# Quantum computing could head to 'the cloud', study says



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

RobynC said:


> How does a 128 qbit processing compare to a typical supercomputer in terms of processing power?


 I do not know if they are directly comparable. This deals with the fact that electronic computers are viewed as deterministic whereas quantum computers are probabilistic, so they each use different algorithms to solve problems. This makes it so that certain problems are easier to solve on quantum computers than on electronic computers. There is also the added benefit of encrypting your data by sending a pair of entangled particles whose state is unknown until both parties measure it.
Quantum computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @wuliheron
> And I'm quite sure the government will use these. After all it requires a lot of processing capability to perform all of these mass-surveillance activities.


At this point its a race to see who can produce the first one. Virtually all the pieces have been worked out and the only question is how quickly can they be put together. The first government that can produce a full fledged quantum computer will have access to almost every computer system in the world to do with as they please. That kind of power makes even the Stuxnet virus look tame in comparison and will likely trigger a new type of arms race. No doubt one the NSA is already making contingency plans for.

Beyond breaking into every computer in the world the things it could tell us about quantum mechanics, mathematics, you name it, would be invaluable for anything from weapons designs to medicine or anything. It could literally usher in a new age of science and technology. Very likely the first computers would be primitive designs and used to calculate how to make more powerful ones and ones useful for specific purposes. Its like the atomic bomb all over again with no real way of knowing in advance just how powerful it will be much less all the possible applications, but knowing with a certainty it will change the world forever if it is at all possible as seems likely.


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

so to be clear: your saying that it would get regulated against, a.k.a. congressmen are going to think about the long term, giving up huge sums of campaign money to avoid a blow to the income tax.

maybe. i'm skpetical but stranger things have happened.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

traceur said:


> so to be clear: your saying that it would get regulated against, a.k.a. congressmen are going to think about the long term, giving up huge sums of campaign money to avoid a blow to the income tax.
> 
> maybe. i'm skpetical but stranger things have happened.


Even congress isn't crazy enough to give a loaded weapon to someone just for a quick buck. Sorry, but if you are a corporation you can't buy an atom bomb, stealth fighter, or any number of technologies the government regulates. As it is the government already strictly controls who can get their hands on a conventional super computer.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@unsung truth



> I do not know if they are directly comparable. This deals with the fact that electronic computers are viewed as deterministic whereas quantum computers are probabilistic, so they each use different algorithms to solve problems. This makes it so that certain problems are easier to solve on quantum computers than on electronic computers.


There aren't any rules of thumb? For example would it be 100 times more powerful than a modern super computer, 1,000, 100,000 or so? 

To @wuliheron, do you have any estimates here?


@wuliheron



> At this point its a race to see who can produce the first one. Virtually all the pieces have been worked out and the only question is how quickly can they be put together. The first government that can produce a full fledged quantum computer will have access to almost every computer system in the world to do with as they please.


How would it be able to do all these things? 



> That kind of power makes even the Stuxnet virus look tame in comparison and will likely trigger a new type of arms race. No doubt one the NSA is already making contingency plans for.


That sounds completely horrifying.


R.C.
Be sure to read my signature below...


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RobynC said:


> There aren't any rules of thumb? For example would it be 100 times more powerful than a modern super computer, 1,000, 100,000 or so?
> 
> To @wuliheron, do you have any estimates here?


Quantum computers work by the factorial of the quanta entangled. However, these are merely pairs of entangled particles rather then all 128 being entangled with each other and I'm not sure how to do the calculations. Like I already said, its also not really a computer either, but more like a calculator that can only do specific types of equations. Its not made for power either so much as raw speed and recently finished a test run in 250 milliseconds.


@wuliheron

How would it be able to do all these things? 

That sounds completely horrifying.[/QUOTE]

Its business as usual for No-Such-Agency. Very likely the US and her allies are the only ones with enough money and expertise in the field to create a full fledged quantum computer anytime soon and our advantage in every other area is already so great about the only difference it would make is to help consolidate the US hegemony worldwide. Eventually it would become an arms race though and smaller wealthier countries where its easier to install quantum cryptographic systems everywhere might have some advantage. In other words, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, or same-ol-same-ol.

The scarier part is all the secrets that might be stolen before things settle down a bit. There's just no way of knowing what insane technologies or deep dark secrets are kept on computers worldwide and how some of it could upset the balance of power places. If the US does get a quantum computer years in advance of anyone else I expect it will keep the spooks extra busy just try to figure out all the different ways the shit can hit the fan and how they might cope.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @unsung truth
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't any rules of thumb? For example would it be 100 times more powerful than a modern super computer, 1,000, 100,000 or so?


Such a comparison can't really be made due to the fact that digital computer 'bits' are based around two state values, what we commonly know as binary or '1s and 0s' - but what the 1s and 0s really mean is just difference of state, which could be high voltage or low voltage, here or there, round or square, anything really. 

There's really no direct comparison when breaking out of discreet values, just like you can't really compare a fluidic analog computer with a digital one in terms of power - you can only really compare them in terms of how computations are made and what they are good for.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

RobynC said:


> How does a 128 qbit processing compare to a typical supercomputer in terms of processing power?


Like a universal seed that can potentially grow all trees, few if any will grow in our soil vs an orchard of apple trees.

Let me put it this way, the list of unique quantum algorithms so far is quite short and our current quantum computers are more like a mechanical abacus vs a super computer.

All we can do is watch this space.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

What a shitty article..

Quantum =/= cloud 

This is one of these sensational articles in which they try to link 'the future of technology' with cloud-based technology which basically is a step forward to the confiscation of our privacy, cloud computing renders hard disk drives to be 'unnecessary' and requires you to save your sensitive files in a server owned by companies. You have absolutely no idea what happens with your files, who scans them, whether they get used for marketing purposes, you know nothing.

While I completely support the Quantum way of computing, there is no necessity to paste cloud computing with it. That's just stupid.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@wuliheron



> Quantum computers work by the factorial of the quanta entangled.


So you mean 128 x 127 x 126 x 125 … all the way down to one?



> Like I already said, its also not really a computer either, but more like a calculator that can only do specific types of equations.


What kind of calculations?



> Its not made for power either so much as raw speed and recently finished a test run in 250 milliseconds.


What's the difference between power and speed and what constitutes a typical test run and the time used?



> Its business as usual for No-Such-Agency.


No shit, have you ever heard of AQUAINT?



> The scarier part is all the secrets that might be stolen before things settle down a bit. There's just no way of knowing what insane technologies or deep dark secrets are kept on computers worldwide and how some of it could upset the balance of power places. If the US does get a quantum computer years in advance of anyone else I expect it will keep the spooks extra busy just try to figure out all the different ways the shit can hit the fan and how they might cope.


Or how they can make the shit hit the fan for others…


@sly



> This is one of these sensational articles in which they try to link 'the future of technology' with cloud-based technology which basically is a step forward to the confiscation of our privacy, cloud computing renders hard disk drives to be 'unnecessary' and requires you to save your sensitive files in a server owned by companies. You have absolutely no idea what happens with your files, who scans them, whether they get used for marketing purposes, you know nothing.


And this is why cloud-computing scares the shit out of me


R.C.
Be sure to read and understand my signature below...


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @wuliheron
> 
> So you mean 128 x 127 x 126 x 125 … all the way down to one?


Yep. Its an enormous number which is why even a 64 qubit computer would be enormously useful.



RobynC said:


> What kind of calculations?


NP-complete optimization problems. You can theoretically use it for a wide variety of equations, but it wouldn't be as fast and the whole point is to use it for problems current supercomputers can't solve expediently. Right now Lockheed Martin are the only ones I know who have one and exactly what they intend to use it for is anyone's guess.



RobynC said:


> What's the difference between power and speed and what constitutes a typical test run and the time used?


The machine isn't really designed to deal with outrageously large numbers that other computers can't handle because that would require more entangled particles and more expense and its the first commercial model. However, it can crunch the same large numbers classical computers already can, but much faster. Exactly how fast nobody knows because its a classified device and I only know of two test runs done so far.



RobynC said:


> No shit, have you ever heard of AQUAINT?


I have now. Quantum computing could help with such things but, again, the biggest help they can offer for the foreseeable future is providing deeper insights quantum mechanics and cracking mathematical problems current computers can't. In particular issues to do with things like fuzzy logic and networks where we just don't have a well developed theory and the numbers are too outrageous to crunch any other way. With that kind of knowledge we could eventually design intelligent networks and fuzzy logic computers that could sort through enormous volumes of information in meaningful ways we can't even imagine right now.




RobynC said:


> Or how they can make the shit hit the fan for others…


That's their job. I've met my share of spooks, generals, and politicians and most were real caricatures. The spooks are called spooks for a reason. You really don't want to be alone with them even if you know you're safe. If they don't send shivers down your spine they'll recruit you.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@wuliheron



> Yep. Its an enormous number which is why even a 64 qubit computer would be enormously useful.


That's a processing power of 3.85620482 x 10^215 bits. And as I understand it, they're already working on a 512 q-bit computer which would have a processing capability of 1.0085567 x 10^1210. If either of these computations are correct, that would mean that the processing power exceeds the information capacity of the observable universe _(10^92 bits)_ according to mathematics professor Seth Lloyd who is an expert in quantum physics and quantum computation. 

Is there something wrong with my mathematics here because that seems to defy the Godel's incompleteness theorem.



> NP-complete optimization problems.


Can you explain what an NP complete optimization problem is?



> Right now Lockheed Martin are the only ones I know who have one and exactly what they intend to use it for is anyone's guess.


I can't imagine that kind of processing power being used for anything good...



> That's their job.


The problem is they aren't just interested in making the shit hit the fan for other nations. The NSA has been more than willing to operate domestically.


R.C.
Remember to be sure to read and understand my signature below...


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> That's a processing power of 3.85620482 x 10^215 bits. If that's correct that would mean that the processing power exceeds the information capacity of the observable universe _(10^92 bits)_ according to mathematics professor Seth Lloyd who is an expert in quantum physics and quantum computation.
> 
> Is there something wrong with my mathematics here because that seems to defy the Godel's incompleteness theorem.


That actually has nothing to do with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. It has nothing to do with how much information can be processed and everything to do with axiomatic consistency. Basically it means that we cannot have a system where every statement can be proved or disproved - therefore systems are always incomplete.

To compare system powers you need an arbitrary unit, such as FLOPS, which is based on a benchmark that is common with all the measured systems. FLOPS are only good for processors that use floating point as representations of real numbers - it would be useless to compare FLOPS on a computer that doesn't use floating point and rather can work with real numbers naturally.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@sprinkles



> That actually has nothing to do with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. It has nothing to do with how much information can be processed and everything to do with axiomatic consistency.


I thought the theorem states that it's not possible to contain all the data of the universe because in order to contain that data you would need more storage space than the universe you're storing.


R.C.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @sprinkles
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well actually that could be a result of the incompleteness theorem since it MIGHT be possible to have a complete system if you can have infinite axioms, but we can't realistically have infinite axioms.

However, processing happens _over time_ - all the information would not (and could not) be held all at once. Just think of a computer that has a 700gb hard drive, which is storage, but can only _process_ a few gb of that data at a time. It would _hypothetically_ be possible to process more information than could be stored by the universe using a process over time, especially if you can overwrite unusable or unneeded information - you could use empty space as a delay line for example.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@sprinkles

But you wouldn't be able to hold all that data at once and if you had to delete data to make room you wouldn't have any memory of the previously collected data. After all data stored on a hard drive is memory.


R.C.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @sprinkles
> 
> But you wouldn't be able to hold all that data at once and if you had to delete data to make room you wouldn't have any memory of the previously collected data. After all data stored on a hard drive is memory.
> 
> ...


Yes that is true. Data loss is to be expected, and is normal in the universe. Just think of all the things that we _don't know_ about history for example - this is partly because of this phenomenon. 

It is not necessary to remember everything, and most things will not be remembered, just like how our brains work. Think of all the data that you discard on a daily basis - we cannot store every single thing we have seen or processed in our lives, and in fact the information that has been generated by the universe since it began already probably exceeds the data that it can contain, by many many times, yet we are able to remember things that we find significant in spite of that.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @wuliheron
> 
> That's a processing power of 3.85620482 x 10^215 bits. And as I understand it, they're already working on a 512 q-bit computer which would have a processing capability of 1.0085567 x 10^1210. If either of these computations are correct, that would mean that the processing power exceeds the information capacity of the observable universe _(10^92 bits)_ according to mathematics professor Seth Lloyd who is an expert in quantum physics and quantum computation.


I've already told you their computer can't do that. It can only entangle particles in pairs and you'd need one that could entangle all 128 together. Quanta are contextual too so it will likely become more difficult to do calculations the more particles you entangle with each other.

However, it does bring up an interesting point that if we can ever do such things on a chip using spintronics or plasmonics or whatever you could smash Moore's Law so badly you'd need another one. By that I mean there's no reason in principle a quantum computer on a chip could not process more data then the number of atoms in the chip itself.



RobynC said:


> Is there something wrong with my mathematics here because that seems to defy the Godel's incompleteness theorem.


Quanta already defy logic and just about all the physical laws with the possible exceptions of the speed of light and conservation of energy, so I wouldn't worry about Godel.



RobynC said:


> Can you explain what an NP complete optimization problem is?


Optimization is finding the best solution among all the possibilities. When you're talking about enormous numbers of possibilities computers can be invaluable. NP complete is a specific subset of such optimization problems and if you really want the technical details you'd best read up on the subject.



RobynC said:


> I can't imagine that kind of processing power being used for anything good...


I can't imagine Lockheed Martin has humanitarian uses for it, but it can certainly be used for good.



RobynC said:


> The problem is they aren't just interested in making the shit hit the fan for other nations. The NSA has been more than willing to operate domestically.


Whether home or abroad nasty people are problem for all the rest of us. To quote Lao Tzu, "What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher. What is a bad man, but a good man's student." Think of it as a challenge or job security.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@wuliheron



> I've already told you their computer can't do that. It can only entangle particles in pairs and you'd need one that could entangle all 128 together.


Sorry, you did say there was a factorial relationship at work here so I just did 128 factorial.



> However, it does bring up an interesting point that if we can ever do such things on a chip using spintronics or plasmonics or whatever you could smash Moore's Law so badly you'd need another one.


What's spintronics and plasmonics?



> By that I mean there's no reason in principle a quantum computer on a chip could not process more data then the number of atoms in the chip itself.


How could it process more data than the number of atoms in the chip? I thought it wouldn't be possible for, say 500 atoms to process more than 500 atoms worth of data.



> Quanta already defy logic and just about all the physical laws with the possible exceptions of the speed of light and conservation of energy


They defy the speed of light in a way (they can signal each other instantly)



> Optimization is finding the best solution among all the possibilities. When you're talking about enormous numbers of possibilities computers can be invaluable.


Understood



> I can't imagine Lockheed Martin has humanitarian uses for it, but it can certainly be used for good.


What good would it have that wouldn't be offset by all the potential for bad?


R.C.
Remember to read my signature below


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @wuliheron
> 
> What's spintronics and plasmonics?


Electronics work by the electrical charge of the electron, spintronics use the spin instead. Its much faster and more efficient, but requires extreme precision engineering that hasn't been well developed yet. Plasmonics are a type of pseudo-optics, a kind of optical-electronic hybrid waveform, that have much shorter wavelengths then regular optics and are being developed for optical computing on chips because of their small size. Both optics and spintronics can at least theoretically be used for classical computing at close to the speed of light or even quantum computing.



RobynC said:


> How could it process more data than the number of atoms in the chip? I thought it wouldn't be possible for, say 500 atoms to process more than 500 atoms worth of data.


In a classical computer its impossible, but not for a quantum computer where collectively the entangled particles can represent the factorial of their number. In the case of quantum entanglement there is strength in numbers and the total is greater then the sum of its parts.



RobynC said:


> They defy the speed of light in a way (they can signal each other instantly)


If they defy the speed of light (BIG IF) they don't convey any useful energy or information and, so, at least don't violate the theory of Relativity.



RobynC said:


> What good would it have that wouldn't be offset by all the potential for bad?


Like I've said in previous posts, it can be used to do all sorts of calculations that can't be done on a conventional computer. They could be useful for anything from quantum research to mathematics to medicine to designing the next compact car.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@wuliheron



> Electronics work by the electrical charge of the electron, spintronics use the spin instead. Its much faster and more efficient, but requires extreme precision engineering that hasn't been well developed yet. Plasmonics are a type of pseudo-optics, a kind of optical-electronic hybrid waveform, that have much shorter wavelengths then regular optics and are being developed for optical computing on chips because of their small size. Both optics and spintronics can at least theoretically be used for classical computing at close to the speed of light or even quantum computing.


Interesting



> In a classical computer its impossible, but not for a quantum computer where collectively the entangled particles can represent the factorial of their number. In the case of quantum entanglement there is strength in numbers and the total is greater then the sum of its parts.


So 128 atoms could represent 3.85620482 x 10^215 atoms? How much mass would 3.85620482x10^215 atoms of carbon come out to?



> Like I've said in previous posts, it can be used to do all sorts of calculations that can't be done on a conventional computer. They could be useful for anything from quantum research to mathematics to medicine to designing the next compact car.


Or creating something like a simulated universe a'la The Matrix...


R.C.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @wuliheron
> 
> So 128 atoms could represent 3.85620482 x 10^215 atoms? How much mass would 3.85620482x10^215 atoms of carbon come out to?


Its 128 particles which are much smaller then an atom. For scale if an atom were the size of a 14 story building its electrons would be like dust particles and its entire nucleus would be about the size of a grain of salt. If photons are used they have no rest mass whatsoever and electrons have a very tiny mass even by particle standards.



RobynC said:


> Or creating something like a simulated universe a'la The Matrix...


Knowing my luck it would all be designed by Disney Studios.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@wuliheron



> Its 128 particles which are much smaller then an atom.


So they're using electrons?



> For scale if an atom were the size of a 14 story building its electrons would be like dust particles and its entire nucleus would be about the size of a grain of salt. If photons are used they have no rest mass whatsoever and electrons have a very tiny mass even by particle standards.


So an electron could be used to simulate an atom? What would simulate the electron then?



> Knowing my luck it would all be designed by Disney Studios.


I don't understand what you mean...


R.C.
Be sure to read my signature and tagline below...


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> How could it process more data than the number of atoms in the chip? I thought it wouldn't be possible for, say 500 atoms to process more than 500 atoms worth of data.


How much is '500 atoms worth' of data exactly?

How much is 1 atom worth of data?

1 atom worth of data can be a LOT of data, in theory. Certainly more than the amount of data that can actually be held by the atom itself. This is because the data is contextual. It all depends on where the atom is and what it is doing when you look at it.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@sprinkles



> How much is '500 atoms worth' of data exactly?
> 
> How much is 1 atom worth of data?


It's a figure of speech


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @wuliheron
> 
> So they're using electrons?
> 
> ...


Again, its not "an" electron. Its many entangled electrons or photons or whatever and quanta are contextual. An ordinary silicon chip, for example is composed of a very small hand full of sand, yet it can be used to calculate something as large as the size of the universe. How? Because the whole is greater then the sum of its parts.


----------

