Quantum computing is like QAnon?

58 views
Skip to first unread message

Philip Thrift

unread,
Jul 6, 2020, 6:19:47 AM7/6/20
to Everything List
Maybe she's right.


Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
One of today's most celebrated big achievements in quantum computing is factoring 15 into primes. Take it from me when I say no nation on this planet is doing strategic planning on quantum computers.
Quote Tweet:

     Travis View @travis_view
     Parents: Don't leave your children unattended in public places.
     You never know when a QAnon follower is going to sneak up
     and proselytize the good word of Q at them.

@philipthrift

John Clark

unread,
Jul 6, 2020, 7:46:16 AM7/6/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:19 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh

 > Take it from me when I say no nation on this planet is doing strategic planning on quantum computers.
 

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jul 6, 2020, 8:41:11 AM7/6/20
to Everything List
This may be the case. Quantum computing is interesting, and with the IBM QE I wrote a couple of simple codes to prepare entangled states and to flip them in a Hadamard gate. The QE runs at 50 qubits, which is a narrow path so to speak. It is also an ungainly thing that sits in a cryro-tank. Maybe diamond with nitrogen atoms at specific locations will lead to practical q-computers. The big issue needed to be cracked is quantum error correction, where progress on this in time may lead to more practical quantum computers or processors that might in the future enter into computers. It is possible in a few decades that quantum computers might begin to appear all around us. It will probably take a fair amount of time.

Sabine's assessment of quantum metrology over quantum computing is probably correct in the next decade or two.

LC 

John Clark

unread,
Jul 6, 2020, 3:11:54 PM7/6/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 8:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The big issue needed to be cracked is quantum error correction,

If non-abelian anyons exist then you could make a topological quantum computer which would need a lot less quantum error correction, and according to a very recent article such quasiparticles almost certainly do exist.

Direct observation of anyonic braiding statistics at the ν=1/3 fractional quantum Hall state 

John K Clark

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jul 6, 2020, 5:20:06 PM7/6/20
to Everything List
Yes, the Lie group can serve as a quantum error correction code. In fact this is a basis of Conway and Sloane book, where E8 is a Golay error correction coder.

LC 

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 6:44:55 AM7/7/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I agree. The work of Kitaev and Friedmann have convinced me that quantum computer will exist, like the theorem of Shannon has shown that telecommunication is possible. Now, the tasks which remain are quite difficult, and I have no idea if this will take some decades, a century or a millenium.  If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, I will be impressed…, but I have few doubt that in some future, quantum computing will work, probably for the military before the general public. China seems to have already build telephone nets which seems to be quantum secured, although it is hard to verify. Quantum Cryptographic applications will precede computations per se.

I am not at ease with what the human will do with such a technology, but that’s another matter.

Bruno







LC 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a9e390b-a33c-4cbd-b9ac-fa87fa4874b4o%40googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 6:59:54 AM7/7/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 > If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, I will be impressed

Back in 2017 the number 291,311 was factored by a quantum computer:

The experimental factorization of 291311

John K Clark

Philip Thrift

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 7:56:33 AM7/7/20
to Everything List

Dr. B may still be right though.

30 years from now quantum computers (as promoted in 2020) will still have no impact on practical computing applications. Maybe in cryptography, or maybe not.

Though quantum aspects in materials science could turn out to be useful, so its impact on computing will be of a peripheral nature (in sensors, etc.).

@philipthrift

John Clark

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 8:09:56 AM7/7/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 7:56 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 30 years from now quantum computers (as promoted in 2020) will still have no impact on practical computing applications.

Did you use a quantum computer to obtain that forecast or just conventional computing? Is your methodology more reliable than weather forecasting? 

> Though quantum aspects in materials science could turn out to be useful, so its impact on computing will be of a peripheral nature (in sensors, etc.).

Sounds to me like you're whistling past the graveyard...don't worry... nothing to upset the social order here.

John K Clark

Brent Meeker

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 2:06:01 PM7/7/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.

Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jul 7, 2020, 4:29:33 PM7/7/20
to Everything List
On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Jul 2020, at 14:41, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 6:46:16 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:19 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh

 > Take it from me when I say no nation on this planet is doing strategic planning on quantum computers.
 


John K Clark

This may be the case. Quantum computing is interesting, and with the IBM QE I wrote a couple of simple codes to prepare entangled states and to flip them in a Hadamard gate. The QE runs at 50 qubits, which is a narrow path so to speak. It is also an ungainly thing that sits in a cryro-tank. Maybe diamond with nitrogen atoms at specific locations will lead to practical q-computers. The big issue needed to be cracked is quantum error correction, where progress on this in time may lead to more practical quantum computers or processors that might in the future enter into computers. It is possible in a few decades that quantum computers might begin to appear all around us. It will probably take a fair amount of time.

Sabine's assessment of quantum metrology over quantum computing is probably correct in the next decade or two.

I agree. The work of Kitaev and Friedmann have convinced me that quantum computer will exist, like the theorem of Shannon has shown that telecommunication is possible. Now, the tasks which remain are quite difficult, and I have no idea if this will take some decades, a century or a millenium.  If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, I will be impressed…, but I have few doubt that in some future, quantum computing will work, probably for the military before the general public. China seems to have already build telephone nets which seems to be quantum secured, although it is hard to verify. Quantum Cryptographic applications will precede computations per se.

I am not at ease with what the human will do with such a technology, but that’s another matter.

Bruno



Kitaev pioneered nonabelian anyons. The horizon of a black hole has two spatial dimensions, which means all QFTs on the stretched horizon are anyonic. This means all QFTs holographically projected into the spacetime bulk have the same fundamental data. This comports with Wigner's small group theory, where fundamental physics is with small groups and symmetries. Large groups emerge from degeneracy splitting or as broken symmetry versions of large groups.

Quantum computing can solve a set of problem not contained in the set P for standard computing. These are bounded quantum polynomial sets of algorithms. It was hoped that quantum computers could solve NP problems in P space/time, but the need for a classical key transmission demolishes this. They are faster in principle and may run faster based on physical differences instead of mathematical ones. The Shor algorithm does illustrate an in-principle almost instantaneous speed for factorization. If we could do quantum computing we could do even better. The near horizon condition of a black hole hole is an anti-de Sitter spacetime, and a standard computer connected to such will have a time-looping or closed timelike curve system where by it can refine a quantum computation. 

A quantum computer works by constructive and destructive interference. This means a quantum computing output is really a sort of Fourier transformation. The need for a classical key destroys the NP = P possibility with q-computering. However, if we could couple this to a closed timelike curved processor, the constructive and destructive interference would occur in a sense out of time. It is a bit like the old cheat of inventing a time machine based on a set of theories and specs, building the machine and sending those plans back in time to yourself. 

Of course we do not have a black hole to do this, but we might get the next best thing, a quark-gluon plasma. The IR Feynman diagrams of quarks and gluons in this are divergent in number, and it is in principle possible I think to emulate a holographic setting. Using a quark-gluon plasma as a computing system is obviously not easy as plucking one out of the LHC ALICE detector to actually compute with would be a hard trick.

LC

 





LC 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Jul 8, 2020, 7:13:30 AM7/8/20
to Everything List
In bioengineering:


In recent months, software engineers in my lab have been getting ready, retooling our protein-design software to run on quantum processors. Instead of going on random walks, we hope to zero in on new strings of amino acids that fold up into new proteins with bespoke properties.

There are two separate things:
(A) waiting for quantum computers to run modeling programs on (simulation)
(B) using the inherent quantum mechanics of biomolecules to make new biological things
      (synthetic biology, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13232-z etc.)

It seem likely (A) is pretty hopeless. (Conventional supercomputers will have to do.)

@philipthrift

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jul 9, 2020, 6:49:03 AM7/9/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
This is impressive and quite interesting, but it is not shor algorithm (the closer to Deutsch goal to use quantum computing as an argument for the many-worlds/histories understanding of QM.

I am not sure that adiabatic computation is “real” quantum computation. I have the same problem with quantum annealing, or with the RMN type of computations, which involves the use of wave, but in a way which might be emulated with classical wave.

Bruno





John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jul 9, 2020, 6:59:04 AM7/9/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 7 Jul 2020, at 20:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.


That is how Feynman discovered quantum computation, in a more informal way than Deutsch quantum universal Turing machine. 

You thought? What did change your mind? Quantum simulation will be the main application of quantum computations for the millennia to come … once we get genuine big frame quantum computer.

I agree with Clark that topological quantum computation is the most long term promising path, but to squeeze an electron and braid its plane moves requires immense apparatus/magnet. The first genuine quantum computing machine might be very huge. That will not easily been miniaturised. But then IBM was using giant trucks to transport for its first 5Mb hard drive in 1955, and I expect huge progress in condoned matter physics, and some serendipitous discovery along the way…

Bruno



Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jul 9, 2020, 7:14:43 AM7/9/20
to Everything List
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 5:59:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 7 Jul 2020, at 20:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.


That is how Feynman discovered quantum computation, in a more informal way than Deutsch quantum universal Turing machine. 

You thought? What did change your mind? Quantum simulation will be the main application of quantum computations for the millennia to come … once we get genuine big frame quantum computer.

I agree with Clark that topological quantum computation is the most long term promising path, but to squeeze an electron and braid its plane moves requires immense apparatus/magnet. The first genuine quantum computing machine might be very huge. That will not easily been miniaturised. But then IBM was using giant trucks to transport for its first 5Mb hard drive in 1955, and I expect huge progress in condoned matter physics, and some serendipitous discovery along the way…

Bruno


Graphene reduces the dimension of QM to 2-space plus time. In effect it is two dimension if the wavelength of quantum states is longer than any atomic thickness to the sheets. 

LC
 



Brent

On 7/7/2020 4:56 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Dr. B may still be right though.

30 years from now quantum computers (as promoted in 2020) will still have no impact on practical computing applications. Maybe in cryptography, or maybe not.

Though quantum aspects in materials science could turn out to be useful, so its impact on computing will be of a peripheral nature (in sensors, etc.).

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 > If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, I will be impressed

Back in 2017 the number 291,311 was factored by a quantum computer:


John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
Jul 9, 2020, 7:19:55 AM7/9/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:49 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> I am not sure that adiabatic computation is “real” quantum computation. I have the same problem with quantum annealing, 

That is a valid point. I'm not sure it's real quantum computing either, but whatever it is it's doing some interesting stuff.

 John K Clark


Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jul 9, 2020, 2:06:19 PM7/9/20
to Everything List
Quantum annealing is a quantum form of neural net. The Lagrangian form used in neural networks is quantized. The minimal configuration a neural network enters into as the "solution" is simply the attractor point or set for a quantum system. This is not quite the same as quantum computing with quantum bits. This is also in some ways sem-classical.

LC

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jul 10, 2020, 8:11:39 AM7/10/20
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 9 Jul 2020, at 13:14, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 5:59:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 7 Jul 2020, at 20:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.


That is how Feynman discovered quantum computation, in a more informal way than Deutsch quantum universal Turing machine. 

You thought? What did change your mind? Quantum simulation will be the main application of quantum computations for the millennia to come … once we get genuine big frame quantum computer.

I agree with Clark that topological quantum computation is the most long term promising path, but to squeeze an electron and braid its plane moves requires immense apparatus/magnet. The first genuine quantum computing machine might be very huge. That will not easily been miniaturised. But then IBM was using giant trucks to transport for its first 5Mb hard drive in 1955, and I expect huge progress in condoned matter physics, and some serendipitous discovery along the way…

Bruno


Graphene reduces the dimension of QM to 2-space plus time. In effect it is two dimension if the wavelength of quantum states is longer than any atomic thickness to the sheets. 

Interesting. I can conceive this makes sense, but I am not sure this indicates that we could use Graphene for quantum topological computation. I am not sure you could consider the electron of a layer of graphene to be “squeezed” in 2D, at least in a manner so that you can build a braid and get a topological qubit. (I guess that you are not implying that in graphene the electron themselves are confined in a 2D space?).

Bruno



LC
 



Brent

On 7/7/2020 4:56 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Dr. B may still be right though.

30 years from now quantum computers (as promoted in 2020) will still have no impact on practical computing applications. Maybe in cryptography, or maybe not.

Though quantum aspects in materials science could turn out to be useful, so its impact on computing will be of a peripheral nature (in sensors, etc.).

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 > If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, I will be impressed

Back in 2017 the number 291,311 was factored by a quantum computer:


John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d32cfba8-347d-0cb6-df80-21c85d1edb49%40verizon.net.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b998dc41-de35-4c23-b27a-6ca614986f22o%40googlegroups.com.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jul 10, 2020, 8:43:29 AM7/10/20
to Everything List
On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 7:11:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 9 Jul 2020, at 13:14, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 5:59:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 7 Jul 2020, at 20:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.


That is how Feynman discovered quantum computation, in a more informal way than Deutsch quantum universal Turing machine. 

You thought? What did change your mind? Quantum simulation will be the main application of quantum computations for the millennia to come … once we get genuine big frame quantum computer.

I agree with Clark that topological quantum computation is the most long term promising path, but to squeeze an electron and braid its plane moves requires immense apparatus/magnet. The first genuine quantum computing machine might be very huge. That will not easily been miniaturised. But then IBM was using giant trucks to transport for its first 5Mb hard drive in 1955, and I expect huge progress in condoned matter physics, and some serendipitous discovery along the way…

Bruno


Graphene reduces the dimension of QM to 2-space plus time. In effect it is two dimension if the wavelength of quantum states is longer than any atomic thickness to the sheets. 

Interesting. I can conceive this makes sense, but I am not sure this indicates that we could use Graphene for quantum topological computation. I am not sure you could consider the electron of a layer of graphene to be “squeezed” in 2D, at least in a manner so that you can build a braid and get a topological qubit. (I guess that you are not implying that in graphene the electron themselves are confined in a 2D space?).

Bruno



If there are no eigenstates in the direction perpendicular to the graphene sheet, then from a quantum mechanical perspective that dimension does not exist. QM is a bit strange that way, but what counts are not continuum ideas of space, but rather whether there are eigenstates that have observables corresponding to a particular direction.

LC
 

LC
 



Brent

On 7/7/2020 4:56 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Dr. B may still be right though.

30 years from now quantum computers (as promoted in 2020) will still have no impact on practical computing applications. Maybe in cryptography, or maybe not.

Though quantum aspects in materials science could turn out to be useful, so its impact on computing will be of a peripheral nature (in sensors, etc.).

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 > If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, I will be impressed

Back in 2017 the number 291,311 was factored by a quantum computer:


John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d32cfba8-347d-0cb6-df80-21c85d1edb49%40verizon.net.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Jason Resch

unread,
Jul 10, 2020, 11:35:59 AM7/10/20
to Everything List
Brent,

I think that's the main utility. Perfect simulations of atomic interactions will enable the virtual testing and design of nanomachines.

Once we have nanomachines then we have star-trek-style replicators (molecular assemblers).

Jason

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages