MIT Technology Review Articles

Here are a couple of articles about D-Wave in MIT Technology Review magazine this month.

The first is by Seth Lloyd, the second is by Scott Aaronson.

The reason that Scott’s is so much shorter is that he is busy trying to solve the four problems I presented when I last visited MIT and working on being a professional shut-in.

19 thoughts on “MIT Technology Review Articles

  1. i must give you credit for posting these articles
    “But the human capacity for self-deception being what it is, scientists train themselves to look for red flags–and D-Wave is pretty much a red-flag factory.”.

    you are a brave man or do you have a proof your holding back?.

  2. “Seth Lloyd … Center for Extreme Quantum Information Theory at MIT.”

    Is there a less-extreme center? Maybe even a lethargic one?

    You and Aaron probably get along smashingly at social events…

  3. Scott: “Let me be clear: I think that quantum computers are possible in principle, and that D-Wave’s approach might even get us there.”
    According to his blog is possible to made conclusion that Scott thinking, that only small quantum computer is possible.
    I think that even small (2 qubits) quantum computer is imposible.

  4. Those algorithms was working without entanglement (with pseudo-pure state and similar stuff), you should know it better than anybody.
    “(Entanglement is a quantum form of correlation between two or more qubits; all parties agree that it is a non-negotiable requirement for quantum computing.)”

  5. Debunker: So do you believe that entanglement in a QC is impossible? It seems so if you believe that a 2 qubit computer is an impossibility. Why do you believe so?

    Do you also think that modern QCrypt is actually garbage too, as they are not single photon transmissions? How do you think we got to our modern computers? The first SS computers were made w/ components that were fairly dodgy. That’s how stuff starts out, you do the best that you can, get something to work, then improve on it using what you learned from the last version.

    My $0.02 anyway.

  6. does it matter to end user if someone comes up with something that does the job faster and job’s that maybe cannot do done now. do u care if it’s a “true quantum computer” or if it’s just using some quantum effect. also with Moore’s law getting closer to it limits, don’t we something that’s a new way of computing. or at least different from the way we have been computing for the last 40 years.

  7. debunker: NMR aside, quantum computation has been demonstrated in a number of systems which do require entanglement. For ensemble systems, demonstrating that entanglement is a requirement can be hard, but for systems such as LOQC and ion traps this is a non-issue.

  8. “So do you believe that entanglement in a QC is impossible?”
    Entanglement is possible only in optical (photonics – not single photon) quantum computers, but since optical quantum computers working with bad precision (bad gates precision), such precision don’t enough to get speed-up for some quantum algorithm, becouse even for 2 qubit quantum algorithm need very much quantum gates…
    “It seems so if you believe that a 2 qubit computer is an impossibility. Why do you believe so?”
    Becouse of decoherence in NMR QC and becouse of bad precision in optical quantum computer.
    “Do you also think that modern QCrypt is actually garbage too, as they are not single photon transmissions?”
    Quantum cryptography is experimentaly proven and established and it’s working only with photons and don’t requiring entanglement (in some ‘versions’) and in those ‘versions’ in which entanglement is required for quantum cryptoghraphy, – there is only two photon entanglement and photons don’t must travel according to hard, difficult, long scheme, in such way, by loosing they precision, like in 2 qubits quantum computer.
    “How do you think we got to our modern computers?”
    Through transistor, which was made after about year or so experimental work.

    “does it matter to end user if someone comes up with something that does the job faster and job’s that maybe cannot do done now. do u care if it’s a “true quantum computer” or if it’s just using some quantum effect.”
    Without entanglement imposible any speed-up. If you can’t perform speed-up with 2 qubits quantum algorithm, which would be >90% of theoretical speedup, then your chance to construct practical interest fast quantum computer is 0 (don’t think that current quantum computer speedup match 90% with ideal speedup in theory:)p.
    “also with Moore’s law getting closer to it limits, don’t we something that’s a new way of computing. or at least different from the way we have been computing for the last 40 years.”
    When Moore’s law will completly over (and it would be within 10 years) you wouldn’t need to care to bay better processor or videocard in your live time.

    “debunker: NMR aside, quantum computation has been demonstrated in a number of systems which do require entanglement.”
    For any quantum computation entanglement is required, in fact NMR QC working without entanglement or it is very weak, what don’t make any sense.
    “For ensemble systems, demonstrating that entanglement is a requirement can be hard, but for systems such as LOQC and ion traps this is a non-issue.”
    Yes, to find entanglement in non-optical quantum computers is extremly hard work… Like I said, linear optic quantum computer don’t have enough precision to exhibit speedup in some quantum algorithm, so it’s result much more similar to classical computer than to quantum computer (more precisly speed-up result is classical (no speedup at all) and don’t matter that it working with entanglement…).

  9. When Moore’s law will completly over (and it would be within 10 years) you wouldn’t need to care to bay better processor or videocard in your live time.

    8 yrs or sooner by the time scales become so small that the quantum effect over takes the bulk, and people alway want better, faster and more.

  10. “all parties agree that it is a non-negotiable requirement for quantum computing”

    No way. For pure state quantum computing sure. But for mixed states, it is not known whether entanglement is necessary, and certainly not all parties agree.

  11. >When Moore’s law will completly over (and it would be within 10 years) >you wouldn’t need to care to bay better processor or videocard in your >live time.

    That being said, I hope that these new processors have better better spell checkers….

  12. All agree that quantum computing is a non-negotiable requirement for parties!

    Sigh, all my parties are full of nerds…
    😉

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s