> Curious, for a part of my discussions with GPT-4 involve the relationship between anyons and a lattice form of supersymmetry. Nonabelions can then act as a sort of supersymmetric protection of quantum states.
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 5:14 PM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:> Curious, for a part of my discussions with GPT-4 involve the relationship between anyons and a lattice form of supersymmetry. Nonabelions can then act as a sort of supersymmetric protection of quantum states.If this can be made practical then this new development will be a very big deal, in fact about as big a deal as deals get. And as far as I can tell there are no scientific roadblocks, just engineering difficulties. They're virtual 2D Nonabelions not real ones but as far as making a topological quantum computer is concerned that distinction is not very important.John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolisnaa
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 8:12 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It won't be a big deal because, so far, quantum computers have only a very small domain where they are superior. And even if they were a million times faster across the board, it's not clear how that would change things? What practical problems are there that would go from usoluble to soluble by computers being a million times faster?
Any calculation involving quantum mechanics could be done billions or trillions of times faster on a quantum computer. It's easy to calculate the light spectrum of hydrogen, the simplest element, but doing the same thing for helium the second simplest , requires months of calculations on the largest supercomputer on earth, and the sun will turn into a red giant before such a computer could calculate the spectrum of one of the heavier elements. And trying to figure out what spectrum molecules will produce is even more difficult.
And suppose you have an old-fashioned telephone book for Manhattan that has 1 million entries in it and you had a telephone number but no name to go with it. If you use a classical algorithm to find the name that matches that number it would take you on average 500 thousand steps before you found the match, but if you used Grover's quantum algorithm then it would only take you the square root of a million steps, just one thousand steps not 500 thousand. And when quantum computers become available for hackers to play with I have no doubt they will find many more useful algorithms.
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
w3x
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NH7waAH1wYes-j3pkT7WNkBUkXBBENCDea5sebH1ERw%40mail.gmail.com.
>>ME: Any calculation involving quantum mechanics could be done billions or trillions of times faster on a quantum computer. It's easy to calculate the light spectrum of hydrogen, the simplest element, but doing the same thing for helium the second simplest , requires months of calculations on the largest supercomputer on earth, and the sun will turn into a red giant before such a computer could calculate the spectrum of one of the heavier elements. And trying to figure out what spectrum molecules will produce is even more difficult.
> Yes, some things are faster to measure than to calculate. And I note that recently a classical algorithm was found for folding of proteins (which was formerly touted as THE application for quantum computation):