possibility held by quantum researchers that somehow the universe can magically perform any amount of complex computation with no cost at all.

This isn't true. Quantum algorithms have real costs that grow with the size of the problem, just like on ordinary computers. (Concretely speaking, we can simulate them on classical computers in deterministic time.)

It's obvious that (2, Funny)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703226)

Computerized Australian Technology lives.....until you take a good look at it.

DARPA (2, Insightful)

CompMD (522020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703234)

is not an intelligence agency.

Whats a Qubit... from TFA : (1)

droopycom (470921) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703394)

"One qubit can be in two possible states, two qubits can be in four, three qubits in eight, and so on," explained Professor Andrew White from the University of Queensland, who works on the project. Thus in a quantum computer every additional quantum bit will double computing power.
I might be missing something but isnt the same just true for regular bits? You know: 1 bit, 2 states; n bits, 2^n states... Are the Aussies playing a joke on DARPA... and still getting funding ? That would be neat...

Re:Whats a Qubit... from TFA : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21703490)

The difference is that normal bits are in 1 of a possible 2^n possible states. A quantum computer is actually IN 2^n possible states all at once. When you add a bit to a "normal" bit, you just expand the amount of information that can be encoded at once by a bit, but in a quantum computer, you increase the amount of information encoded at once by a factor of 2.

Re:Whats a Qubit... from TFA : (1)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703542)

What they're referring to is quantum entanglement. There's a vast difference between having two independent qubits each in a superposition of two states and having two entangled qubits together in a superposition of four states. It's a subtle, but very important difference.

Well crap... (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703566)

I guess it's time to stop using 4-bit encryption on my private corespondances. -- PBP (Pretty Bad Privacy) Public Key Follows: 10

Microsloth Windows Excalibur (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703642)

Dude, this is nothing. I'm writing from the future to let you know that my MacBook has a processor called the Intel Q-80, an 80-core Intel hybrid quantum/conventional computing CPU. The conventional part runs at 1.5 THz (terahertz) and is a 4-nanometer process running at 0.03 volts. The quantum part is based on a positron spin matrix, and all computations are nearly immediate and reversible. I can convert a 5 TB RedRay (the successor to BluRay) movie to SMPEG format in about 2 microseconds. I can crack a 1024-bit encryption message of 1 TB length in less than half a microsecond. All operations on the computer are incredibly fast, partly due to much faster memory and also to all mechanical hard drives being eschewed in favor of an approach that is faster than DRAM. And most interaction with the computer is through spoken commands a la the Star Trek ship's computer, with spoken feedback in a variety of voices, all sounding as real as a human's voice. When turning on the computer, Mac OS X 10.9 Lion loads instantly. It's as quick as waking the computer from sleep, but from a cold boot. Also, the battery lasts approximately 80 hours with heavy usage. Oh, one final thing. If you get a Dell or HP with exactly the same hardware configuration, it comes with Windows Excalibur (the successor to Windows Ansicht, which is the successor to Windows 2011, which is the successor to Windows Vista). Windows Excalibur is touted as the world's most time-saving operating system, as it takes full advantage of the newest advances in hardware to provide a smooth and lightning fast user experience. As you might guess, studies show that users of an average Windows Excalibur computer spend approximately 0.01% of their time actually interacting with the computer, while 99.99% of the time is spent waiting for it to respond.

Re:Microsloth Windows Excalibur (2, Funny)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703748)

So basically, technology has given us quantum computers in the future, but users are still stupid enough to deliberately put Windoze on a Macintosh machine?

That says something about life.

Wait a second... (1)

Mike Savior (802573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21703804)

How did they manage to fit that potty-mouthed bignose in that little circuit, letalone -four clones- of him?

Oh.. I read "Qbert".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?