What Makes Quantum Computers Hard to Explain?
Quantum computers, you probably heard, and magical machines that will cure cancer and climate change by trying all the answers in different similar places. For 15 years, onwards my blog and everywhere else, I disdain this graphic vision, trying to explain what I see as clever but very bizarre. I do this as a social worker and almost my ethical role as an electrical researcher. Unfortunately, the project sounds like Sisyphean: The complexity of the complex computer scandal has increased over the years, as corporations and governments have sold billions, and technology is expanding into 50-qubit-capable devices that (at some point) can provide the world’s largest computers. the running of their money. And as is true with professional money, learning in machines and other modern fields, money has been coming.
In the moments of reflection, however, I feel it. The fact is that even if you eliminate all stimuli and greed, the amount of computing can be difficult to explain in a concise and honest way without mathematics. As quantum computer scientist Richard Feynman once said about the electronic computer work that won him the Nobel Prize, if it were possible to describe it in a few words, it would not be worth the Nobel Prize.
Not what stopped people from trying. Ever since Peter Shor realized in 1994 that more and more computers could break the many security measures that are taking place on the internet, the thrill of technology is driven by more than just curiosity. In fact, what is happening in the field is often described as business or technical and not as scientific.
This would be great if a business or professional journalist could honestly tell readers, “Look, there are all these deep things, but all you need to understand is an important point: Astronomers are about to develop high-speed digital computers. ”
The problem is that most computers can’t change anything.
Of course, one day he can deal with a few problems a few minutes (we think) can take longer than the years in heaven on old computers. But there are many other important problems that many experts think the proliferation of computers is only modestly, if at all possible. Also, when Google and others recently stated that they had managed to get things done faster, this was the only one, the same (which I has helped grow). More and more computers that are older and more reliable than older computers using software such as cryptographic coding and chemistry simulations are still a long way off.
But how can a computer switch be more efficient in some cases? What do we know? And what more could a “big computer” and a reliable “translation” mean in this regard? To answer these questions we need to go into more detail.
Let’s start with quantum machines. (How deep can it be?) The idea of arrogance is difficult to interpret in everyday speech. Therefore, it is not surprising that many authors choose a simple solution: They say that stress means “all at once,” so that a large amount of matter, or qubit, is just a few that can be “all 0 and 1 at a time,” whereas an old piece can be one or the other .He goes on to say that most computers manage their speed using qubit to test all possible methods for add-on – that is, instantly, or parallel.
This is what I thought was the most important flaw in the popular computer, which brings the rest. From here it’s just a temporary cry for most computers to deal with speed and so on the problem of traffickers by trying all possible answers at once – which almost all experts believe they cannot.
The thing is, in order for a computer to be useful, you sometimes have to look at it and read the results. But if you look for the same answers, most mechanical answers will probably just be read and read at random. And if that’s what you want, you could choose for yourself.