Is Quantum computers a meme?

Like other anons said, current ones can only get tiny theoretical gains over normal computers in certain very specific and hard to even verify use cases, probably involving random statistical shit, by leveraging some clever algorithms.

A real quantum computer would absolutely change the world and wouldn't be a meme at all.
In a real quantum computer you could do things like make 256-qubits simultaneously be in all possible combinations of 256-bits. E.g. all possible 256-bit encryption keys all at once, and pass them through a series of filters that will effortlessly present the key which decodes messages into english.
Doesn't matter what encryption you use or how long the keys are, it would be childs play to crack anything with a quantum computer.

so buttcoin is fucked?

Quantum computers don't exist. Quantum is a buzzword. Einstein is jewish physics a complete lie. Look into Nikola Tesla's work, gravity is just an electrical effect.

Attached: 32.jpg (728x410, 15K)

Einstein hated quantum physics

buttcoin has been fucked since 2008, retards just haven't figured it out yet.

No, the idea Is they solve non-polynomial problems with polynomial complexity aka orders of magnitude faster.
Imagine, knapsack problem, travelling salesman, all more or less as fast as multiplying matrices.

No. Just no. There is no "quantum" anything, this isn't poorly understood near magic effects of some mythical theoretical particle. This is simply electrons being so small they can move through any material at the path of least resistance, because nothing can exert 100% perfect electrical control over them. It is current leakage. It is nothing but current leakage. It is current leakage in short channel devices, and it happens at literally every feature size, it is not exclusive to small FinFET devices like upcoming 5nm EUV FinFETs. Even planar devices have extremely high degrees of leakage through their channels, directly under the gates, electrons still leak out. Yet despite this the transistors still function.

Quantum tunneling is a meme regurgitated by people who know nothing about the field of FETs.

ummm sweetie that's not what it means

Einstein disagreed with the decision to quantize physics. I.e. talking about things being particles rather than just waves peaks, but he did not "hate" quantum mechanics. That doesn't even make sense.

einstein (and a lot of other pysicists of the time) disagreed with most of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum shit
eg: spooky action at a distance; playing dice; quantization; &c, even if they couldnt argue with the math

Companies that own them definitely have reason to, but it isn't a viable option for general consumers, and probably won't replace traditional processors entirely.

He disagreed with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
"God does not play dice."

What you're referring to is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. It is the prominent interpretation of QM taught in undergrad because it is the easiest to interpret measurements. However, it allows for disturbing discontinuities in systrm behavior so more Physicists these days are leaning towards the many universe interpretation of QM.

In reality none of it matters when discussing the behavior of phenomena we currently measure and analyze. This is the sole reason that people don't just agree on an interpretation. It's has no effect that we can measure. Physicists don't just heavily disagree on something that could be proven.

t. An actual Physics PhD student at the leading University in Quantum Computers.

He disagreed with Schroedingers formalisms of how QM worked, but not that it did work. You're confusing an interpretation and the physics of the system. I agree that we shouldn't just be 'shut up and calculate people', but that works because QM works. This is why Quantum Computers work and will do mind blowing things in the future.

Einstein published a paper airing some legitimate grievances with the copenhagen interpretation but at the time the cult of personality around bohr was too strong so people just dismissed it out of hand without considering his arguments
specifically he pointed out that entangled particles led to "spooky action at a distance", and proved that quantum physics either violated locality or was incomplete
the copenhagen gang at the time basically had the view of "lmao quantum physics isnt even real its just a way of interpreting math so we'll ignore all these concerns"

later on shit like quantum information theory would be developed based on the same shit Einstein had been concerned about

Quantum mechanics now is the equivalent of heliocentrism at its peak. The models work and are mathematically sound. The problem is its incomplete. the perspective is all wrong. Eventually we'll make a break through that will turn everything on its head again and pieces will fall into place. Newtonian physics and quantum physics wont appear to be so separated.

Currently yes, the result error ratio is still too high for practical use. Cool tech though.

That is what I was saying.
This is me.
There's a major difference between not agreeing with QM and not agreeing with what its interpretation is.

>this is how normalfags actually think quantum computers work

>Quantum tunneling is a meme
oh boy

Traditional Copenhagen interpretation is straight up incompatible with a unified model of physics because it claims macro-sized classical objects are wholly separate from the quantum and cannot be explained or modeled quantum physics.

Modern stuff that also calls itself Copenhagen usually doesn't have this particular retarded problem, but doing away with that causes more issues. If you accept that large objects such as e.g. measuring devices are governed by quantum physics, you can't define the "observation" that collapses the wave function as being the interaction between quantum and classical objects (since those classical objects are actually quantum too), so you'll need some other coherent definition for observation.

This person has it. You cannot just pretend that the observer shouldn't be entangled with the system.

Oh no, green text. I know when I've been defeated

You don't know what normalfag means. Please don't abuse it.

That's not how quantum computing works. You won't "instantly" crack 256 bit encryption with 256 qubits in any (super)position. Qubits are always in a state of probability between 0 or 1, not all states at the same time. You measure these probability states and compare them with an expected output. The advantage is that you can perform multiple quantum algorithms at the same time on these same Qubits in parallel to perform your comparison.

The process of (re)measuring these quantum states is what essentially quantum computing is. Which is certainly not instantaneous neither with 100% accuracy.

Wrong. It is not between 0 and 1 it is a superposition of 0 and 1. That's TOTALLY different.

Just look up spin states. If you have 2 particles that are each in superposition of spin up and down and you put them together then the total possible outcomes when you measure them are (down down), (down up), (up down), and (up up).
Just as 2 qubits together comprise a single system that is in super position of all states 00, 01, 10, and 11.

You posted some completely bs explanation you made up because you remembered reading something about quantum computers and encryption but didn't understand it

Or in layman terms, you set your Qubit in a state between 0 and 1 and use their superposition to measure an outcome on both their partial 0 and 1 states, using specific quantum logic algorithms. Compare it with an expected outcome.

You perform the same algorithm 1000 times to be certain that the output is correct (as the quantum state tends to fluctuate during measurement).

Post-quantum encryption schemes already exist, we will be fine.

I totally believe you dude. You win.

quantum actually means magic
when we have quantum computers they will work just like magic wands and do whatever you want them to, like conjuring unicorns or guessing passwords instantly

...

You're correct in regards to measuring multiple qubits at the same time in a single quantum system. However the complexity of a quantum algorithm increses with each additional qubit you add to it. So 256 Qubits is incredibly complex (and will take a lot of computing logic).

I think what you're describing are the kind of tricks used in these "fake" quantum computers.
I think they put a qubit in a real superposition of 0 and 1, but they can't take full advantage of it yet. So the best we can currently do is measure it many many (the result is always 0 or 1 though, it's not between) times and average the outcomes to simulate a value "between" 0 and 1, and then they use some other special algorithms to take advantage of it.

But a real fully fledged theoretical quantum computer (which we do NOT have today), however, would be able to fully take advantage of the fact that its bits are literally both 0 and 1 at the same time to basically solve any brute force problem nearly instantly.

Correct.

Well not instantly, but within acceptable time, days/hours for encryption, more simple problems would be (semi)-instantly.

But as states, research is already actively creating quantum encryption schemes.

We'll see. It's a race now.

So with a 1 qbit quantum computer you can guess 2 passwords at once and all it takes is doing it 1000 times over.

....or you could just do 2 runs on a normal computer.

Quantum computers only become interesting when they have at least 20 qbits or so.
Until then you can just use parallel computers: your own graphic card can probably do more than 1000 parallel computations - same as 10 qbits.