next gen computers ? (possibly our grandchildrens)

Quantum computing gets closer

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/26/3489504.htm

john3760
____________

Quantum computing is always 50 years ahead, like nuclear fusion reactors.AQUA@home disappeared from BOINC after D-Wave sold a 100 million dollars quantum computer to Lockheed-Martin.
Tullio
____________

Quantum computing gets closer

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/26/3489504.htm

john3760

What is it about Quantum computers that gives it an advantage over today's computers? Is it simply that light and higher frequency waves would have have cycle speed faster that several gigahertz. At what speed will the input and output devices operate ?

If a particle can be at two places at once,does the speed of light actually have any
relevance at all.
The computers we are currently using rely on transistors,and other parts which are
constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them today,but if you are
talking about a particle that could be in more than one place at a time,then the speed
of light doesn't come in to it.
If they get this right and actually build a working computer out of the science they are
pioneering,then maybe in the future we could find a propulsion system out of the same
scientific process,as we come to understand quantum physics and it's relevance within
the universe as we know it.
It could be one small step to the future ( and space travel to othe parts of the galaxy
within a human lifetime ) . As we don't have the technology we require at this moment
in time to do so.

john3760
____________

What is it about Quantum computers that gives it an advantage over today's computers? Is it simply that light and higher frequency waves would have have cycle speed faster that several gigahertz. At what speed will the input and output devices operate ?

Read "The emperor's new mind" and "Shadows of the mind" by Roger Penrose.
Tullio
____________

I do not see how information can travel at faster than light speed. Quantum entanglement does not seem to me to be a way to transmit information.

Our brain is not a quantum computer. It is not even digital. It is an image processor and pattern recognizer. It probably behaves signal wise like sampled data, single-sideband FM. We don't even know how memory is implemented in the brain. We know that it learns but aren't really able to describe exactly how. We speak of path re-inforcement and threshold lowering but can't explain it fully.

Just like neural modeling and threshold logic that was all the rage 50 years ago which decomposes into Boolean logic, Quantum computing will do so as well. I would offer to send you some papers on neural modeling and microwave data processing, but they are not in digital form --They were done for the government at Fort Monmouth back in the 60's.

Robert Glorioso and I spent two years debunking a lot of the artificial Intelligence myth that was bouncing around. later on I took courses from Ross Ashby (Design for a Brain) and also Heinz Von Forster in Cybernetics and Heuristics. I even met Reine Marchgraber his classmate who lamented" poor Heinz, he went digital". Though Ashby (a physician) gave a course in logic-related mathematics both of these guys had very naive notions that this was going to model the brain in cognitive thought.

Von Forster was even hauled before the Illinois legislature to explain some of the nonsense going on in his class. The two other professors in his heuristics class were a displaced commie and a latter-day Christ of the then fashionable hippie-movement. The biggest thing that we discovered each week was where the class was going to meet.

Another observation. Transistors are quantum devices. They depend on quantum tunneling to work.

The article (and I),in no way mentioned AI ,or cybernetics,but you never know
that could be something for the distant future using the systems
and techniques pioneered now,by these scientists and others.


Some problems take more than a lifetime to solve.
Others may prove unsolvable or impossible ,or plainly just wrong,after
years of trying.
Saying it didn't work (or couldn't be understood)in the sixties,and
applying that argument to the present day ,or even the future is
"in my view" unaccaptable.
How long did man dream of flying before it actually became reality?
2000 years ? 3000 ? 10,000 ?
Until just about 100 years ago it was thought impossible ,but now we have been
to the moon and back,and two man made objects are currently leaving the
solar system.
Many people will have tried and failed (or in this case tried and died) before
flight became a reality.
As for the "faster than the speed of light" bit, I just wonder if when a
single particle can be in more than one state,or at more than one
place at a given moment,does the speed of light even apply,or are are we still
abiding by the laws of relativity ,and the particle doesn't actually do
this ,but the timeframe in which this process happens is too small to measure
by the means we have at our disposal.We may at a later date be able
to measure this "at the same time" interval,therefore proving beyond all doubt that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light,and Einstien was right.

But we can't see (or travel) into the future to find out how our understanding
of the universe(es) pans out ,and have to live with the facts and theories available to us today,and then strive for better facts and theories to
fill in the holes.
Or we could be happy with our lot ,and sit back saying "It won't work !!
Einstien was right about absolutely everything,and we can stop looking
for any other explanations with immediate effect".

P.S Good luck with their Quantum Computer :)

john3760


____________

After reading "The emperor's new mind" by professor Roger Penrose of Oxford University I was encouraged to send him a draft of a paper titled "The coherent brain" I had written in 1980. He replied in a week's time saying it was "highly interesting" and advised me to read his next book "Shadows of the mind" which enlarged the subject of the brain as a macroscopic quantum system.
Tullio
____________

Not saying quantum computers wont work. Just trying to understand how and what the advantages are. I was disputing that the Brain is a quantum computer and those who in the past said that AI was modeling the brain functions. Drawing a parallel with current claims about the brain and computing technology. Am now saying only that the brain is not a quantum computer and that quantum computing is not what the brain does.

Of course the computer can be programmed to appear to act intelligent by retrieving stored knowledge. As to how far the computer can act like a human I prefer the original Turing test, and the limits move closer all the time. If quantum computing can supply more Megaflops and these can be cleverly utilized by programmers then who knows where the comparison will go.

I have devised a personal solution for the Turing test. Just ask him the same question ten times.If it replies the same way it is a computer. If it sends you to some faraway places after the third time it is a human.
Tullio
____________

hello team matey !

Again there was no suggestion of AI or anything else other than the fact you would
need a computer the size of the universe to accomplish the same computing power
that this new quantum computer could achieve .
The uses for this computational power are up to the user/ programmer to decide.
If they want to replicate the power/ structure, or thought processes of the human brain
(AI) then I'm sure the more computational power you have, the closer to your goal you
will be.
It may revolutionise artificial intelligence as we know ( or don't know) it.

I am personally not happy with the 300 atom design and I will be waiting for
the 680 or 690 to come out before I consider buying one ;)

john3760
____________

I could only read the abstract of the "Nature" article. It only says that atoms in a crystal can be made to act like magnetic dipoles by laser light.From this to a quantum computer there is a long way to go.
Tullio
____________