On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 8:49:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:06 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> Thoughts: Is this Uranium compound radioactive do you think? As in >> hazardous? * >> > > It's radioactive but they use depleted Uranium so it's very small, > actually Uranium ore that you dig right out of the ground is more > radioactive than depleted Uranium because the ore contains U235 and far far > more radioactive Polonium and Radium. And besides you don't need much > Uranium, just a thin film. > > >> > *I believe there has been problems in getting these entanglements in >> QC to successfully attain actual operations. Does this sound right?* >> > > Yes, the big problem with Quantum Computers is keeping things entangled > and that's the advantage of encoding the quantum information topologically. > It's the difference between a pencil balanced on its tip and a knot, the > slightest tap will upset the pencil but you have to really work at it to > untie the knot, aka change its topological properties. > > *> How many successful operations per sec will QC need to do, before it >> dramatically achieves 'supremacy?'* >> > > It depends on how many cycles you need to use for error correction, > topological quantum computers don't need nearly as many. Quantum supremacy > just means finding something, anything, that a real Quantum Computer can do > better than any conventional computer. Even without topology I expect that > will be achieved in the next year, maybe two, it will probably just be a > proof onf concept and the algorithm will not do anything that is actually > useful but it would be a good start. > > *> What I am attempting to do to is ascertain impact on society, how much, >> and when? * >> > > Well for one thing it would kill Bitcoin and most forms of encryption that > we use today, but that's peanuts. I think the killer application would be > in physical simulation, even with today's best supercomputers you need to > make big approximations to simulate the simplest quantum interaction. But > we really won't know what we can do with a Quantum Computer until we have > one we can play around with, its like how we were with > conventional computers in the late 1940s > > John K Clark >
Right. One can write "amazing" quantum programs using *Qiskit *[ https://qiskit.org/ ] and run them in the simulator, but they will not be amazing until there is hardware to make them so. *Mathematical fictions can reach for the stars, but matter is a cruel mistress.* @philipthrift -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e438e32-65eb-4f78-aab5-e95870dad307%40googlegroups.com.
