Why is AMD not trying to compete in the future of computers with quantum processors...

>There is no "quantum" anything
???
Are you denying the last 70 years of physics?

>This is simply electrons being so small they can move through any material at the path of least resistance
No?

>Muh quantum magic
>But it only works if you believe in it, if you look at it the magic stops
>Literally have faith

Attached: 1564312348243.png (644x500, 66K)

This gonna be good.

How do you explain the double slit experiment?

yes yes and 5g gives people cancer.

You can do the double slit experiment with water.
You'll get the same results, which means it acts like a wave. It doesn't mean my glass of water has magical quantum properties, does it?

Do you know what quantum mechanics is?
It is neither magic nor based on faith, but the best description of the universe at small scales.

Quantum computers aren't magic, you can even simulate them at a normal computer. A quantum algorithm is basically just a unitary matrix.

>It is neither magic nor based on faith
Oh yeah?
Explain how something can be at 2 places (or even more) at the same time while not duplicating itself.

You missed the fundamental point of the experiment, which is that light does NOT necessarily behave like a wave.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

>Explain how something can be at 2 places (or even more) at the same time while not duplicating itself.
That is unrelated to quantum mechanics, nowhere in it is is necessary for a particle to be at two places at once, what the fuck are you on about?

Stop reading popsci articles. Pick up a real book, then ask real questions.

Explain how the boson emitted from the big bang can emit a detectable particle every instant at a low energy, when small particles excite large ones in order to interact with each other, and very small groups of particles aren’t able to coordinate how they interact with each other in large groups.

>quantum superposition doesn't exist
Nice cope

Try asking a research physicist specializing in that area of physics that question?
What the fuck are you on about, of course everything that has to do with the big bang is highly speculative, but that is entirely unrelated to QM.

Super position isn't "one particle at two places" stop reading pop-sci and pick up a book.

People, start with something simple. Just ask him why doesn't an electron fall to the nucleus and why its orbits are discrete.

I wouldn't even want to know what his answer is.
But apparently this is your brain on pop-sci.

>state of the particle literally defined by a wave function
>not at several places at once

There is no particle. The wave function of a photon or atom *is* the photon or atom.

why would you even want to use quantum processor for?

The wave function gives the PROBABILITY.

If I have two cups and put in one of them at random a coin, is the coin in two places because the mathematical description says it has a 50% probability to be in one cup and a 50% probability to be in the other?
No, that's retarded, you again missed the fundamental point.

It seems retarded until the particle actually starts behaving like it's in two places at once.

>Tangle lake
>Intel got entangled in their Lake CPUs because of some quantum distaster
This explains a lot.

What are you on about?
Where did you get this from? It has nothing to do with what is taught ANYWHERE.

Double slit experiment with single electron gun.

You conveniently forgot superposition.
If my q-bit can be 0 and 1 then my cup can have and not have the coin at the same time

Breaking cryptographic codes, but that is basically it.
Dumber number theorists might be interested too.

>If my q-bit can be 0 and 1
It can't.
It has a probability to be 1 and a probability to be 0.

The cup analogy is ACTUALLY what is going on.

>advertising pseudoscience as fact
Intel is the biggest fucking troll ever.

Hidden variables theory, throughly debunked.

It is the probability that we'll measure the particle to be in a certain state. The strange thing is that, if you don't measure, then the particle doesn't seem to be in any of the states in particular
That's literally what makes quantum computers fundamentally different. You apply a bunch of operations without ever measuring the result, and then measure at the end. Do this a bunch of times and you have your most likely answer to the problem

That wasn't an answer to my question.

QM is well validated.
Quantum computing is mostly useless right now though.

You ignoring an answer doesn't make it not an answer.

No? What are you on about?
This has nothing to do with anything.
Hidden variables are neither confirmed or denied by this, it is a basic description.

Explain that to the pop-sci tard.

Your missunderstanding of science isn't an argument either.
Nothing you say has anything to do with what is taught anywhere, neither the claims you make not your conclusions.

>No? What are you on about?
About your post. Your cup analogy is a kind of hidden variable theory.

What is the hidden variable?

You were literally given all the info to figure it out. Yet you keep spewing it's not taught anywhere.

Okay, what is the accurate description of particles on small scales if it isn't QM?
Any links?

A coin being in a cup before the measurement happened.

>Okay, what is the accurate description of particles
It's QM. Every single example you made is how a particle would behave in CLASSICAL mechanics. Verifiably wrong.

>Every single example you made is how a particle would behave in CLASSICAL mechanics.
Uhm, in classical mechanics particles don't behave probabilistically...

>It's QM.
Why do you disagree with the double slit experiment then?

>Verifiably wrong
Just like QM when you do the double-slit experiment with a detector for each slit.
Magic stops, no explanation to this day besides "it works if you don't look at it"

Explain how a single electron creates an interference pattern unless you measure it.
QM literally explains why it happens.

Answer

>QM literally explains why it happens
QM raves on about quantum properties, QM doesn't tell you why it loses all the magic quantum properties when you put a detector

On a 'bullshit that's never going to happen' scale of 1-10 with 5 being Fusion and 10 being FTL useful quantum computing is a solid 8.

>error free

clearly you don't understand quantum computing

>Explain how a single electron creates an interference pattern unless you measure it.
I assume that is explained by QM and due to electrons being able to both behave as a particle and a wave? Which is the usual interpretation of the double slit experiment?

>QM doesn't tell you why it loses all the magic quantum properties when you put a detector
Source?

>FTL
Not even quantum scammers believe in this despite being experts in pseudo-science

>useful quantum computing
It's gonna influence cryptography and probably number theory in the next decades.

Maybe we won't see quantum coprocessors on consumer hardware, but I don't doubt useful cloud-based services powered by quantum computers. They can be quite useful for dealing with some np-hard problems

You could already use IBM's quantum computer in the cloud for years now if you have millions or belong to one of the schools with research access.

DWAVE also introduced something recently I believe. Google has the most powerful known quantum computer but theirs is likely never going to be public.

>Maybe we won't see quantum coprocessors on consumer hardware
We won't. Unless you know of a practical solution to cool a chip to near the absolute zero without using liquid helium and a mini power plant to power the damn thing and without the entire contraption being the size of your fridge

You take every possible path an electron could take(even the one where an electron flies in a circle through the second slit and back to the first slit), calculate the interference pattern. Interference happens when waves interfere with each other. And yet, even when you fire an electron one by one you still see the interference pattern, exactly like was predicted by QM. When an electron is measured at the slit the interference pattern disappears. The nature of this is still debated, yet the predictions hold true every time. Also there's the whole renormalization thing.

They said the same about mainframe computers that took up the size of building floors. 60+ years ago

youtu.be/wUwZZaI5u0c

Relevant jewtube video. This whole channel is great, and the hostess is a qt too. A real shame it ended

DWAVE is the meme of the quantum computing world with their quantum annealing bullshit. That's how they can claim to have 2048 q-bits in their machine

Mainframes didn't lose their computing properties because the temperature of the chip rose by 1 Kelvin

There's a research on qubits based on majorana fermions that could be realized with topological insulators and work at room temperature. Everything about quantum computing is still work in progress, especially the element base.

Yeah and in 50 years everything will be entirely different. Research will have shown ways previously thought impossible. I've heard your shitty story before, you lose in the end.

The same Intel that can't into 10nm and is shipping years old stuff as new and cutting edge? Giant Corp with huge cash reserves actually having a plan? The fact that amd is now competitive or better with less people and market cap. This company will lead us into the future? K

We're you alive for Athlon? Probably not. AMD being good again isn't going to be forever.

>Intel
>Second
Take a look to FGPA

Give them some credit, their new xeon platinum is a brave attempt at bringing nuclear fusion to the people.

>the laws of thermodynamics will have changed in 50 years

Attached: 1564302403797.png (734x506, 259K)

Quantum computing does not take the place of traditional computing, period. Quantum computing is useful for solving problems that can reduce computational time by aliasing multiple solutions into a wavefunction, thereby decreasing computational complexity, this is possible for certain classes of problems known as BQP problems. That does not diminish its importance - Shor's algorithm, solving Pell's Equation in near polynomial time (both having important consequences on cryptography), and computing fermionic physical chemistry systems is very important. The user will never be able to justify installing massive cryogenic cooling and using only half of your qubits since the other half needs to be used for error correction.

Quantum computing has NOTHING to do with quantum tunneling, a very real but completely different effect. Quantum theory is NECESSARY to explain band structure and have semiconductors operate in the first place.

Quantum computing takes directional spin states Lx/Ly/Lz and transforms the state of one or more qubits containing these states by rotating and projecting its state on the Bloch Sphere. Quantum Gates are NOT implemented in the same way transistors are as qubit media, i.e. spinlocked quantum dots, Josephson Junctions, etc, need to be transformed in nontrivial ways. Regardless of implementation, they aren't even built remotely the same, using X, Z, Hadamard and CNOT rather than CMOS AND/OR/NOT. Hadamard, being a key factor in operational difference by decohering a coherent qubit state into a superposition both states.

>Quantum computing does not take the place of traditional computing, period.
Then what is this thread even about?
It belongs on /sci/

You're right, this isn't a technology board. It's a consumerism board for x86_64 advertising.

Jow Forums is typically not full of people who do work, but spend endless hours bickering and ricing and online shopping.

In 20 years we'll be shitposting about the best custom loop for our quantum rigs.

IBM is way ahead of everyone

Are you sure? Google is the one in all the headlines. They even teamed up with NASA to test it against super computers.

Google is always on headlines. They're the ones that are always on people's minds. It's easy to get your name out there when you're Google because no one bothers asking anyone else.

>When the smartphone boom came, sure Nokia followed in its 1st world markets

Straying from the topic now, but... Nokia was not following shit. NOKIA WAS THE LEADER.

By Q4 2010, their smartphone market share was bigger than Apple and Samsung put together, and it was growing faster than either. Maybe you've missed it because North America was the only market where Nokia couldn't make a dent, but they ruled pretty much every other market.

Then what happened? Their new CEO, Stephen Elop, was actually a Microsoft trojan. So this son of a bitch released the infamous "burning platform" report. It was a load of bullshit, painting their cash cow Symbian as outdated junk and its successor MeeGo as hopeless also-ran vaporware. This way, he could force a move to Windows Phone.

Of course, this demented stunt backfired spectacularly. Carriers lost a fortune, as they suddenly had tons of instantly obsoleted devices, and nothing that people actually wanted to buy. App developers also suffered, because there was no upgrade path from anything to WP. And Nokia's super-loyal customer base, who enjoyed using Symbian and were hyped for MeeGo, were also furious. So all of them jumped ship -- perhaps the biggest, quickest market share collapse in the history of capitalism. And that's why Android's market share skyrocketed after 2011.

>communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/02/the-nokia-ceo-burning-platform-memo-at-engagdget-doesnt-ring-true-to-my-ears.html
>communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/the-final-reckoning-of-burning-platforms-memo-damaged-nokia-by-wiping-out-13b-in-revenues-and-destro.html
>communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/01/continuing-nokia-disaster-in-just-one-picture-today-picture-6-revenues-what-ceo-is-allowed-to-volunt.html
>communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/01/nokia-final-q4-smartphones-as-expected-66m-total-means-market-share-now-3-from-29-exactly-2-years-ag.html

Attached: Nokia.jpg (1600x1131, 55K)

>fingols are still seething on being btfo
You had it coming, Nokia had no specific brand of smartphone like galaxy or iphone to compete with at the time, even if you had make it to the market it was only a matter of time it getting enveloped by other Chinese manufacturers
>Symbian
Are you fucking kidding? That platform was already well dead just like palm os and blackberry were
I know how you feel but you're not the only company that went bankrupt after all

Quantum computing is a fucking tech buzzword bingo meme. This thread shouldn't even exist, and OP should commit seppuku for the dishonor he has brought to us all.

Nokia's AppStore sucked. Even though Symbian and MeeGo had better performance on lower spec phones, their hardware wasn't even on par with Apple (back then there were objectively NO PHONES with specs as good as iPhones).
Their UI looked atrocious and no one ever bothered downloading apps for it.
Yes, I'd admit Elop didn't help at all. But the writing was on the wall for a long time.
pic related, this piece of shit was trying to compete against the fucking iPhone 4 lmao

Attached: Nokia_N8_(front_view).jpg (1209x2267, 701K)

>top selling system
>actually pulling ahead
>dead

Sure, it was kind of outdated. But people were waiting for MeeGo, not goddamn Windows Phone. In fact they managed to launch one device with MeeGo BEFORE one with Windows, and reviewers loved it. Proof that the move was completely unnecessary.

youtube.com/watch?v=2O5PEpA9_kY

Attached: nokia_n9.jpg (1600x1600, 156K)

Sure, it was the best seller right before android and ios became a thing, and since then it was all downhill
It wasn't google's fault your ecosystem sucked

>right before android and ios became a thing
The iPhone came out in 2007. The HTC Dream came out in 2008. Symbian was still the leader and INCREASING market share in 2010. It was good enough. Shit, it only had to last one more year, and then we'd finally get the N9 with MeeGo.

Attached: new elop strategy.jpg (930x603, 76K)

Remember when intel pulled from the mobile market of smartphones because they assumed they would be a fad?

To be fair they probably would have been stomped into the ground. x86 chips simply can't be used for mobile.

I have one of their intel phones, it wasn't that bad they were just late to the game and didn't launch till andriod 5.0, by that time most apps weren't optimized properly

>being this desperately delusional
Ayo hol' up, whatever that proposed shit was going to be, android was going nowhere since it's backed by google
If you had really wanted to have a leg up on the competition you should've tried harder, but you didn't and people just found android more attractive, at least you tried.
But the fact is Nokia was incapable of managing such platform even if it had a chance, it was soon to be faded like blackberry and other irrelevant os.

Btw that graph doesn't show how unpopular nokia was in Asia and NA
Even if it wasn't android the share would have gone for iphone, not symbian and its cousin.

Jesus delusional posts like these are the reason why AMD niggers deserve to be bullied mercilessly no matter how good their hardware actually is.

IBM is the most Pajeet of all tech companies

>that graph doesn't show how unpopular nokia was in Asia

Let me tell you why that's bullshit.

>NOKIA CHINA SMARTPHONE SALES
>2010 . . . . . 23.0 million units . . . 67% market share . . . Symbian

>China was committed to Symbian and MeeGo. Symbian and Ovi were China's bestselling app store. MeeGo's bestselling market was China (N9). Windows didn't support Chinese language and characters when the change was announced. Chinese carriers felt betrayed by broken promises from Nokia, MeeGo was supposed to be the major platform for China Mobile. In 2010 Nokia was the top ranked smartphone brand of China with very strong loyalty. This is how you die. You go against the wishes of your channel and betray your promises to them. This is exactly why Lumia will never succeed because Microsoft is synonymous with broken promises.

>This was not because of bad phones or a bad OS or production problems or pricing or marketing. This was a corporate suicide arranged by a deranged CEO, the worst CEO in history of any industry.

communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2015/02/microsoft-fires-another-9000-ex-nokia-employees-now-in-china.html

>relatively error free
You have no idea what you're talking about