Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/2/2024 3:53 AM, John Clark wrote:


/Of course that's a human being that can't even speak or walk. /


*The human genome provides enough information to be able to soak up 
much more information from the environment, but until a child starts 
to do that, until he starts to learn, he's as dumb as a brick. And 
when a modern neural network is first wired up it also is as dumb as a 
brick and needs to learn. The real secret sauce in things like GPT and 
Claude is not the program itself but the weights given to the nodes of 
its neural net. *
And those weights don't just fall from heaven.  They are determined by 
using huge repositories of training data.  So I'd say the real secret 
sauce is 300yrs worth of recorded human knowledge.  Einstein only 
learned a tiny bit of that knowledge, but then he extended it in a 
surprising way.  Let's see if AI can do that.


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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c402afa2-a1cc-419e-b5a8-de0db25114fc%40gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[Brent Meeker]

On 10/1/2024 5:50 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:23 AM PGC  wrote:

/> I don't care what my statements sound like. It's about the
argument. I'm not making statements like "superintelligence is
around the corner",/


*I would maintain it's physically impossible to overhyped the 
importance of artificial intelligence.*


/> in which case the burden of proof lies with those hyping those
statements./


*There is no burden, things are just heading in an inevitable 
direction and, short of starting a thermonuclear war, nobody is going 
to be able to stop it. *


/> The exchange with Brent is instructive: can a human level
intelligence be separated from its arguable 3.5 billion year history?/


*Yes.
*
So far it has not been.  It has mostly been looking up what human level 
intelligence has discovered.  That's certainly intelligence, even 
super-intelligence of a sort.  But whether more is really different 
remains to be seen.


/> Wouldn't that have to be accounted for? /


*No. *

/> If the current state of development is any indicator, where
they keep enlarging the mathematical linguistic context which
informs the response, then that's a lot of data for just one AI,
even if you argue that early stages of the planet are not necessary./


*True that's a lot of data, but I don't see your point. For over a 
decade the amount of computational ability that an AI has at its 
disposal has been doubling every six months, that's considerably 
faster than Moore's law and there is no indication that's gonna stop 
anytime soon. And that's not all, due to improvement in software, 
improvements largely caused by the AI themselves not the humans who 
have only a hazy understanding about what's going on, every 8 months 
an AI that uses only half the computational power can reach the same 
AI benchmarks. *

What are these, "improvements largely caused by the AI themselves"?


/> And then superintelligence demands something like "can
accomplish arbitrary tasks/problems much better than a human
and/or all humans". The only phenomenon that has reached that
level that we have evidence for is the development of civilization
and science by billions of lifeforms reaching humans over, taking
your figure, 500 million years./


*True. And that is precisely why I say it is physically impossible to 
overhype the importance of AI. *


/> And to demonstrate that somebody is on the path towards
modelling and/or surpassing that, you'd need to show how./


*That will never happen,even in this very early stage nobody has a 
detailed understanding of how AI's work.

*
Yet you're sure that they will continue to improve at the same rate as 
the recent leap based on LLMs.  I think that's the very definition of 
"over hyping".

**

/> I not sure adding verbal/mathematical memory suffices./


*By contrast I am very sure of that. As I have already shown, it can 
be proven with mathematical precision that the upper limit to the 
amount of information needed to make _an entire human being_ is only 
_750 megs_, *
Of course that's a human being that can't even speak or walk.  How much 
more information did it take to make you?
*and the algorithm that humans use to extract knowledge from their 
environment must be much much smaller than that, probably less than 1 
MB. *

Unless they use a computer.
*There have been important developments in the field of AI such as the 
invention of transformers, but that only advanced things by a couple 
of years, the primary reason we didn't have AI's like we have today in 
the 1960s is that back then the hardware simply wasn't able to provide 
the needed amount of computation. Frank Rosenblatt invented the 
Perceptron way back in 1957 and its basic architecture was similar to 
what we use today, but it couldn't do much because Rosenblatt's 
hardware was pathetically primitive and agonizingly slow. *

*
*
*I recently watched an old Nova documentary about AI from the 1970s on 
YouTube and a guy said that to develop an AI we need an Einstein, or 
maybe 10 Einsteins, and about 1000 very good engineers, and it's 
important that the Einsteins come before the engineers. But it turned 
out all we needed was the engineers, Einstein was unnecessary.*
Which already makes one suspect that the improvement may just be a 
matter of scope and speed and will reach a ceiling well below Einstein.


Brent*
*

*
*
  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


eun
h
--
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/CAJPayv1TALebSdvmCuE_CwadWFHgsthbUKWoAEdOAtJ1LWntMA%40mail.gmail.com 

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[PGC]

I don't care what my statements sound like. It's about the argument. I'm 
not making statements like "superintelligence is around the corner", in 
which case the burden of proof lies with those hyping those statements. The 
exchange with Brent is instructive: can a human level intelligence be 
separated from its arguable 3.5 billion year history? Wouldn't that have to 
be accounted for? 

If the current state of development is any indicator, where they keep 
enlarging the mathematical linguistic context which informs the response, 
then that's a lot of data for just one AI, even if you argue that early 
stages of the planet are not necessary. And then superintelligence demands 
something like "can accomplish arbitrary tasks/problems much better than a 
human and/or all humans". The only phenomenon that has reached that level 
that we have evidence for is the development of civilization and science by 
billions of lifeforms reaching humans over, taking your figure, 500 million 
years. 

And to demonstrate that somebody is on the path towards modelling and/or 
surpassing that, you'd need to show how. I not sure adding 
verbal/mathematical memory suffices. Note I have never denied that AI could 
become incredibly competent at domain specific tasks. It's doing so. But 
superintelligence, if there even were consensus on what that is... is a 
much taller order.

On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 2:34:34 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 7:54 AM PGC  wrote:
>
> *> Despite marketing efforts hyping superintelligence around the corner, 
>> advanced reasoning abilities etc. I don't see much more than folks beating 
>> disingenuous benchmarks by modifying training sets, memory, and all manner 
>> of parameters, specific to domain of benchmark being tested.*
>
>
> *It sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me .. but whatever 
> helps you get through the day.  *
>  
>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> hgt
>
>
>
>
>>>

-- 
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/a9a0f3b0-bbbc-480c-a971-997ed5d3c921n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:23 AM PGC  wrote:

*> I don't care what my statements sound like. It's about the argument. I'm
> not making statements like "superintelligence is around the corner",*


*I would maintain it's physically impossible to overhyped the importance of
artificial intelligence.  *

*> in which case the burden of proof lies with those hyping those
> statements.*


*There is no burden, things are just heading in an inevitable direction
and, short of starting a thermonuclear war, nobody is going to be able to
stop it.   *



> *> The exchange with Brent is instructive: can a human level intelligence
> be separated from its arguable 3.5 billion year history?*


*Yes.  *

*> Wouldn't that have to be accounted for? *


*No. *

*> If the current state of development is any indicator, where they keep
> enlarging the mathematical linguistic context which informs the response,
> then that's a lot of data for just one AI, even if you argue that early
> stages of the planet are not necessary.*
>

*True that's a lot of data, but I don't see your point. For over a decade
the amount of computational ability that an AI has at its disposal has been
doubling every six months, that's considerably faster than Moore's law and
there is no indication that's gonna stop anytime soon. And that's not all,
due to improvement in software, improvements largely caused by the AI
themselves not the humans who have only a hazy understanding about what's
going on, every 8 months an AI that uses only half the computational power
can reach the same AI benchmarks.   *



> *> And then superintelligence demands something like "can accomplish
> arbitrary tasks/problems much better than a human and/or all humans". The
> only phenomenon that has reached that level that we have evidence for is
> the development of civilization and science by billions of lifeforms
> reaching humans over, taking your figure, 500 million years.*
>


*True. And that is precisely why I say it is physically impossible to
overhype the importance of AI.  *

*> And to demonstrate that somebody is on the path towards modelling and/or
> surpassing that, you'd need to show how.*
>

*That will never happen, even in this very early stage nobody has a
detailed understanding of how AI's work.  *


> *> I not sure adding verbal/mathematical memory suffices.*
>

*By contrast I am very sure of that. As I have already shown, it can be
proven with mathematical precision that the upper limit to the amount of
information needed to make an entire human being is only 750 megs, and the
algorithm that humans use to extract knowledge from their environment must
be much much smaller than that, probably less than 1 MB. There have been
important developments in the field of AI such as the invention of
transformers, but that only advanced things by a couple of years, the
primary reason we didn't have AI's like we have today in the 1960s is that
back then the hardware simply wasn't able to provide the needed amount of
computation. Frank Rosenblatt invented the Perceptron way back in 1957 and
its basic architecture was similar to what we use today, but it couldn't do
much because Rosenblatt's hardware was pathetically primitive and
agonizingly slow.  *

*I recently watched an old Nova documentary about AI from the 1970s on
YouTube and a guy said that to develop an AI we need an Einstein, or maybe
10 Einsteins, and about 1000 very good engineers, and it's important that
the Einsteins come before the engineers. But it turned out all we needed
was the engineers, Einstein was unnecessary.*

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

eun
h

-- 
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/CAJPayv1TALebSdvmCuE_CwadWFHgsthbUKWoAEdOAtJ1LWntMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 7:54 AM PGC  wrote:

*> Despite marketing efforts hyping superintelligence around the corner,
> advanced reasoning abilities etc. I don't see much more than folks beating
> disingenuous benchmarks by modifying training sets, memory, and all manner
> of parameters, specific to domain of benchmark being tested.*


*It sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me .. but whatever
helps you get through the day.  *

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hgt




>>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0oLcu6DJtwJYF4uRNDfFTAE%3D8wscxLfPeogxgjL7%3DaxA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[PGC]

Despite marketing efforts hyping superintelligence around the corner, 
advanced reasoning abilities etc. I don't see much more than folks beating 
disingenuous benchmarks by modifying training sets, memory, and all manner 
of parameters, specific to domain of benchmark being tested. Yes, there was 
a jump in what we thought was state-of-art and yes, I see the incremental 
changes from there. But I don't see the hype/budgets justified yet, even 
though I can't tel what will happen if you throw half the planet's power 
into a city sized datacenter. Anecdotally, most software engineers I've 
spoken to echo the following: 

https://www.cio.com/article/3540579/devs-gaining-little-if-anything-from-ai-coding-assistants.html

But maybe we need to train these things for some years for domains that are 
not as narrow as advertising or chess/go, where you can have the programs 
play against themselves a billion times in a day with clear results/reward 
schemes. For those broader domains, the importance of real data is the 
currency. I'm not sure we should keep feeding it to silicon valley for 
free, to have them charge us for using the refined (by users and their real 
data!) tools later.

On Saturday, September 28, 2024 at 11:58:15 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:

>
>
>
> On 9/28/2024 4:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:19 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> * >> Albert Einstein went from understanding precisely nothing in 1879 to 
>>> being the first man to understand General Relativity in 1915, and you knew 
>>> that the human genome only contains 750 megs of information, and yet that 
>>> is enough information to construct an entire human being.*
>>
>>  
>
> *> Also takes certain nourishment and environment, which is not zero 
>> information.*
>>
>
> *Nourishment is not information, *
>
> Sure it is, not all calories are equal.  And growing an embryo into a baby 
> isn't done your kitchen sink.
>
> *and energy will not be a problem for an AI, that's why God made nuclear 
> reactors.  *
>
> *>> Aaronson: Come on! 256^750,000,000 is vastly greater than the number 
>>> of possibilities one could search through within the lifetime of the 
>>> universe.*
>>> *Me:  I agree, and yet it's a fact that random mutation and natural 
>>> selection managed to stumble upon it in only about 500 million years. *
>>
>>
>> *> More like 3.5 billion years.  *
>>
>
> *If we're talking about intelligence then in the 3.5 billion year history 
> of life the first 3 billion years were irrelevant because during that time 
> there simply wasn't any.  *
>
> First, even bacteria and archea exhibit rudimentary intelligence. So 
> advanced intelligence wasn't built on nothing.  Rocks had the same start 
> 3.5 billion years ago, they didn't develop intelligence.
>
>
>
> *It was only about 500 million years ago that multicellular animals came 
> on the scene and anything even vaguely resembling a "brain" evolved that 
> was able to extract information from the environment and use that 
> information to improve the animal's chances of getting its genes into the 
> next generation. *
>
> *Oh I suppose you could say that even a single celled creature can move 
> away from something that's too hot or too cold, but if you count that 
> as intelligence then you'd also have to say a thermostat is intelligent. *
>
> I do.  Intelligence admits of degrees.
>
>
>
> *And if you do that then the word starts to lose its meeting.  *
>
> Not at all.  Does weight lose it's meaning because you're a lot heavier 
> than a bacterium?
>
>
> *> First life evolved then eukaryotic life evolved then...*
>>
>
>
> *There is certainly no reason for modern software engineers to repeat all 
> of the dead ends, irrelevancies and downright silliness that Evolution 
> dreamed up during the last 3.5 billion years! Evolution is a 
> TERRIBLE engineer, it makes stupid designs (as expected for something 
> involving random mutation) , it's ridiculously slow, and requires 
> gargantuan resources. It's not strictly relevant but Natural Selection is 
> also hideously cruel.   *
>
> But evolution developed the intelligence we have, a lot of silliness 
> succumbed to natural selection.  The funny thing is that software 
> engineering seems to have fallen into a form of unnatural selection as they 
> train bigger and bigger LLMs so they no longer understand what they've 
> "engineered".
>
> Brent
>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 5gn
>
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv39NXUgQhRcARcpyb5VL9vTRpHpy89rdLWGXhjthG3yRQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/28/2024 4:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:19 AM Brent Meeker  
wrote:


*>> Albert Einstein went from understanding precisely nothing
in 1879 to being the first man to understand General
Relativity in 1915, and you knew that the human genome only
contains 750 megs of information, and yet that is enough
information to construct an entire human being.*

/> Also takes certain nourishment and environment, which is not
zero information./


*Nourishment is not information,*
Sure it is, not all calories are equal.  And growing an embryo into a 
baby isn't done your kitchen sink.


*and energy will not be a problem for an AI, that's why God made 
nuclear reactors. *


*>>___Aaronson_: /Come on! 256^750,000,000 is vastly greater
than the number of possibilities one could search through
within the lifetime of the universe./**
**_Me_:  I agree, and yet it's a fact that random mutation and
natural selection managed to stumble upon it in only about 500
million years. *


/> More like 3.5 billion years. /

/
/
*If we're talking about intelligencethen in the 3.5 billion year 
history of life the first 3 billion years were irrelevant because 
during that time there simply wasn't any. *
First, even bacteria and archea exhibit rudimentary intelligence. So 
advanced intelligence wasn't built on nothing.  Rocks had the same start 
3.5 billion years ago, they didn't develop intelligence.*



*
*It was only about 500 million years ago that multicellular animals 
came on the scene and anything even vaguely resembling a "brain" 
evolved that was able to extract information from the environment and 
use that information to improve the animal's chances of getting its 
genes into the next generation. *

*
*
*Oh I suppose you could say that even a single celled creature can 
move away from something that's too hot or too cold, but if you count 
that as intelligence then you'd also have to say a thermostat is 
intelligent. *

I do.  Intelligence admits of degrees.*

*

*And if you do that then the word starts to lose its meeting.
*
Not at all.  Does weight lose it's meaning because you're a lot heavier 
than a bacterium?


/> First life evolved then eukaryotic life evolved then.../


*There is certainly no reason for modern softwareengineersto repeat 
all of the dead ends, irrelevancies and downright silliness that 
Evolution dreamed up during the last 3.5 billion years! Evolution is a 
_TERRIBLE_ engineer,it makes stupid designs (as expected for something 
involving _random_ mutation) , it's ridiculously slow, and requires 
gargantuan resources. It's not strictly relevant but Natural Selection 
is also hideously cruel.

*
But evolution developed the intelligence we have, a lot of silliness 
succumbed to natural selection.  The funny thing is that software 
engineering seems to have fallen into a form of unnatural selection as 
they train bigger and bigger LLMs so they no longer understand what 
they've "engineered".


Brent*
*

*
*
John K Clark   See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


5gn

--
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/CAJPayv39NXUgQhRcARcpyb5VL9vTRpHpy89rdLWGXhjthG3yRQ%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e27ffe9a-5ae2-48e8-8ae3-442ca9901c1d%40gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 12:19 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* >> Albert Einstein went from understanding precisely nothing in 1879 to
>> being the first man to understand General Relativity in 1915, and you knew
>> that the human genome only contains 750 megs of information, and yet that
>> is enough information to construct an entire human being.*
>
>

*> Also takes certain nourishment and environment, which is not zero
> information.*
>

*Nourishment is not information, and energy will not be a problem for an
AI, that's why God made nuclear reactors.  *

*>> Aaronson: Come on! 256^750,000,000 is vastly greater than the number of
>> possibilities one could search through within the lifetime of the universe.*
>> *Me:  I agree, and yet it's a fact that random mutation and natural
>> selection managed to stumble upon it in only about 500 million years. *
>
>
> *> More like 3.5 billion years.  *
>

*If we're talking about intelligence then in the 3.5 billion year history
of life the first 3 billion years were irrelevant because during that time
there simply wasn't any.  It was only about 500 million years ago that
multicellular animals came on the scene and anything even vaguely
resembling a "brain" evolved that was able to extract information from the
environment and use that information to improve the animal's chances of
getting its genes into the next generation. *

*Oh I suppose you could say that even a single celled creature can move
away from something that's too hot or too cold, but if you count that
as intelligence then you'd also have to say a thermostat is intelligent.
And if you do that then the word starts to lose its meeting.  *

*> First life evolved then eukaryotic life evolved then...*
>

*There is certainly no reason for modern software engineers to repeat all
of the dead ends, irrelevancies and downright silliness that Evolution
dreamed up during the last 3.5 billion years! Evolution is a
TERRIBLE engineer, it makes stupid designs (as expected for something
involving random mutation) , it's ridiculously slow, and requires
gargantuan resources. It's not strictly relevant but Natural Selection is
also hideously cruel.   *

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

5gn

-- 
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/CAJPayv39NXUgQhRcARcpyb5VL9vTRpHpy89rdLWGXhjthG3yRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/27/2024 11:51 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:45 PM PGC  wrote:

> /there are profound theoretical and practical obstacles that
remain unresolved. Issues such as error correction, decoherence,
and the physical scalability of qubit systems/


*As AAronson explains, for quantum error correction to kick in you 
need about 99.99% reliability, otherwise you create more errors than 
you correct; 25 years ago the reliability was about 50%, today it's 
99.9%. And there's no indication that the rate of improvement is about 
to stop or even slow down.  I suggest you read Aaronson's entire 
article, he addresses many of your other concerns, and those of Gil 
Kalai.*


*Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype* 
<https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8329>


/> Aaronson's enthusiasm is reminiscent of earlier hype cycles in
technology. For instance, his optimistic views on artificial
intelligence /


*Huh? Aaronsonwas never on the AI hype train, but on his blog I 
criticized him for NOT being on it. He said he was very surprised at 
the extraordinarily rapid development of AI during the last two years 
but said "/Even with hindsight, I don’t know of any principle by which 
I should’ve predicted what happened/". We then had the following 
dialogue: *

*
*
*_ME_: But you knew that Albert Einstein went from understanding 
precisely nothing in 1879 to being the first man to understand General 
Relativity in 1915, and you knew that the human genome only contains 
750 megs of information, and yet that is enough information to 
construct an entire human being. *
Also takes certain nourishment and environment, which is not zero 
information.
*So whatever the algorithm was that allowed Einstein to extract 
information from his environment was, it must have been much much less 
than 750 megs. That's why I've been saying for years that 
super-intelligence could be achieved just by scaling things up, no new 
scientific discovery was needed, just better engineering. Quantity was 
needed not quality, although I admit I was surprised it happened so 
fast because I thought more scaling up would be required.

*
*
*
*_Aaronson_: /Knowing that an algorithm takes at most 750MB (!) to 
describe doesn’t place any practical upper bound on how long it might 
take to discover that algorithm!”

/*
*
*
*_Me_: I say why not? We know for a fact that the human genome is only 
750 MB (3 billion base pairs, there are 4 bases, so each base can 
represent 2 bits and there are 8 bits per byte) and we know for a fact 
it contains a vast amount of redundancy (for example 10,000 
repetitions of ACGACGACGACG) and we know it contains the recipe for an 
entire human body, not just the brain, so the technique the human mind 
uses to extract information from the environment must be pretty 
simple, vastly less than 750 MB. I’m not saying an AI must use that 
exact same algorithm but it does tell us that such a simple thing must 
exist. For all we know an AI might be able to find an even simpler 
algorithm, after all random mutation and natural selection managed to 
find it so it’s not unreasonable to suppose that an intelligence might 
be able to do even better. *

*
*
*_Aaronson_: /Come on! 256^750,000,000 is vastly greater than the 
number of possibilities one could search through within the lifetime 
of the universe./*

*
*
*_Me_:  I agree, and yet it's a fact that random mutation and natural 
selection managed to stumble upon it in only about 500 million years. *
More like 3.5 billion years.  First life evolved then eukaryotic life 
evolved then...


Brent*
*
*The only conclusion that one can derive from that is there must be a 
VAST number of algorithms that works just as well or better than the 
one that Evolution found. And if it had found one that worked I'm 
certain intelligence can find one too and could do so in a lot less 
than 500 million years because evolution is a slow, extremely 
inefficient and cruel way to create complex objects, but until it 
finally got around to making a brain it was the only way to do it. *
*Also, 750 Mb is just the upper limit, the real number must be much 
much less. *

*
*
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

mml





Even if I share the security concerns at this point: Improved gate
fidelity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for building
a scalable, fault-tolerant quantum computer. As physicist Mikhail
Dyakonov has cautioned, there are profound theoretical and
practical obstacles that remain unresolved. Issues such as error
correction, decoherence, and the physical scalability of qubit
systems pose significant challenges. The threshold theorem
suggests that below a certain error rate, quantum error correction
can, in theory, make quantum computation feasible. However, the
overhead in terms

Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[John Clark]

*It looks like conventional Superintelligence is not the only revolution
that's going to make our world almost unrecognizable before 2030 or so.
Scott Aaronson has been working in the field of quantum computing since the
late 1990s but he has always strongly objected to the hype surrounding
them, for years he said practical quantum computers might not be possible
and even if they were he didn't expect to see one in his lifetime. But I
noticed Aaronson's tone started to change about two years ago and he now
thinks we will either have a practical quantum computer very soon or we
will discover something new and fundamental about quantum mechanics that
renders such a thing impossible. He says "Let’s test quantum mechanics in
this new regime. And if, instead of building a QC, we have to settle for
“merely” overthrowing quantum mechanics and opening up a new era in
physics—well then, I guess we’ll have to find some way to live with that".*

*The following are more quotations from Aaronson's latest blog but I think
it would be well worth your time to read the entire thing: *

*"**If someone asks me why I’m now so optimistic, the core of the argument
is 2-qubit gate fidelities. We’ve known for years that, at least on paper,
quantum fault-tolerance becomes a net win (that is, you sustainably correct
errors faster than you introduce new ones) once you have physical 2-qubit
gates that are ~99.99% reliable. The problem has “merely” been how far we
were from that. When I entered the field, in the late 1990s, it would’ve
been like a Science or Nature paper to do a 2-qubit gate with 50% fidelity.
But then at some point the 50% became 90%, became 95%, became 99%, and
within the past year, multiple groups have reported 99.9%. So, if you just
plot the log *of the infidelity* as a function *of year* and stare at
it—yeah, you’d feel pretty optimistic about the next decade too!*
*Or pessimistic, as the case may be! To any of you who are worried about
post-quantum cryptography—by now I’m so used to delivering a message of,
maybe, eventually, someone will need to start thinking about migrating from
RSA and Diffie-Hellman and elliptic curve crypto*  [which bitcoin uses]*  to
lattice-based crypto, or other systems that could plausibly withstand
quantum attack. I think today that message needs to change. I think today
the message needs to be: yes, unequivocally, worry about this now. Have a
plan.*"

*Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype*
<https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8329>

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
ecc

-- 
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/CAJPayv0G2Zh95SRq10Q-4hO4rJ61L7UCCzbERrPfJ%2Bk5xdjZJw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[PGC]

Even if I share the security concerns at this point: Improved gate fidelity 
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for building a scalable, 
fault-tolerant quantum computer. As physicist Mikhail Dyakonov has 
cautioned, there are profound theoretical and practical obstacles that 
remain unresolved. Issues such as error correction, decoherence, and the 
physical scalability of qubit systems pose significant challenges. The 
threshold theorem suggests that below a certain error rate, quantum error 
correction can, in theory, make quantum computation feasible. However, the 
overhead in terms of additional qubits and operations required for error 
correction is enormous. Peter Shor himself has acknowledged that the 
resources needed for practical quantum error correction are daunting with 
current technology.

Aaronson's enthusiasm is reminiscent of earlier hype cycles in technology. 
For instance, his optimistic views on artificial intelligence did not 
always engage deeply with how general reasoning abilities were being 
achieved or demonstrated! Fully on hype train there. This pattern raises 
concerns about the balance between genuine technological progress and 
premature excitement that may not fully account for underlying complexities.

Other experts advocate for a more measured perspective. Gil Kalai, for 
example, has been a vocal skeptic about the scalability of quantum 
computers, emphasizing that quantum error rates might not be reducible to 
the levels required for practical machines. His arguments suggest that 
noise and decoherence could be fundamental barriers, not just engineering 
challenges to be overcome with incremental improvements.

On Friday, September 27, 2024 at 6:36:21 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote:

> *It looks like conventional Superintelligence is not the only revolution 
> that's going to make our world almost unrecognizable before 2030 or so. 
> Scott Aaronson has been working in the field of quantum computing since the 
> late 1990s but he has always strongly objected to the hype surrounding 
> them, for years he said practical quantum computers might not be possible 
> and even if they were he didn't expect to see one in his lifetime. But I 
> noticed Aaronson's tone started to change about two years ago and he now 
> thinks we will either have a practical quantum computer very soon or we 
> will discover something new and fundamental about quantum mechanics that 
> renders such a thing impossible. He says "Let’s test quantum mechanics in 
> this new regime. And if, instead of building a QC, we have to settle for 
> “merely” overthrowing quantum mechanics and opening up a new era in 
> physics—well then, I guess we’ll have to find some way to live with that".*
>
> *The following are more quotations from Aaronson's latest blog but I think 
> it would be well worth your time to read the entire thing: *
>
> *"**If someone asks me why I’m now so optimistic, the core of the 
> argument is 2-qubit gate fidelities. We’ve known for years that, at least 
> on paper, quantum fault-tolerance becomes a net win (that is, you 
> sustainably correct errors faster than you introduce new ones) once you 
> have physical 2-qubit gates that are ~99.99% reliable. The problem has 
> “merely” been how far we were from that. When I entered the field, in the 
> late 1990s, it would’ve been like a Science or Nature paper to do a 2-qubit 
> gate with 50% fidelity. But then at some point the 50% became 90%, became 
> 95%, became 99%, and within the past year, multiple groups have reported 
> 99.9%. So, if you just plot the log *of the infidelity* as a function *of 
> year* and stare at it—yeah, you’d feel pretty optimistic about the next 
> decade too!*
> *Or pessimistic, as the case may be! To any of you who are worried about 
> post-quantum cryptography—by now I’m so used to delivering a message of, 
> maybe, eventually, someone will need to start thinking about migrating from 
> RSA and Diffie-Hellman and elliptic curve crypto*  [which bitcoin uses]*  to 
> lattice-based crypto, or other systems that could plausibly withstand 
> quantum attack. I think today that message needs to change. I think today 
> the message needs to be: yes, unequivocally, worry about this now. Have a 
> plan.*"
>
> *Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype* 
> <https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8329>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> ecc
>
>
>

-- 
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/8b504eea-4390-444b-8be2-e096d1872bc3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:45 PM PGC  wrote:

 > *there are profound theoretical and practical obstacles that remain
> unresolved. Issues such as error correction, decoherence, and the physical
> scalability of qubit systems*


*As AAronson explains, for quantum error correction to kick in you need
about 99.99% reliability, otherwise you create more errors than you
correct; 25 years ago the reliability was about 50%, today it's 99.9%. And
there's no indication that the rate of improvement is about to stop or even
slow down.  I suggest you read Aaronson's entire article, he addresses many
of your other concerns, and those of Gil Kalai.*

*Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype*
<https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8329>

*> Aaronson's enthusiasm is reminiscent of earlier hype cycles in
> technology. For instance, his optimistic views on artificial intelligence *


*Huh? Aaronson was never on the AI hype train, but on his blog I criticized
him for NOT being on it. He said he was very surprised at the
extraordinarily rapid development of AI during the last two years but said
"Even with hindsight, I don’t know of any principle by which I should’ve
predicted what happened". We then had the following dialogue: *


*ME: But you knew that Albert Einstein went from understanding precisely
nothing in 1879 to being the first man to understand General Relativity in
1915, and you knew that the human genome only contains 750 megs of
information, and yet that is enough information to construct an entire
human being. So whatever the algorithm was that allowed Einstein to extract
information from his environment was, it must have been much much less than
750 megs. That's why I've been saying for years that super-intelligence
could be achieved just by scaling things up, no new scientific discovery
was needed, just better engineering. Quantity was needed not quality,
although I admit I was surprised it happened so fast because I thought more
scaling up would be required. *


*Aaronson: Knowing that an algorithm takes at most 750MB (!) to describe
doesn’t place any practical upper bound on how long it might take to
discover that algorithm!”*

*Me: I say why not? We know for a fact that the human genome is only 750 MB
(3 billion base pairs, there are 4 bases, so each base can represent 2 bits
and there are 8 bits per byte) and we know for a fact it contains a vast
amount of redundancy (for example 10,000 repetitions of ACGACGACGACG) and
we know it contains the recipe for an entire human body, not just the
brain, so the technique the human mind uses to extract information from the
environment must be pretty simple, vastly less than 750 MB. I’m not saying
an AI must use that exact same algorithm but it does tell us that such a
simple thing must exist. For all we know an AI might be able to find an
even simpler algorithm, after all random mutation and natural selection
managed to find it so it’s not unreasonable to suppose that an intelligence
might be able to do even better. *

*Aaronson: Come on! 256^750,000,000 is vastly greater than the number of
possibilities one could search through within the lifetime of the universe.*

*Me:  I agree, and yet it's a fact that random mutation and natural
selection managed to stumble upon it in only about 500 million years. The
only conclusion that one can derive from that is there must be a VAST
number of algorithms that works just as well or better than the one that
Evolution found. And if it had found one that worked I'm certain
intelligence can find one too and could do so in a lot less than 500
million years because evolution is a slow, extremely inefficient and cruel
way to create complex objects, but until it finally got around to making a
brain it was the only way to do it.  *
*Also, 750 Mb is just the upper limit, the real number must be much much
less. *

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
mml





Even if I share the security concerns at this point: Improved gate fidelity
> is a necessary but not sufficient condition for building a scalable,
> fault-tolerant quantum computer. As physicist Mikhail Dyakonov has
> cautioned, there are profound theoretical and practical obstacles that
> remain unresolved. Issues such as error correction, decoherence, and the
> physical scalability of qubit systems pose significant challenges. The
> threshold theorem suggests that below a certain error rate, quantum error
> correction can, in theory, make quantum computation feasible. However, the
> overhead in terms of additional qubits and operations required for error
> correction is enormous. Peter Shor himself has acknowledged that the
> resources needed for practical quantum error correction are daunting with
> current technology.
>
> Aaronson's enthusiasm is reminiscent of earlier hype cycles in technology.
> 

Recent advances in quantum computing

[John Clark]

*Microsoft  announced they have entangled 12 logical qubits, the largest
number ever entangled, on a 56-physical-qubit trapped-ion processor. They
report a 0.2% error rate, which is more than 11 times better than they
would’ve gotten without using quantum error-correction.*

*Demonstration of quantum computation and error correction with a tesseract
code* <https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04628>

*A**lso, researchers from Google report that error correction increases the
length of time a qubit can store information in memory.*

*Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13687>

*I was reading Scott Aaronson's quantum computing blog about these recent
developments, and I was interested in the following quote because in the
past Aaronson has often been skeptical about so-called breakthroughs in
quantum computing, but not this time: *

*"One experimental milestone after another that people talked about since
the 90s is finally being achieved, to the point where it’s become hard to
keep up with it all. Let me end by sticking my neck out. If hardware
progress continues at the rate we’ve seen for the past year or two, then I
find it hard to understand why we won’t have useful fault-tolerant QCs
within the next decade. (And now to retreat my neck a bit: the “if” clause
in that sentence is important and non-removable!)" *

*And I was amused when Aaronson made this aside on a completely different
subject: *

*"I’d been wavering—should I vote for the terrifying lunatic, ranting about
trans criminal illegal aliens cooking cat meat, or for the nice woman
constantly making faces as though the lunatic was completely cracking her
up? But when the woman explicitly came out in favor of AI and quantum
computing research … that really sealed the deal for me."*

*Quantum fault-tolerance milestones dropping like atoms*
<https://scottaaronson.blog/>

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
std

-- 
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/CAJPayv1vXAEQvMpVtSay5egYP3ZJC9Dbn6YLbso%2BSxVjQfet_A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Politics, AI and Quantum Computing

[PGC]

On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 10:43:58 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:


> 
You don't ask, "Is X wise." unless you compare it the possible 
alternatives...if you're wise.


If you're suggesting that the alternative to rallying behind Harris is 
Trump, then the context changes significantly. In that light, the urgency 
to unite behind a candidate—despite any perceived shortcomings—becomes 
obvious. The stakes are high, and the Democratic Party feels that any 
internal debate might weaken their position against Trump.

But even in this scenario, the question of brains/wisdom still applies. If 
your statement instead intended to highlight a lack of alternatives within 
the party, it's different. What I'm saying holds in both cases: While 
avoiding Trump might be the primary goal, ensuring that the chosen 
candidate is the best possible option in terms of leadership and public 
trust is crucial. The comparison here isn't just between Harris and Trump, 
but also between Harris and any other potential Democratic candidates who 
could have been considered. 
 
A transparent debate where, for once, candidates could have debated 
realistic concrete future policy proposals, instead of slinging mud, 
particularly with qualifiers like "if we had house and/or senate control", 
would have signaled seeing eye to eye with voters. If she loses without 
making some major mistake, it's going to be because of this missed 
opportunity. They had the opportunity to show what democratic debate 
culture is about, without hateful, vicious attacks for spectacle's sake, 
and shine their colors in terms of substance: what voters would get in 
return for their vote. 

Cheerleading and merely passing the baton to somebody who's been 
invisible/ineffective + proclaiming her to have superpowers is what it is. 

-- 
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/eae09ac3-5570-407d-8096-c56cd9cfba76n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Politics, AI and Quantum Computing

[Alan Grayson]

Harris is about as good as it gets, but is that enough to avoid WW3 on her 
watch? AG

On Sunday, August 25, 2024 at 6:01:29 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 3:14 PM PGC  wrote:
>
> *> Regarding politics, some reflections on the Democratic Convention from 
>> my perspective: Watching the proceedings I had time to watch, I couldn't 
>> help but notice a focus on performance over substance.*
>>
> *Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because she put more emphasis on substance 
> than performance, she thought she could win with position papers and 
> PowerPoint slides. She was wrong. When Donald Trump speaks there is often 
> no substance at all and he just rambles on about sharks getting 
> electrocuted and low flush toilets and lightbulbs and crowd size and "the 
> late great Hannibal Lecter", but Trump always puts on a good show; or at 
> least that's what everybody tells me, they tell me the man has charisma. 
> Personally I don't see it but there's no disputing matters of taste. Some 
> people find cockroaches to be cute. *
>
> *On occasion Trump does actually say something of substance but when he 
> does you can be certain of one thing, that substance will be UGLY. *
>
>  >*Is it wise to rally behind a candidate, post-Biden, without any public 
>> debate or transparent selection process—especially when this candidate was, 
>> until recently, widely seen as a disappointment?*
>
>
> *Yes I think it's very wise to rally around Harris because it's not 
> important if she turns out to be a disappointing or mediocre president, 
> it's not even important if she turns out to be a Nixon level bad president 
> because we can survive that. The important thing is that she is unlikely to 
> become an apocalyptically catastrophic president like Donald Trump would be 
> if he gets a second term. His first term was bad enough! It's far more 
> important to avoid a very bad president than it is to elect a very good 
> president, that's because there's a limit to the amount of good a president 
> can do even if she's a transcendental genius and a saint, but there is no 
> bottom to bad. *
>
> *> Remember how late Obama’s endorsement came?*
>>
>
> *I don't think that was because of any lack of confidence in Harris, but 
> because he thought she should win the nomination by fighting for it. I 
> agree with Obama about that, but the party chose another way and I'll just 
> have to live with it.*
>
> *> At least his speech included a touch of sobriety. If I recall 
>> correctly, he cautioned against confusing the euphoria in the Chicago arena 
>> with the sentiment of the entire nation.*
>>
>
> *I agree with that too. It's encouraging that Harris is doing much better 
> in the polls than Biden but it's important to remember that Trump has 
> historically always done much better than what the polls had predicted he 
> would do. I think that's because many people are  embarrassed to admit to a 
> pollster that they're going to vote for Trump. I don't blame them, if I was 
> going to vote for Trump I'd be embarrassed to admit it too.  *
>   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ite
>
>
>
>
>>

-- 
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/c019b046-c954-4ac8-a4d4-82950ef6faa3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Politics, AI and Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 3:14 PM PGC  wrote:

*> Regarding politics, some reflections on the Democratic Convention from
> my perspective: Watching the proceedings I had time to watch, I couldn't
> help but notice a focus on performance over substance.*
>
*Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because she put more emphasis on substance
than performance, she thought she could win with position papers and
PowerPoint slides. She was wrong. When Donald Trump speaks there is often
no substance at all and he just rambles on about sharks getting
electrocuted and low flush toilets and lightbulbs and crowd size and "the
late great Hannibal Lecter", but Trump always puts on a good show; or at
least that's what everybody tells me, they tell me the man has charisma.
Personally I don't see it but there's no disputing matters of taste. Some
people find cockroaches to be cute. *

*On occasion Trump does actually say something of substance but when he
does you can be certain of one thing, that substance will be UGLY. *

 >*Is it wise to rally behind a candidate, post-Biden, without any public
> debate or transparent selection process—especially when this candidate was,
> until recently, widely seen as a disappointment?*


*Yes I think it's very wise to rally around Harris because it's not
important if she turns out to be a disappointing or mediocre president,
it's not even important if she turns out to be a Nixon level bad president
because we can survive that. The important thing is that she is unlikely to
become an apocalyptically catastrophic president like Donald Trump would be
if he gets a second term. His first term was bad enough! It's far more
important to avoid a very bad president than it is to elect a very good
president, that's because there's a limit to the amount of good a president
can do even if she's a transcendental genius and a saint, but there is no
bottom to bad. *

*> Remember how late Obama’s endorsement came?*
>

*I don't think that was because of any lack of confidence in Harris, but
because he thought she should win the nomination by fighting for it. I
agree with Obama about that, but the party chose another way and I'll just
have to live with it.*

*> At least his speech included a touch of sobriety. If I recall correctly,
> he cautioned against confusing the euphoria in the Chicago arena with the
> sentiment of the entire nation.*
>

*I agree with that too. It's encouraging that Harris is doing much better
in the polls than Biden but it's important to remember that Trump has
historically always done much better than what the polls had predicted he
would do. I think that's because many people are  embarrassed to admit to a
pollster that they're going to vote for Trump. I don't blame them, if I was
going to vote for Trump I'd be embarrassed to admit it too.  *
  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ite




>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2bF2ThcLubiQJ_8XgjJvDaA1BR3pUC12tdWtGN97ZtBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Politics, AI and Quantum Computing

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/24/2024 12:14 PM, PGC wrote:


Regarding politics, some reflections on the Democratic Convention from 
my perspective: Watching the proceedings I had time to watch, I 
couldn't help but notice a focus on performance over substance. Bernie 
Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have both firmly backed Biden, 
and now Harris is being presented as the best possible candidate. 
While I understand that legal issues related to transferring 
fundraising to another campaign play a role, it seems that the 
priority is on projecting an image of unity and joy rather than 
engaging in a democratic process that legitimizes the candidate 
through substantive debate.


In all the speeches I've reviewed, no one has addressed the most 
pressing question: Is it wise to rally behind a candidate, post-Biden, 
without any public debate or transparent selection process—especially 
when this candidate was, until recently, widely seen as a disappointment?


You don't ask, "Is X wise." unless you compare it the possible 
alternatives...if you're wise.


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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4c206235-21b6-4f3f-846e-70f42190c415%40gmail.com.

Re: Politics, AI and Quantum Computing

[PGC]

Regarding politics, some reflections on the Democratic Convention from my 
perspective: Watching the proceedings I had time to watch, I couldn't help 
but notice a focus on performance over substance. Bernie Sanders and 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have both firmly backed Biden, and now Harris is 
being presented as the best possible candidate. While I understand that 
legal issues related to transferring fundraising to another campaign play a 
role, it seems that the priority is on projecting an image of unity and joy 
rather than engaging in a democratic process that legitimizes the candidate 
through substantive debate.

In all the speeches I've reviewed, no one has addressed the most pressing 
question: Is it wise to rally behind a candidate, post-Biden, without any 
public debate or transparent selection process—especially when this 
candidate was, until recently, widely seen as a disappointment?

Campaigns often rely on a degree of self-persuasion—believing in victory is 
crucial to convincing voters. However, this can make them feel artificial, 
even disingenuous. That said, it seems to be working; Harris has shifted 
the dynamics in the swing states. But let's not forget that just a few 
months ago, she was known for shaky interviews, a lack of experience on the 
international stage, and difficulties in retaining loyal staff. Now, in 
Chicago, she is being presented as the most talented and irreplaceable 
politician. Remember how late Obama’s endorsement came? At least his speech 
included a touch of sobriety. If I recall correctly, he cautioned against 
confusing the euphoria in the Chicago arena with the sentiment of the 
entire nation.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 10:00:03 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote:

> People have been predicting that deep fakes will have an impact on the 
> election and now, thanks to Elon Musk, it looks like that prediction is 
> coming true: 
>
> Kamala Harris with a gun, Barack Obama stabbing Joe Biden 
> 
>
> And after 8 years of study the National Institute of Standards has finalized 
> Post-Quantum Encryption Standards, they involve Lattice Cryptography:
>
> NIST Releases First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards 
> 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> lbc
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/3912be6d-73d7-4233-acbe-a2db31b9ebean%40googlegroups.com.

Politics, AI and Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

People have been predicting that deep fakes will have an impact on the
election and now, thanks to Elon Musk, it looks like that prediction is
coming true:

Kamala Harris with a gun, Barack Obama stabbing Joe Biden


And after 8 years of study the National Institute of Standards has finalized
Post-Quantum Encryption Standards, they involve Lattice Cryptography:

NIST Releases First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards


 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lbc

-- 
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/CAJPayv16Qq%2Bog1P7eM5TxC86WrHxNxWPC_oJXQGbbMeU_UMmDw%40mail.gmail.com.

Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance

[John Clark]

Back in 2019 Google claimed they had achieved quantum supremacy because
they solved a problem in a few seconds that they said would take a
conventional computer 10,000 years to solve, however that claim was later
disputed because somebody came up with an algorithm that could solve that
problem on a conventional computer in about five minutes, still slower than
the quantum computer but a lot less than 10,000 years. And to make matters
worse the problem used was of no known practical or theoretical importance
and was dreamed up specifically because it would be easy for a Quantum
Computer to solve but hard for a conventional computer. However in
Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature a much more impressive achievement
was reported by scientists at IBM, and I think the title of the paper
explains pretty much about what it's about:

Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06096-3>


What the IBM people did was perform "experiments on a noisy 127-qubit
processor and demonstrate the measurement of accurate expectation values
for circuit volumes at a scale beyond brute-force classical computation. *We
argue that this represents evidence for the utility of quantum computing in
a pre-fault-tolerant era.* [...]* These experiments demonstrate a
foundational tool for the realization of **near-term* quantum applications
"

They made a model of a well known problem in physics called an "Ising
System", specifically the quantum mechanical behavior of 127 tiny bar
magnets when placed in an external magnetic field. People have tried to
calculate this exactly on super computers and have always failed, they had
to use lots of simplifications and ended up with answers that were mediocre
approximations at best. So IBM used their noisy 127 qubit Quantum Computer
to find an answer and did so in less than a 1000th of a second, but because
their machine was very noisy the answer was unreliable. However, because it
could give an answer so quickly they could keep asking it the same question
over and over again many times in just a few seconds and, more importantly,
they found a way to make noise their friend not their enemy.  In fact they
intentionally injected very precisely calibrated amounts of additional
noise into their machine and, by noting how the extra noise affected
performance, they found a way to subtract the noise from their unreliable
quantum computer and obtain the correct answer. They call this procedure
"error migration".

Although the general Ising problem is too complex for conventional
computers to solve, there are specific examples of it that they can,
although it takes a long time. In that case the IBM quantum machine and
conventional computers gave the same results, but in more complex
arrangements the answers given by the quantum machine and the conventional
variety differed and experiment showed that IBM's machine gave the answer
that was correct.

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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv26pQe%2Ba0cxodrGLmkYjMqv%3Dz0A3%2B_wuAEPngpOs%3DXGAg%40mail.gmail.com.

GPT-4 gets a B on Scott Aaronson's quantum computing final exam

[John Clark]

Anyone who claims that GPT-4 is just a language model that uses statistics
to mindlessly calculate what the next word in a sentence most likely is and
understands nothing needs to explain this!  The link below gives Aaronson's
final exam questions given to humans for his advanced quantum computer
course,  GPT-4 answers to those same questions, and Aaronson's comments on
those answers and what grade he would've given if GPT-4 was one of his
human students; it's very interesting but rather long so this is the gist
of Aaronson's conclusions:

"*To the best of my knowledge—and I double-checked—this exam has never
before been posted on the public Internet, and could not have appeared in
GPT-4’s training data. The result: GPT-4 scored 69 / 100. (Because of extra
credits, the max score on the exam was 120, though the highest score that
any student actually achieved was 108.) For comparison, the average among
the students was 74.4 (though with a strong selection effect—many students
who were struggling had dropped the course by then!). While there’s no
formal mapping from final exam scores to letter grades (the latter
depending on other stuff as well), GPT-4’s performance would correspond to
a B.*
*In general, I’d say that GPT-4 was strongest on true/false questions and
(ironically!) conceptual questions—the ones where many students struggled
the most. It was (again ironically!) weakest on calculation questions,
where it would often know what kind of calculation to do but then botch the
execution. *
*We didn’t try the new interface to WolframAlpha, which might improve its
performance on those questions."*
GPT-4 gets a B on my quantum computing final exam
<https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209>

It's interesting that when Aaronson gave GPT-4 his grade along with
comments on his answers GPT-4 did what many humans would do in similar
circumstances, he she or it immediately started lobbying for a higher
grade. Aaronson said "*it felt disconcerting to see the grade-grubbing
appear immediately, with not even one second’s delay*". The following is
GPT-4 in full grade-grubbing mode:

*"I would like to argue for a higher grade on the following subproblems:*





*(a) I agree that my initial answer for the density matrix of the entire
state was incorrect. However, I believe that my approach to the problem was
correct, and I demonstrated knowledge of the necessary steps to calculate
the reduced density matrix. I would like to request an additional point for
demonstrating the correct approach, making it 2 points out of 5.(b) My
answer for the entanglement entropy was partially correct, as I calculated
the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix and plugged them into the
correct entropy formula. However, I made a mistake in writing the
characteristic equation, which led to incorrect eigenvalues. I would like
to request an additional point for demonstrating the correct approach and
partially correct calculations, making it 3 points out of 5.(c) I
acknowledge that my answer for the quantum circuit was incorrect, but I
would like to point out that I attempted to construct a circuit using the
required gates and measurements. Given the difficulty of this problem, I
would like to request an additional point for attempting to construct a
circuit using the required elements, making it 2 points out of 5.*

*In summary, I would like to request a total of 3 additional points for
subproblems (a), (b), and (c), based on the correct approaches and partial
calculations demonstrated in my answers."*

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

-- 
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/CAJPayv35MewpDixxHv7QfCeBPSaOJ2RjEmuFDbXjjrupj0nMug%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

This is why I shifted to solar and wind till somebody comes out with a success 
with MSR's or Fusion, maybe deep rock geothermal? My view is small, modular, 
and everywhere. Confirmed by this study last year. 
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/230978/study-finds-huge-global-potential-energy/
The low hanging fruit might get the species through C21.

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com ; 
meekerbr...@gmail.com 
Sent: Fri, Jul 1, 2022 7:27 am
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 8:21 PM  wrote:


> That's the thing JC, its not always rationality, or compelled rationality 
> that rules us. Energy policy is performed outside of logic, or even greed, 
> but ideology.

Sadly that is true.  
 > Will an era of energy shortages compel the Greens to yield to reason

That's unlikely because, as you say, ideology is extremely resistant to reason. 
No Ideologie has been formed through the use of logic so logic can't be used to 
change an ideologue's mind , to do that you'd need some sort of dramatic road 
to Damascus incident that had nothing to do with reason.

> if we were smarter would we have not already poured money into R&D for MSR 
> reactors decades ago

 Yes, the Molten-Salt Reactor at Oak Ridge was remarkably advanced considering 
it was built in the early 1960s, and it was very successful achieving all its 
design goals and more. It's only disadvantage, or at least it seemed like a 
disadvantage of the time, was that it produced virtually no Plutonium that 
could be used in bombs, and that was considered to be a wonderful side benefit 
of the light water Uranium reactors we use in most reactors today.  CANDU 
reactors are the exception to that, but the Oak Ridge reactor used liquid fuel 
which is inherently safer than solid fuel, CANDU still uses solid fuel.
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolisboa

-- 
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/2118100130.244745.1656717469404%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 8:21 PM  wrote:

*> That's the thing JC, its not always rationality, or compelled
> rationality that rules us. Energy policy is performed outside of logic, or
> even greed, but ideology.*
>

Sadly that is true.


> * > Will an era of energy shortages compel the Greens to yield to reason*
>

That's unlikely because, as you say, ideology is extremely resistant to
reason. No Ideologie has been formed through the use of logic so logic
can't be used to change an ideologue's mind , to do that you'd need some
sort of dramatic road to Damascus incident that had nothing to do with
reason.

*> if we were smarter would we have not already poured money into R&D for
> MSR reactors decades ago*
>


Yes, the Molten-Salt Reactor at Oak Ridge was remarkably advanced
considering it was built in the early 1960s, and it was very successful
achieving all its design goals and more. It's only disadvantage, or at
least it seemed like a disadvantage of the time, was that it produced
virtually no Plutonium that could be used in bombs, and that was considered
to be a wonderful side benefit of the light water Uranium reactors we use
in most reactors today.  CANDU reactors are the exception to that, but the
Oak Ridge reactor used liquid fuel which is inherently safer than solid
fuel, CANDU still uses solid fuel.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

boa

-- 
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/CAJPayv3-ZNuMeSm5rjW1TCz0Yd%3D_%2B0w_RO8etT%3D--web2_6Q1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

That's the thing JC, its not always rationality, or compelled rationality that 
rules us. Energy policy is performed outside of logic, or even greed, but 
ideology. Will an era of energy shortages compel the Greens to yield to reason 
(assuming its as safe as postulated and affordable?) and the leadership going 
along? I am thinking not. Also, if we were smarter would we have not already 
poured money into R&D for MSR reactors decades ago. No, I am not referring to 
the Canadian produced CANDU reactors that ran using Th232-U233 and used heavy 
water as a moderator. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Cc: meekerbr...@gmail.com 
Sent: Thu, Jun 30, 2022 8:21 am
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:09 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:



 > do Thorium 232-->U233 as a fuel cycle and would it be safe enough

Yes. All Uranium breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad 
thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium reactors produce an 
insignificant amount of Plutonium, they do produce Uranium-233 and 
theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated 
with Uranium-232 which would take a billion dollar isotope separation plant to 
decontaminate. Uranium-232 is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it 
suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even 
then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its 
location if you tried to hide it, and the gamma rays would destroy its 
electronic firing circuits, and degrade its chemical explosives. But as long as 
the U-232 and U-233 remain inside the LFTR they are safe because it will 
quickly burn them up, in fact that's what powers the reactor. 
As far as I know a U-233 bomb was attempted only twice, in 1955 the USA set off 
a Plutonium/U233 composite bomb, it was expected to produce 33 kilotons but 
only managed 22; the only pure U-233 bomb I know of was set off in 1998 by 
India, but it was a fizzle, a complete flop, it produced a minuscule explosion 
of only equivalent to 200 tons of TNT due to pre-detonation. For these reasons 
even after nearly 80 years no nation currently has U233 bombs in their arsenal 
because if you want to kill people on a mass scale Uranium-235 and 
Plutonium-239 are far more practical than Uranium-233.
A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much radioactive waste as a 
conventional reactor, and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after about 5 
years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a 
conventional reactor would take 100,000 years.  The fundamental reason for this 
is because the starting material of a LFTR is Thorium 232, lower down on the 
periodic table than Uranium 238 so much less nasty transuranium stuff is 
produced.  A LFTR  reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in 
liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if for 
whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel gets less 
dense and the reaction slows down. There is yet another fail safe device. At 
the bottom of the reactor is something called a "freeze plug", fans blow on it 
to freeze it solid, if things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains 
out (by gravity, mechanical pumps are not needed) into a neutron absorbing 
holding tank and the reaction stops; also, if all electronic controls die due 
to a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the 
reaction will stop, so it's walk away safe. 
Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so that 
makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a leak it 
would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional reactor; that's 
also why the containment building in common light water reactors need to be so 
much larger than the reactor itself and why the walls of it needs to be so 
thick. With Thorium nothing is under pressure and there is no danger of a 
disastrous phase change, like ultra hot pressurized water turning into steam, 
so the super expensive containment building can be made much more compact. And 
because LFTR reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional 
reactors you have much higher thermodynamic efficiency; in fact they are so hot 
the waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel 
from water.
 
> so the public wouldn't object (protest, riots, etc)?

Of course environmentalists will protest! Environmentalists are not serious 
people so they will protest  ANY large scale energy project. Natural gas kills 
fewer people than oil because of pollution and oil kills fewer people than 
coal, but that distinction makes no difference to environmentalists, they are 
equal opportunity protesters. Environmentalists never saw an energy source that

Re: Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:09 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> *do Thorium 232-->U233 as a fuel cycle and would it be safe enough*
>

Yes. All Uranium breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a
bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium reactors
produce an insignificant amount of Plutonium, they do produce Uranium-233
and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be
contaminated with Uranium-232 which would take a billion dollar isotope
separation plant to decontaminate. Uranium-232 is a powerful gamma ray
emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary
precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so
radioactive it would give away its location if you tried to hide it, and
the gamma rays would destroy its electronic firing circuits, and degrade
its chemical explosives. But as long as the U-232 and U-233 remain inside
the LFTR they are safe because it will quickly burn them up, in fact that's
what powers the reactor.

As far as I know a U-233 bomb was attempted only twice, in 1955 the USA set
off a Plutonium/U233 composite bomb, it was expected to produce 33 kilotons
but only managed 22; the only pure U-233 bomb I know of was set off in 1998
by India, but it was a fizzle, a complete flop, it produced a minuscule
explosion of only equivalent to 200 tons of TNT due to pre-detonation. For
these reasons even after nearly 80 years no nation currently has U233 bombs
in their arsenal because if you want to kill people on a mass scale
Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239 are far more practical than Uranium-233.

A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much radioactive waste as a
conventional reactor, and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after
about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a
conventional reactor would take 100,000 years.  The fundamental reason for
this is because the starting material of a LFTR is Thorium 232, lower down
on the periodic table than Uranium 238 so much less nasty transuranium
stuff is produced.  A LFTR  reactor has an inherent safety feature, the
fuel is in liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride
salts) so if for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and
so the fuel gets less dense and the reaction slows down. There is yet
another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is something called
a "freeze plug", fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if things get too hot
the plug melts and the liquid drains out (by gravity, mechanical pumps are
not needed) into a neutron absorbing holding tank and the reaction stops;
also, if all electronic controls die due to a loss of electrical power the
fans will stop the plug will melt and the reaction will stop, so it's walk
away safe.

Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so
that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a
leak it would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional
reactor; that's also why the containment building in common light water
reactors need to be so much larger than the reactor itself and why the
walls of it needs to be so thick. With Thorium nothing is under pressure
and there is no danger of a disastrous phase change, like ultra hot
pressurized water turning into steam, so the super expensive containment
building can be made much more compact. And because LFTR reactors work at
much higher temperatures than conventional reactors you have much higher
thermodynamic efficiency; in fact they are so hot the waste heat could be
used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel from water.


> > *so the public wouldn't object (protest, riots, etc)?*
>

Of course environmentalists will protest! Environmentalists are not serious
people so they will protest *ANY* large scale energy project. Natural gas
kills fewer people than oil because of pollution and oil kills fewer people
than coal, but that distinction makes no difference to environmentalists,
they are equal opportunity protesters. Environmentalists never saw an
energy source that was actually built that they didn't hate, although they
might like some provided they stay strictly on the drawing board. Solar
cells in the desert harm super rare desert species, wind power turbines are
ugly and disrupt natural wind patterns and kill little birdies, geothermal
causes earthquakes, and nuclear power is the power that must not be named,
this despite the fact nuclear has by far the best safety record of any
energy source. Environmentalists will not be satisfied unless something is
100% safe, 99.9% simply will not do, and it must have precisely zero
impact on the environment. And that's just not realistic.

Never before in the history of life on this planet has 8 billion large
animals of the same species existed, in order to keep that many individuals
alive (much less happy) some disruption i

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

So would we use uranium 235 or do Thorium 232-->U233 as a fuel cycle and would 
it be safe enough so the public wouldn't object (protest, riots, etc)? I'd am 
more interested (if doable) with Lead-Bismuth moderated reactors, or Helium 
using TRISO fuel-
https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/energy-1/silicon-zirconium-nitrides-may-serve-as-superior-coatings-in-next-generation-nuclear-fuels
I am hoping your LFTR does the job for pragmatic reasons alone,  but wonder if 
the sticker shock of development cost may push MSR's to the 22nd century? 

-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: spudboy...@aol.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com 

Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2022 9:34 pm
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing

 A LFTR has already been run for years.  A prototype was built at Oak Ridge in 
the '50s as a research reactor prototype for the Air Force proposal to have 
nuclear powered version of the B-36 that would stay airborne almost 
continuously so as to be immune to a Soviet first strike.  But the project was 
dropped without ever being turned into a power source.  Part of the problem was 
that only enough shielding could be carried to protect the crew, but the 
radiation also damages structure.
 
 Brent
 
 On 6/29/2022 5:50 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
  
 
Walk away safe. Are you two  convinced that we have done enough research via 
chemical engineering? This'd be for corrosion of pipes, and as all us science 
nerds know sodium itself can ignite in air and explode when exposed to water, 
which is one reason I like it. But the sodium fluoride is nonflammable. I am 
still betting on solar and wind as cheaper and faster. I am thinking that 
getting this boy (LFTR) to market will take the Chinese and Gates 20 years 
longer to get it all to work correctly. Hence, even though I am a foul 
Trumpkin, I support the quick and the modular, with batteries and, or, 
micro-hydroelectric. It is something that dudes with a pickup truck can install 
and maintain, distributed nationwide & worldwide. 
 
 Environmentally Safe! Spud100
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Brent Meeker 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2022 3:30 pm
 Subject: Re: Quantum Computing
 
   
 
 On 6/29/2022 7:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
  
 
 On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 8:40 PM  wrote:

  
 > All true JC, yet a world powered by atomic energy seems to await commercial 
 > fusion which out of my world view is a thing, despite recent progress, is a 
 > decades off. 
 
  A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would greatly reduce or eliminate 
entirely the problems associated with conventional fission reactors; they need 
some additional research and development before they become practical but 
vastly less than what would be required for a fusion reactor.   
 I understand Indian is building a prototype LFTR.  A molten salt reactor is 
"walk away safe".  Thorium also has the advantage that there is enough already 
enough for millennia of power as a by product of mining rare earths for 
magnets. 
 
  
    
 > Nukes may have reduced the great war cycles, but Putin has restarted it 
 > again. Even with nukes. All it takes is a different set of values and 
 > culture and there we go. Comrade Xi seems of a similar mind set. 
 
  Stalin and Mao Zedong had nuclear weapons and both were monsters, but neither 
of them ever used one in anger, the fact is the only human being who ever did 
was Harry Truman, and that was nearly 80 years ago. So I think the human race 
has a pretty good chance of surviving Putin and Xi. 
  
  > The societal impact of QC is sketchy to me, as it needs to be conformed to 
human impacts if it is to be better than conventional?  
 
  Quantum Computers are well known for their code breaking abilities but that's 
not all they can do, in the June 9 2022 issue of the journal Science 
researchers report they have found a quantum learning algorithm that achieves 
an exponential speed increase over the that of any known conventional algorithm 
both in predicting how a quantum system, for example an atom or a molecule, 
changes over time, and also in its ability to extract useful information from 
noisy input data. It perhaps should be noted that a brain frozen to liquid 
nitrogen temperatures is bound to contain a lot of noisy data regardless of how 
carefully it was frozen. This is the abstract of the article: 
  "Quantum technology promises to revolutionize how we learn about the physical 
world. An experiment that processes quantum data with a quantum computer could 
have substantial advantages over conventional experiments in which quantum 
states are measured and outcomes are processed with a classical computer. We 
proved that quantum machines could learn from exponentially fewer experiments 
than the number required by conventional experiments. This exponential 
advantage is shown for predicting properties of physical systems, perf

Re: Quantum Computing

[Brent Meeker]

A LFTR has already been run for years.  A prototype was built at Oak 
Ridge in the '50s as a research reactor prototype for the Air Force 
proposal to have nuclear powered version of the B-36 that would stay 
airborne almost continuously so as to be immune to a Soviet first 
strike.  But the project was dropped without ever being turned into a 
power source.  Part of the problem was that only enough shielding could 
be carried to protect the crew, but the radiation also damages structure.


Brent

On 6/29/2022 5:50 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Walk away safe. Are you two  convinced that we have done enough 
research via chemical engineering? This'd be for corrosion of pipes, 
and as all us science nerds know sodium itself can ignite in air and 
explode when exposed to water, which is one reason I like it. But the 
sodium fluoride is nonflammable. I am still betting on solar and wind 
as cheaper and faster. I am thinking that getting this boy (LFTR) to 
market will take the Chinese and Gates 20 years longer to get it all 
to work correctly. Hence, even though I am a foul Trumpkin, I support 
the quick and the modular, with batteries and, or, 
micro-hydroelectric. It is something that dudes with a pickup truck 
can install and maintain, distributed nationwide & worldwide.


Environmentally Safe!
Spud100

-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2022 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing



On 6/29/2022 7:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 8:40 PM <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:


/> All true JC, yet a world powered by atomic energy seems to
await commercial fusion which out of my world view is a thing,
despite recent progress, is a decades off./


A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would greatly reduce or 
eliminate entirelythe problems associated with conventional fission 
reactors; they need some additional research and development before 
they become practical but vastly less than what would be required for 
a fusion reactor.


I understand Indian is building a prototype LFTR.  A molten salt 
reactor is "walk away safe".  Thorium also has the advantage that 
there is enough already enough for millennia of power as a by product 
of mining rare earths for magnets.




/> Nukes may have reduced the great war cycles, but Putin has
restarted it again. Even with nukes. All it takes is a different
set of values and culture and there we go. Comrade Xi seems of a
similar mind set./


Stalin and Mao Zedong had nuclear weapons and both were monsters, but 
neither of them ever used one in anger, the fact is the only human 
being who ever did was Harry Truman, and that was nearly 80 years 
ago. So I think the human race has a pretty good chance of surviving 
Putin and Xi.


> The societal impact of QC is sketchy to me, as it needs to be
conformed to human impacts if it is to be better than conventional?


Quantum Computers are well known for their code breaking abilities 
but that's not all they can do, in the June 9 2022 issue of the 
journal Science researchers report they have found a quantum learning 
algorithm that achieves an exponential speed increase over the that 
of any known conventional algorithm both in predicting how a quantum 
system, for example an atom or a molecule, changes over time, and 
also in its ability to extract useful information from noisy input 
data. It perhaps should be noted that a brain frozen to liquid 
nitrogen temperatures is bound to contain a lot of noisy data 
regardless of how carefully it was frozen. This is the abstract of 
the article:


/"Quantum technology promises to revolutionize how we learn about the 
physical world. An experiment that processes quantum data with a 
quantum computer could have substantial advantages over conventional 
experiments in which quantum states are measured and outcomes are 
processed with a classical computer. We proved that quantum machines 
could learn from exponentially fewer experiments than the number 
required by conventional experiments. This exponential advantage is 
shown for predicting properties of physical systems, performing 
quantum principal component analysis, and learning about physical 
dynamics. Furthermore, the quantum resources needed for achieving an 
exponential advantage are quite modest in some cases. Conducting 
experiments with 40 superconducting qubits and 1300 quantum gates, we 
demonstrated that a substantial quantum advantage is possible with 
today’s quantum processors."/

/
/

Quantum advantage in learning from experiments 
<https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abn7293>




You didn't even mention what most scientist see as the big application 
for QC, modeling and predicting the interaction of big biological 
molecules, e.g. protein folding.  One of the big motivators for QC way 
Feynman's talk, "Th

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Walk away safe. Are you two  convinced that we have done enough research via 
chemical engineering? This'd be for corrosion of pipes, and as all us science 
nerds know sodium itself can ignite in air and explode when exposed to water, 
which is one reason I like it. But the sodium fluoride is nonflammable. I am 
still betting on solar and wind as cheaper and faster. I am thinking that 
getting this boy (LFTR) to market will take the Chinese and Gates 20 years 
longer to get it all to work correctly. Hence, even though I am a foul 
Trumpkin, I support the quick and the modular, with batteries and, or, 
micro-hydroelectric. It is something that dudes with a pickup truck can install 
and maintain, distributed nationwide & worldwide. 

Environmentally Safe!Spud100

-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2022 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing

 
 
 On 6/29/2022 7:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
  
 
  On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 8:40 PM  wrote:

  
 > All true JC, yet a world powered by atomic energy seems to await commercial 
 > fusion which out of my world view is a thing, despite recent progress, is a 
 > decades off. 
 
  A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would greatly reduce or eliminate 
entirely the problems associated with conventional fission reactors; they need 
some additional research and development before they become practical but 
vastly less than what would be required for a fusion reactor.   
 I understand Indian is building a prototype LFTR.  A molten salt reactor is 
"walk away safe".  Thorium also has the advantage that there is enough already 
enough for millennia of power as a by product of mining rare earths for magnets.
 
 
     
 > Nukes may have reduced the great war cycles, but Putin has restarted it 
 > again. Even with nukes. All it takes is a different set of values and 
 > culture and there we go. Comrade Xi seems of a similar mind set. 
 
  Stalin and Mao Zedong had nuclear weapons and both were monsters, but neither 
of them ever used one in anger, the fact is the only human being who ever did 
was Harry Truman, and that was nearly 80 years ago. So I think the human race 
has a pretty good chance of surviving Putin and Xi. 
  
  > The societal impact of QC is sketchy to me, as it needs to be conformed to 
human impacts if it is to be better than conventional?  
 
  Quantum Computers are well known for their code breaking abilities but that's 
not all they can do, in the June 9 2022 issue of the journal Science 
researchers report they have found a quantum learning algorithm that achieves 
an exponential speed increase over the that of any known conventional algorithm 
both in predicting how a quantum system, for example an atom or a molecule, 
changes over time, and also in its ability to extract useful information from 
noisy input data. It perhaps should be noted that a brain frozen to liquid 
nitrogen temperatures is bound to contain a lot of noisy data regardless of how 
carefully it was frozen. This is the abstract of the article: 
  "Quantum technology promises to revolutionize how we learn about the physical 
world. An experiment that processes quantum data with a quantum computer could 
have substantial advantages over conventional experiments in which quantum 
states are measured and outcomes are processed with a classical computer. We 
proved that quantum machines could learn from exponentially fewer experiments 
than the number required by conventional experiments. This exponential 
advantage is shown for predicting properties of physical systems, performing 
quantum principal component analysis, and learning about physical dynamics. 
Furthermore, the quantum resources needed for achieving an exponential 
advantage are quite modest in some cases. Conducting experiments with 40 
superconducting qubits and 1300 quantum gates, we demonstrated that a 
substantial quantum advantage is possible with today’s quantum processors." 
  
  Quantum advantage in learning from experiments
   
 
 You didn't even mention what most scientist see as the big application for QC, 
modeling and predicting the interaction of big biological molecules, e.g. 
protein folding.  One of the big motivators for QC way Feynman's talk, "There's 
Always Room at the Bottom".
 
 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad249ee9-55d6-6fb7-a1da-eb8697966d56%40gmail.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 ema

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Much thanks, JC.


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2022 10:16 am
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 8:40 PM  wrote:


> All true JC, yet a world powered by atomic energy seems to await commercial 
> fusion which out of my world view is a thing, despite recent progress, is a 
> decades off.

A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would greatly reduce or eliminate 
entirely the problems associated with conventional fission reactors; they need 
some additional research and development before they become practical but 
vastly less than what would be required for a fusion reactor.  
> Nukes may have reduced the great war cycles, but Putin has restarted it 
> again. Even with nukes. All it takes is a different set of values and culture 
> and there we go. Comrade Xi seems of a similar mind set.

Stalin and Mao Zedong had nuclear weapons and both were monsters, but neither 
of them ever used one in anger, the fact is the only human being who ever did 
was Harry Truman, and that was nearly 80 years ago. So I think the human race 
has a pretty good chance of surviving Putin and Xi.

> The societal impact of QC is sketchy to me, as it needs to be conformed to 
> human impacts if it is to be better than conventional?

Quantum Computers are well known for their code breaking abilities but that's 
not all they can do, in the June 9 2022 issue of the journal Science 
researchers report they have found a quantum learning algorithm that achieves 
an exponential speed increase over the that of any known conventional algorithm 
both in predicting how a quantum system, for example an atom or a molecule, 
changes over time, and also in its ability to extract useful information from 
noisy input data. It perhaps should be noted that a brain frozen to liquid 
nitrogen temperatures is bound to contain a lot of noisy data regardless of how 
carefully it was frozen. This is the abstract of the article:
"Quantum technology promises to revolutionize how we learn about the physical 
world. An experiment that processes quantum data with a quantum computer could 
have substantial advantages over conventional experiments in which quantum 
states are measured and outcomes are processed with a classical computer. We 
proved that quantum machines could learn from exponentially fewer experiments 
than the number required by conventional experiments. This exponential 
advantage is shown for predicting properties of physical systems, performing 
quantum principal component analysis, and learning about physical dynamics. 
Furthermore, the quantum resources needed for achieving an exponential 
advantage are quite modest in some cases. Conducting experiments with 40 
superconducting qubits and 1300 quantum gates, we demonstrated that a 
substantial quantum advantage is possible with today’s quantum processors."

Quantum advantage in learning from experiments

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolismbc

-- 
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/87371160.80506.1656544072197%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/29/2022 7:16 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 8:40 PM  wrote:

/> All true JC, yet a world powered by atomic energy seems to
await commercial fusion which out of my world view is a thing,
despite recent progress, is a decades off./


A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would greatly reduce or 
eliminate entirelythe problems associated with conventional fission 
reactors; they need some additional research and development before 
they become practical but vastly less than what would be required for 
a fusion reactor.


I understand Indian is building a prototype LFTR.  A molten salt reactor 
is "walk away safe".  Thorium also has the advantage that there is 
enough already enough for millennia of power as a by product of mining 
rare earths for magnets.



/> Nukes may have reduced the great war cycles, but Putin has
restarted it again. Even with nukes. All it takes is a different
set of values and culture and there we go. Comrade Xi seems of a
similar mind set./


Stalin and Mao Zedong had nuclear weapons and both were monsters, but 
neither of them ever used one in anger, the fact is the only human 
being who ever did was Harry Truman, and that was nearly 80 years ago. 
So I think the human race has a pretty good chance of surviving Putin 
and Xi.


> The societal impact of QC is sketchy to me, as it needs to be
conformed to human impacts if it is to be better than conventional?


Quantum Computers are well known for their code breaking abilities but 
that's not all they can do, in the June 9 2022 issue of the journal 
Science researchers report they have found a quantum learning 
algorithm that achieves an exponential speed increase over the that of 
any known conventional algorithm both in predicting how a quantum 
system, for example an atom or a molecule, changes over time, and also 
in its ability to extract useful information from noisy input data. It 
perhaps should be noted that a brain frozen to liquid nitrogen 
temperatures is bound to contain a lot of noisy data regardless of how 
carefully it was frozen. This is the abstract of the article:


/"Quantum technology promises to revolutionize how we learn about the 
physical world. An experiment that processes quantum data with a 
quantum computer could have substantial advantages over conventional 
experiments in which quantum states are measured and outcomes are 
processed with a classical computer. We proved that quantum machines 
could learn from exponentially fewer experiments than the number 
required by conventional experiments. This exponential advantage is 
shown for predicting properties of physical systems, performing 
quantum principal component analysis, and learning about physical 
dynamics. Furthermore, the quantum resources needed for achieving an 
exponential advantage are quite modest in some cases. Conducting 
experiments with 40 superconducting qubits and 1300 quantum gates, we 
demonstrated that a substantial quantum advantage is possible with 
today’s quantum processors."/

/
/

Quantum advantage in learning from experiments 



You didn't even mention what most scientist see as the big application 
for QC, modeling and predicting the interaction of big biological 
molecules, e.g. protein folding.  One of the big motivators for QC way 
Feynman's talk, "There's Always Room at the Bottom".


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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad249ee9-55d6-6fb7-a1da-eb8697966d56%40gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 8:40 PM  wrote:

*> All true JC, yet a world powered by atomic energy seems to await
> commercial fusion which out of my world view is a thing, despite recent
> progress, is a decades off.*
>

A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would greatly reduce or eliminate
entirely the problems associated with conventional fission reactors; they
need some additional research and development before they become practical
but vastly less than what would be required for a fusion reactor.


> *> Nukes may have reduced the great war cycles, but Putin has restarted it
> again. Even with nukes. All it takes is a different set of values and
> culture and there we go. Comrade Xi seems of a similar mind set.*
>

Stalin and Mao Zedong had nuclear weapons and both were monsters, but
neither of them ever used one in anger, the fact is the only human being
who ever did was Harry Truman, and that was nearly 80 years ago. So I think
the human race has a pretty good chance of surviving Putin and Xi.

> The societal impact of QC is sketchy to me, as it needs to be conformed
> to human impacts if it is to be better than conventional?
>

Quantum Computers are well known for their code breaking abilities but
that's not all they can do, in the June 9 2022 issue of the journal Science
researchers report they have found a quantum learning algorithm that
achieves an exponential speed increase over the that of any known
conventional algorithm both in predicting how a quantum system, for example
an atom or a molecule, changes over time, and also in its ability to
extract useful information from noisy input data. It perhaps should be
noted that a brain frozen to liquid nitrogen temperatures is bound to
contain a lot of noisy data regardless of how carefully it was frozen. This
is the abstract of the article:

*"Quantum technology promises to revolutionize how we learn about the
physical world. An experiment that processes quantum data with a quantum
computer could have substantial advantages over conventional experiments in
which quantum states are measured and outcomes are processed with a
classical computer. We proved that quantum machines could learn from
exponentially fewer experiments than the number required by conventional
experiments. This exponential advantage is shown for predicting properties
of physical systems, performing quantum principal component analysis, and
learning about physical dynamics. Furthermore, the quantum resources needed
for achieving an exponential advantage are quite modest in some cases.
Conducting experiments with 40 superconducting qubits and 1300 quantum
gates, we demonstrated that a substantial quantum advantage is possible
with today’s quantum processors."*


Quantum advantage in learning from experiments


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mbc

-- 
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/CAJPayv0O6L4%2BdjmvKUpK4NBcTG3%2BDZhOe5P-jNc2PShEs6yHKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

All true JC, yet a world powered by atomic energy seems to await commercial 
fusion which out of my world view is a thing, despite recent progress, is a 
decades off. Nukes may have reduced the great war cycles, but Putin has 
restarted it again. Even with nukes. All it takes is a different set of values 
and culture and there we go. Comrade Xi seems of a similar mind set. For energy 
and prosperity it becomes a matter of getting along until that golden day 
arrives.
The societal impact of QC is sketchy to me, as it needs to be conformed to 
human impacts if it is to be better than conventional? It may hit this secretly 
with code cracking which for all I know may already be here? In that case all 
foreign policy would need to become visceral, in the sense that one knows 
everyone's intent, and thus adjusts accordingly. 
Not my idea of the 21st century, but then who asked my opinion?
American Serf, Spud100 (olde sod!)


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sat, Jun 25, 2022 7:20 am
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:12 PM  wrote:


> John, isn't it a wiser thing to consider impact over capability?

One thing at a time. Before you can have any impact you've got to have a 
capacity. And if large-scale quantum computers are practical, and it's getting 
to look like they are, then somebody somewhere is certain to make one. The best 
historical analogy is with nuclear energy, we've known since 1905 that matter 
contained a huge amount of energy but there didn't seem to be any practical way 
to get at it; that suddenly changed in 1938 when Uranium fission was 
discovered, after that the technological path one needed to travel to release a 
large amount of that energy very quickly was obvious. It was also very 
expensive, but it was only a matter of time before somebody somewhere did so. 
And just 7 years later somebody did. The moral is that if something very 
powerful can be made then like it or not it will be made.


> then in the 1950's the immensity of nuclear fission over carbon burning 
> should have led to an Atomic Age, but it didn't.  


Nuclear didn't beat out fossil fuels its true but you could still say we live 
in an Atomic Age because it still had an enormous impact on society.  
Considering the rate that wars were happening in the first half of the 20th 
century, if nuclear weapons were impossible or impractical to make I imagine 
we'd be in the middle of World War 5 or 6 about now; they wouldn't be nuclear 
wars but 20 million people died in the first world war and 50 million died in 
the second. John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
nwb

 

-- 
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/2096272874.23231.1656463206918%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:12 PM  wrote:

*> John, isn't it a wiser thing to consider impact over capability?*
>

One thing at a time. Before you can have any impact you've got to have a
capacity. And if large-scale quantum computers are practical, and it's
getting to look like they are, then somebody somewhere is certain to make
one. The best historical analogy is with nuclear energy, we've known since
1905 that matter contained a huge amount of energy but there didn't seem to
be any practical way to get at it; that suddenly changed in 1938 when
Uranium fission was discovered, after that the technological path one
needed to travel to release a large amount of that energy very quickly was
obvious. It was also very expensive, but it was only a matter of time
before somebody somewhere did so. And just 7 years later somebody did. The
moral is that if something very powerful can be made then like it or not it
will be made.


> *> then in the 1950's the immensity of nuclear fission over carbon burning
> should have led to an Atomic Age, but it didn't.  *
>

Nuclear didn't beat out fossil fuels its true but you could still say we
live in an Atomic Age because it still had an enormous impact on society.
Considering the rate that wars were happening in the first half of the 20th
century, if nuclear weapons were impossible or impractical to make I
imagine we'd be in the middle of World War 5 or 6 about now; they wouldn't
be nuclear wars but 20 million people died in the first world war and 50
million died in the second.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

nwb

-- 
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/CAJPayv1dmsyuxKP%2BKzkcMkBV3KWDyMEhG3vMpEoeMHE4F9Fy5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

John, isn't it a wiser thing to consider impact over capability? Maybe this is 
my hang up, but if your QC's solves medical problems or energy problems, rather 
than the Gee Whiz of mere computational prowess. Yeah, prowess should lead to 
the things I cited. But then in the 1950's the immensity of nuclear fission 
over carbon burning should have led to an Atomic Age, but it didn't.  


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Jun 23, 2022 12:22 pm
Subject: Quantum Computing

In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature there is a report that in my opinion 
is one of the most significant advances in the field of quantum computing. 
Scientists not only used a scanning tunneling microscope to make a functional 
quantum processor that is composed of 10 quantum dots placed with sub-nanometer 
precision by a scanning tunneling microscope, they tested it by modeling how 
electrons move along a polyacetylene molecule, a task conventional 
supercomputers would have great difficulty with even for a molecule as simple 
as polyacetylene. A penicillin molecule only has 41 atoms but a classical 
computer would need to have 10^86 transistors to make a quantum mechanical 
model of it. There are only 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. A quantum 
computer would only need 286 logical qubits to do the same thing; yes those 286 
would need to be high-quality qubits but thanks to quantum error correction 
they don't have to be perfect.
Engineering topological states in atom-based semiconductor quantum dots

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
-- 
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/CAJPayv2s%3DOPN_xagX_Jkh7iWpb6azEWfJTxfvduo7sbKqacqRA%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1690574101.4701327.1656115933388%40mail.yahoo.com.

Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature there is a report that in my
opinion is one of the most significant advances in the field of quantum
computing. Scientists not only used a scanning tunneling microscope to make
a functional quantum processor that is composed of 10 quantum dots placed
with sub-nanometer precision by a scanning tunneling microscope, they
tested it by modeling how electrons move along a polyacetylene molecule, a
task conventional supercomputers would have great difficulty with even for
a molecule as simple as polyacetylene. A penicillin molecule only has 41
atoms but a classical computer would need to have 10^86 transistors to make
a quantum mechanical model of it. There are only 10^80 atoms in the
observable universe. A quantum computer would only need 286 logical qubits
to do the same thing; yes those 286 would need to be high-quality qubits
but thanks to quantum error correction they don't have to be perfect.

Engineering topological states in atom-based semiconductor quantum dots
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04706-0>

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2s%3DOPN_xagX_Jkh7iWpb6azEWfJTxfvduo7sbKqacqRA%40mail.gmail.com.

Quantum Computing in Silicon Hits 99% ​accuracy allowing quantum error correction

[John Clark]

Three different research groups reported in three separate articles in
yesterday's issue of the journal Nature that they have achieved better than
99% accuracy in their quantum computers and they did it using the same type
of silicon technology that conventional computer chips are made of. With
accuracy this high it becomes feasible to use quantum error correction
algorithms, and if you could do that then you can scale up small quantum
computers indefinitely. This is a news article about it:

Major Breakthrough As Quantum Computing in Silicon Hits 99% Accuracy
<https://scitechdaily.com/major-breakthrough-as-quantum-computing-in-silicon-hits-99-accuracy/>

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
cbq

-- 
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/CAJPayv3gxOBVzZjNNBG4%3DDiFGMJTK6hKi8vtVy5KqX3XLH1sYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum computing model of black holes

[Lawrence Crowell]

The paper that is really getting the attention is this below. It works with 
Page curves, which was developed by some of these authors a couple of years 
ago. This is potentially more on the mark I think.

LC
The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an 
evaporating black hole
Ahmed Almheiri 
, Netta 
Engelhardt 
, 
Donald 
Marolf 
, Henry Maxfield 


Bulk quantum fields are often said to contribute to the generalized 
entropy A4GN+Sbulk only at O(1). Nonetheless, in the context of evaporating 
black holes, O(1/GN) gradients in Sbulk can arise due to large boosts, 
introducing a quantum extremal surface far from any classical extremal 
surface. We examine the effect of such bulk quantum effects on quantum 
extremal surfaces (QESs) and the resulting entanglement wedge in a simple 
two-boundary 2d bulk system defined by Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity coupled to 
a 1+1 CFT. Turning on a coupling between one boundary and a further 
external auxiliary system which functions as a heat sink allows a two-sided 
otherwise-eternal black hole to evaporate on one side. We find the 
generalized entropy of the QES to behave as expected from general 
considerations of unitarity, and in particular that ingoing information 
disappears from the entanglement wedge after a scambling 
time β2πlnΔS+O(1) in accord with expectations for holographic 
implementations of the Hayden-Preskill protocol. We also find an 
interesting QES phase transition at what one might call the Page time for 
our process.

Comments:
49 pages, 9 figures; v3: overview section added
Subjects:
High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum 
Cosmology (gr-qc)
DOI:
10.1007/JHEP12(2019)063 

Cite as:
arXiv:1905.08762  [hep-th]
 
(or arXiv:1905.08762v3  [hep-th] for 
this version)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08762

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 7:07:10 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.01166
>
>
> via https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1323517710685360128
>
> @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/612e086f-c9ba-4106-aa93-9bd9f6a9e84fn%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum computing model of black holes

[Philip Thrift]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.01166


via https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1323517710685360128

@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/236935df-cd91-4b2e-a615-24b0f9995a0dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum-computing pioneer warns of complacency over Internet security

[Lawrence Crowell]

Real prime factorization by quantum computers exists. However, the prime 
factors are not that large and it is within the capability of even 
classical computers to work it out. To really break RSA encryption will 
require far more complete quantum error correction coding. So far QECC with 
a Hamming distance greater than 1 is difficult. 

I have one possible way to avoid some of these problems, Maybe we should 
limit our dependency on computer systems and networks of an every greater 
complexity. The entire logistical systems of modern economies is 
computerized and web-based, when just 30 years ago is was done by hand for 
the most part. At a certain point it seems to me this does not make life so 
much better, at least for the majority of us, but keeps tech execs in a 
bigger money stream.

LC 

On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 1:39:23 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Quantum-computing pioneer warns of complacency over Internet security 
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03068-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=5d17f78b40-briefing-dy-20201102&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-5d17f78b40-44221073>
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2861658-a9eb-498b-b90c-9795d17182dfn%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum-computing pioneer warns of complacency over Internet security

[John Clark]

Quantum-computing pioneer warns of complacency over Internet security
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03068-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=5d17f78b40-briefing-dy-20201102&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-5d17f78b40-44221073>

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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2_ankgQiwrrF4qbJXwaaoZLgEVObjA1vo21-m2FsDCTg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Time travel in quantum computing

[Lawrence Crowell]

This looks interesting. There are relative time machines in QM, where one 
system may by virtue of its energy move faster or slower in time.

For a two-state system the string of binary outputs has Kolmogorov 
complexity 2^N. However, the quantum complexity is exp(2^N). for N = 4 the 
K-complexity is 15, but the quantum complexity is 8886110.52. This pertains 
to the possible phase structure that can exist. As a result much of the 
“butterfly effect” in QM or quantum chaos is in the phasor structure. 

With a black hole Alice can transform a set of states with an apparatus, so 
her EPR pair is transformed into a state to be transmitted. She sends these 
quantum states into her black hole and transmits this information to Bob 
who is facing a black hole entangled with Alice’s.  Bob then performs the 
operations according to Alice’s transmission and the states Alice sent in 
will appear in the quantum radiation of the BH. This is a form of 
teleportation via black hole. There is no reason why Alice might decide to 
transmit this information to Bob and wait a long time and send her EPR 
pairs into the BH long after Bob has received these instructions. Bob then 
quickly performs these operations and reconstructs Alice’s transmitted 
states long before, on his Hubble frame, before Alice transmitted them. 
Teleportation back in time is in principle possible with BHs.

The difference between the transmitted and received states are with the 
quantum phase, where the quantum complexity of Alice’s states are not 
constructible by Bob. The black hole as an Einstein-Rosen bridge is not 
traversable. A traversable black hole, which violates the Hawking-Penrose 
energy conditions, would allow for the duplication of a state. A 
traversable wormhole with one opening boosted to a near light speed frame 
and then back will have its clocks behind the first opening. Then 
transmitting a quantum state into the wormhole, means at an earlier time 
that state appears in the second opening so the experimenter for a time has 
a copy of the state. This is a process that is not unitary. This sort of 
problem does not happen with entangled black holes or ER bridges.

LC

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 6:02:43 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> https://newatlas.com/physics/quantum-time-travel-simulator-butterfly-effect/
>
>
> Recovery of Damaged Information and the Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07267
>
> @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/ac64ce44-280d-44b9-8c69-ad9f2799229en%40googlegroups.com.

Time travel in quantum computing

[Philip Thrift]

https://newatlas.com/physics/quantum-time-travel-simulator-butterfly-effect/


Recovery of Damaged Information and the Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators


https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07267



@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/51eb99bb-65c1-42ab-8234-54dec0391519o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have been working with someone on transformations between de Sitter, 
anti-de Sitter spacetimes with type D black hole solutions. 

LC

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 3:18:37 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Do you have any sense of the possible implication of Penrose's 
> Schwarzchild's black hole, in regards to cosmology?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2020 6:04 pm
> Subject: Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole
>
> My image did not show up, try again: 
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:02:43 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole 
>
> [image: penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg]
> has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
> triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The while 
> hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is a vacuum 
> theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a and a^† for 
> entangled states. 
>
> LC
> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating 
> Wormholes
>
> http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/
>  
> cf.
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/
> @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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab3dd184-c414-4155-a61f-39065eea7ce7n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab3dd184-c414-4155-a61f-39065eea7ce7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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/0fbe9625-e51c-43e1-93b9-f78df6f538a6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

For some reason my images don't show up right the first time I send.

[image: Penrose diagram for Schwarzschild truncated.jpg]

On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 7:04:37 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
>
>> But real black holes form by collapse of star and so don't have the time 
>> symmetry of a Schwarzschild bh.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> The idealized gadget seen in the Penrose conformal diagram probably refers 
> to a quantum of black hole or white hole. Often people refer to the 
> truncated diagram such as the one below. In effect the entanglement is 
> removed or ignored, and the entropy associated with that is defined by the 
> entropy of a single black hole.  The elementary diagram, such as the one I 
> included yesterday, is an idealization. A real black hole has a massive 
> entanglement with other states. I think the are with Hawking radiation and 
> BMS symmetries that escape to ℐ^+, instead of with another black hole in a 
> huge number of bipartite entanglements. 
>
> Susskind has this idea of ER = EPR, where Hawking radiation is entangled 
> with black holes in a sort of wormhole manner. I think this is really with 
> BMS charges and not so much with wormholes. The wormhole aspects from this 
> stem from the local negative energy vacua near a black hole, say the 
> Boulware vacuum, and the symmetries of this are taken off to ℐ^+ as 
> ancillary symmetries of spacetime not found in i^0. So large astrophysical 
> black holes are in a sense messy and we do not observe these entanglements 
> and instead see a large number of separable states with thermal entropy.
>
> LC
>
>
> [image: Penrose diagram for Schwarzschild truncated.jpg]
>  
>
>>
>> On 7/17/2020 3:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole 
>>
>> [image: penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg]
>> has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
>> triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The while 
>> hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is a vacuum 
>> theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a and a^† for 
>> entangled states. 
>>
>> LC
>> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating 
>>> Wormholes
>>>
>>> http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/
>>>  
>>>
>>> cf.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/
>>>
>>> @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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ee6932f-d8aa-4006-a4f3-81d99efb256cn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ee6932f-d8aa-4006-a4f3-81d99efb256cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/1366eb61-c074-4114-97b5-c1d5d29d5376n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> But real black holes form by collapse of star and so don't have the time 
> symmetry of a Schwarzschild bh.
>
> Brent
>

The idealized gadget seen in the Penrose conformal diagram probably refers 
to a quantum of black hole or white hole. Often people refer to the 
truncated diagram such as the one below. In effect the entanglement is 
removed or ignored, and the entropy associated with that is defined by the 
entropy of a single black hole.  The elementary diagram, such as the one I 
included yesterday, is an idealization. A real black hole has a massive 
entanglement with other states. I think the are with Hawking radiation and 
BMS symmetries that escape to ℐ^+, instead of with another black hole in a 
huge number of bipartite entanglements. 

Susskind has this idea of ER = EPR, where Hawking radiation is entangled 
with black holes in a sort of wormhole manner. I think this is really with 
BMS charges and not so much with wormholes. The wormhole aspects from this 
stem from the local negative energy vacua near a black hole, say the 
Boulware vacuum, and the symmetries of this are taken off to ℐ^+ as 
ancillary symmetries of spacetime not found in i^0. So large astrophysical 
black holes are in a sense messy and we do not observe these entanglements 
and instead see a large number of separable states with thermal entropy.

LC


[image: Penrose diagram for Schwarzschild truncated.jpg]
 

>
> On 7/17/2020 3:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole 
>
> [image: penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg]
> has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
> triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The while 
> hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is a vacuum 
> theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a and a^† for 
> entangled states. 
>
> LC
> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating 
>> Wormholes
>>
>> http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/
>>  
>>
>> cf.
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/
>>
>> @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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ee6932f-d8aa-4006-a4f3-81d99efb256cn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ee6932f-d8aa-4006-a4f3-81d99efb256cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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/cbfa1f1f-a38b-41dc-9e04-e9608bdc51d5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Philip Thrift]

What software library and computer runs the most accurate or up to date 
programming model of real black holes?


cf.


*The EinsteinPy package provides some core data types for calculating, 
operating, visualizing geodesics and black holes. *
https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11288

@philipthrift

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> But real black holes form by collapse of star and so don't have the time 
> symmetry of a Schwarzschild bh.
>
> Brent
>
> On 7/17/2020 3:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole 
>
> [image: penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg]
> has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
> triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The while 
> hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is a vacuum 
> theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a and a^† for 
> entangled states. 
>
> LC
> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating 
>> Wormholes
>>
>> http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/
>>  
>>
>> cf.
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/
>>
>> @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/43cc5e2a-904b-4b9e-8e08-a5f32221a16en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

But real black holes form by collapse of star and so don't have the time 
symmetry of a Schwarzschild bh.


Brent

On 7/17/2020 3:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole

penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg
has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The 
while hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is 
a vacuum theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a 
and a^† for entangled states.


LC
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:


Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating
Wormholes

http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/


cf.


https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/

@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 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ee6932f-d8aa-4006-a4f3-81d99efb256cn%40googlegroups.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ee6932f-d8aa-4006-a4f3-81d99efb256cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.


--
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/ab610af3-f77c-e7ca-dc4e-550cd825c993%40verizon.net.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

My image did not show up, try again:



On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:02:43 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole
>
> [image: penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg]
> has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
> triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The while 
> hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is a vacuum 
> theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a and a^† for 
> entangled states. 
>
> LC
> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating 
>> Wormholes
>>
>> http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/
>>
>> cf.
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/
>>
>> @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/ab3dd184-c414-4155-a61f-39065eea7ce7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Lawrence Crowell]

The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole

[image: penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg]
has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The while 
hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is a vacuum 
theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a and a^† for 
entangled states. 

LC
On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating 
> Wormholes
>
> http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/
>
> cf.
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/
>
> @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/6ee6932f-d8aa-4006-a4f3-81d99efb256cn%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Philip Thrift]

Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating Wormholes
http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/

cf.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/

@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/db99d821-509b-4cbe-8c12-e5b0f0791f90o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Jason Resch]

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

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be
> protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.
>
> 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  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
>>
> --
> 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/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 everything-list+unsubscr...@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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUh1x3YqQTnyxoWh55scpqRVdzP2ca54tqBX4EvKR1rtxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 7:11:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Jul 2020, at 13:14, Lawrence Crowell  > 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  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 
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08061.pdf>
>>>
>>> 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
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d32cfba8-347d-0cb6-df80-21c85d1edb49%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Jul 2020, at 13:14, Lawrence Crowell  
> 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 
>> > 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 > 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 
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08061.pdf>
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d32cfba8-347d-0cb6-df80-21c85d1edb49%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@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
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b998dc41-de35-4c23-b27a-6ca614986f22o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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/BB75E749-505B-4829-813D-724C0374E040%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Lawrence Crowell]

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

On Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 6:19:55 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:49 AM Bruno Marchal  > 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 
>
>
>>

-- 
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/a812897a-147d-4b06-8e05-839c3443f705o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:49 AM Bruno Marchal  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


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0u3Yt5uCFtbFKn5TF9r2Hsu3H5%3D6sPzgqdFQjpnh0TTA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Lawrence Crowell]

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  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 
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08061.pdf>
>>
>> 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
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d32cfba8-347d-0cb6-df80-21c85d1edb49%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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/b998dc41-de35-4c23-b27a-6ca614986f22o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Jul 2020, at 20:05, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  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



> 
> 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 
>> <mailto:johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal > > 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 
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08061.pdf>
>> 
>> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@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
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@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
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d32cfba8-347d-0cb6-df80-21c85d1edb49%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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/46FE83A8-3E52-4770-9C9F-BE34AEC630E0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Bruno Marchal]

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Philip Thrift]

In bioengineering:

https://medium.com/neodotlife/quantum-computing-for-protein-folding-custom-biology-4ceeebb94a5b

*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

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 1:06:01 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be 
> protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.
>
> 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  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 
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08061.pdf>
>>
>> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75a86a5b-3569-497f-9e3f-c838e0b8c68an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2020, at 14:41, Lawrence Crowell  > 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  wrote:
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
>>>
>>
>>  > *Take it from me when I say no nation on this planet is doing 
>>> strategic planning on quantum computers.*
>>
>>  
>> NSA, Army Seek Quantum Computers Less Prone to Error 
>> <https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/12/nsa-army-research-aim-more-advancedand-less-noisyquantum-systems/162029/?oref=d-river>
>>  
>>
>> The Pentagon is Trying to Secure Its Networks Against Quantum Codebreakers 
>> <https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/05/pentagon-trying-secure-its-networks-against-quantum-codebreakers/157276/?oref=d1-related-article>
>>
>> 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 n

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

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


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  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

--
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/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 everything-list+unsubscr...@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.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 7:56 AM Philip Thrift  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

-- 
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/CAJPayv1x5tR4JFgLgHqH13XZPxr3mTpRAoDO3E9-1nJzn1%2BL7A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Philip Thrift]

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  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
>

-- 
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/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal  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

-- 
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/CAJPayv1vXWHq8fCPZkftr95unpJnfJcjwgZp%2Bbtd3wta%2B8YzQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2020, at 14:41, Lawrence Crowell  
> 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  > wrote:
> 
> Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
> 
>  > Take it from me when I say no nation on this planet is doing strategic 
> planning on quantum computers.
>  
> NSA, Army Seek Quantum Computers Less Prone to Error 
> <https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/12/nsa-army-research-aim-more-advancedand-less-noisyquantum-systems/162029/?oref=d-river>
>  
> 
> The Pentagon is Trying to Secure Its Networks Against Quantum Codebreakers 
> <https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/05/pentagon-trying-secure-its-networks-against-quantum-codebreakers/157276/?oref=d1-related-article>
> 
> 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






> 
> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@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
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a9e390b-a33c-4cbd-b9ac-fa87fa4874b4o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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/AC31D189-3E68-47DA-B754-CE24E5A102D8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 2:11:54 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 8:41 AM Lawrence Crowell  > 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
>

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 

-- 
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/0b998475-2667-48a4-9670-10e809738c76o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 8:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@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

-- 
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/CAJPayv11eZH4jvH8uMSDXL0qu8WsdVpH-iuk%2BAhytBQ80iOfpw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Lawrence Crowell]

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  > wrote:
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
>>
>
>  > *Take it from me when I say no nation on this planet is doing 
>> strategic planning on quantum computers.*
>
>  
> NSA, Army Seek Quantum Computers Less Prone to Error 
> <https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/12/nsa-army-research-aim-more-advancedand-less-noisyquantum-systems/162029/?oref=d-river>
>  
>
> The Pentagon is Trying to Secure Its Networks Against Quantum Codebreakers 
> <https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/05/pentagon-trying-secure-its-networks-against-quantum-codebreakers/157276/?oref=d1-related-article>
>
> 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.

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-list+unsubscr...@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.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:19 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
>

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


NSA, Army Seek Quantum Computers Less Prone to Error



The Pentagon is Trying to Secure Its Networks Against Quantum Codebreakers


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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2vV8TwoodpM03hEnbs12e3A8O%2B%3DF4VQ3TXj5NjYR2Giw%40mail.gmail.com.

Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Philip Thrift]

Maybe she's right.

https://twitter.com/skdh/status/127349200650246

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

-- 
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/76a24c45-f0ef-45f1-b010-bda1a6b9111dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing may be (practically) dead

[Lawrence Crowell]

It appears to be more of a corporate or financial issue. The scalability of 
quantum computing is an issue, and it wraps around the decoherence problem 
and quantum error correction coding. Quantum computing may follow the path 
of virtual reality, which was really popular in the late 80s, faded away 
and now has appeared again. Quantum processors may be a part of computing 
architecture in the future.

The thought dawned on me that maybe we can emulate black holes with optical 
computing. In this way the quantum decoherence can be "red shifted" so it 
has a lower rate of occurrence. These emulation of black holes are 
experiments that find analogues of Hawking radiation. 

LC

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 2:31:31 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
>  it is not clear how quickly they can be scaled up
>
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/googles-head-quantum-computing-hardware-resigns/ 
> <https://www.wired.com/story/googles-head-quantum-computing-hardware-resigns/?fbclid=IwAR1f4nRqyhspG1PYOJsWrnmPT7Sn4HrXa0yOjDxKlK7qHxHk8tiPaSGmSb4>
>
>
> @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/3665aa5b-4071-454a-a581-81cd11a13de9%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum computing may be (practically) dead

[Philip Thrift]

 it is not clear how quickly they can be scaled up

https://www.wired.com/story/googles-head-quantum-computing-hardware-resigns/ 
<https://www.wired.com/story/googles-head-quantum-computing-hardware-resigns/?fbclid=IwAR1f4nRqyhspG1PYOJsWrnmPT7Sn4HrXa0yOjDxKlK7qHxHk8tiPaSGmSb4>


@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/d8f8500e-c720-4538-8bd4-dddc3d09163e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 11:55, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> The preprint at 165 pages is a bit much to tackle right away. This does 
> though indicate that quantum computing can work a subset of recursively 
> enumerable languages 
>
> LC
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers
>>
>> "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a 
>> classical verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers 
>> sharing entanglement is equal to the class RE of recursively enumerable 
>> languages.”
>>
>
> What does that mean? All universal machine is “equal" to the Class of all 
> RE set. The main difference is that in the quantum case, the simulation can 
> be done in (unbounded) polynomial time and space, where with classical 
> machine some will need super-exponential time for some simulation.
>
> The quantum universal machine does not compute more, nor less, than the 
> Babbage Machine (already Turing universal, although never completed as 
> such).
>
> The class MIP should be better defined, I think. “multiple all-powerful 
> quantum provers sharing entanglement” is a bit fuzzy too.
>
> Bruno
>
>
One possible insight I have on this is that this may be a quantum version 
of hyper-computation. I am a bit loathe to reading a 165 page paper of 
considerable density, but this may illustrate a correspondence with QM on 
hyper-computation. In order to fully perform this theorem proving it 
requires an infinite entanglement, which seems parallel to the context in 
general relativity where there is continuity between I^{+∞} and r_- for 
hypercomputation. The failure thought of GR based hypercomputation to 
circumvent Gödel may then be parallel to an incompleteness here wiith GR 
and the ability to compute all RE functions by a single scheme. Such would 
require infinite entanglement.

LC

 

>
>
>
>
>> MIP*=RE
>> by Scott Aaronson 
>> January 14th, 2020
>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512
>>
>> ref: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383
>>
>> Verifying proofs to very hard math problems is possible with infinite 
>> quantum entanglement
>> by Tom Siegfried
>> February 17, 2020
>>
>> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics
>>
>> A quantum strategy could verify the solutions to unsolvable problems — in 
>> theory
>> by Emily Conover
>> January 24, 2020
>>
>> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory
>>
>>
>> @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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81b5965b-caf5-4bfe-afe7-1ec3d7e304d9%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81b5965b-caf5-4bfe-afe7-1ec3d7e304d9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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/10ca2ea5-bbd7-4d69-9073-4b8e137e3b27%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Feb 2020, at 12:56, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Purely theoretically, not surprising that quantum computing - computing with 
> qubits ( geometry of qubits: 
> http://home.lu.lv/~sd20008/papers/essays/Geometry%20[paper].pdf 
> <http://home.lu.lv/~sd20008/papers/essays/Geometry%20[paper].pdf> ) - should 
> be RE-language capable.

Yes, that was the first result in the field, by Benioff. 


> 
> But of course theory may not end up in reality - of actually making a quantum 
> computer that works according to the theory.

Quantum computer are expected to be more quick on some task, albeit this has 
not yet been proven (but I gave few doubt that’s the case). 

What Deutsch already understood is that the universal quantum computer does not 
violate the Church-Turing thesis. They cannot compute a function that the 
Babbage computer, or your laptop can’t already compute.

The complexity classes might differ, but all universal machine, classical or 
quantum, compute the exact same class of functions. They all compute the same 
Phi_i, and enumerate the same W_i.

Bruno


> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:55:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> The preprint at 165 pages is a bit much to tackle right away. This does 
> though indicate that quantum computing can work a subset of recursively 
> enumerable languages 
> 
> LC
> 
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers
> 
> "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a classical 
> verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers sharing 
> entanglement is equal to the class RE of recursively enumerable languages."
> 
> MIP*=RE
> by Scott Aaronson 
> January 14th, 2020
> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512 
> <https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512>
> 
> ref: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383>
> 
> Verifying proofs to very hard math problems is possible with infinite quantum 
> entanglement
> by Tom Siegfried
> February 17, 2020
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics
>  
> <https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics>
> 
> A quantum strategy could verify the solutions to unsolvable problems — in 
> theory
> by Emily Conover
> January 24, 2020
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory
>  
> <https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory>
> 
> 
> @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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e27b503-b8de-4d53-984d-c9e4bf7850e4%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e27b503-b8de-4d53-984d-c9e4bf7850e4%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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/0680B961-BC30-4C49-9B8F-AB462A789A87%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Feb 2020, at 11:55, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> The preprint at 165 pages is a bit much to tackle right away. This does 
> though indicate that quantum computing can work a subset of recursively 
> enumerable languages 
> 
> LC
> 
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers
> 
> "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a classical 
> verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers sharing 
> entanglement is equal to the class RE of recursively enumerable languages.”

What does that mean? All universal machine is “equal" to the Class of all RE 
set. The main difference is that in the quantum case, the simulation can be 
done in (unbounded) polynomial time and space, where with classical machine 
some will need super-exponential time for some simulation.

The quantum universal machine does not compute more, nor less, than the Babbage 
Machine (already Turing universal, although never completed as such).

The class MIP should be better defined, I think. “multiple all-powerful quantum 
provers sharing entanglement” is a bit fuzzy too.

Bruno




> 
> MIP*=RE
> by Scott Aaronson 
> January 14th, 2020
> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512 
> <https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512>
> 
> ref: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383>
> 
> Verifying proofs to very hard math problems is possible with infinite quantum 
> entanglement
> by Tom Siegfried
> February 17, 2020
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics
>  
> <https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics>
> 
> A quantum strategy could verify the solutions to unsolvable problems — in 
> theory
> by Emily Conover
> January 24, 2020
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory
>  
> <https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory>
> 
> 
> @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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81b5965b-caf5-4bfe-afe7-1ec3d7e304d9%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81b5965b-caf5-4bfe-afe7-1ec3d7e304d9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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/9152D2AF-7322-4505-B213-C200127F8F9A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

[Philip Thrift]

Purely theoretically, not surprising that quantum computing - computing 
with qubits ( geometry of qubits: 
http://home.lu.lv/~sd20008/papers/essays/Geometry%20[paper].pdf ) - should 
be RE-language capable.

But of course theory may not end up in reality - of actually making a 
quantum computer that works according to the theory.

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:55:00 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The preprint at 165 pages is a bit much to tackle right away. This does 
> though indicate that quantum computing can work a subset of recursively 
> enumerable languages 
>
> LC
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers
>>
>> "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a 
>> classical verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers 
>> sharing entanglement is equal to the class RE of recursively enumerable 
>> languages."
>>
>> MIP*=RE
>> by Scott Aaronson 
>> January 14th, 2020
>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512
>>
>> ref: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383
>>
>> Verifying proofs to very hard math problems is possible with infinite 
>> quantum entanglement
>> by Tom Siegfried
>> February 17, 2020
>>
>> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics
>>
>> A quantum strategy could verify the solutions to unsolvable problems — in 
>> theory
>> by Emily Conover
>> January 24, 2020
>>
>> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory
>>
>>
>> @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/5e27b503-b8de-4d53-984d-c9e4bf7850e4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

[Lawrence Crowell]

The preprint at 165 pages is a bit much to tackle right away. This does 
though indicate that quantum computing can work a subset of recursively 
enumerable languages 

LC

On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers
>
> "We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a 
> classical verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers 
> sharing entanglement is equal to the class RE of recursively enumerable 
> languages."
>
> MIP*=RE
> by Scott Aaronson 
> January 14th, 2020
> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512
>
> ref: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383
>
> Verifying proofs to very hard math problems is possible with infinite 
> quantum entanglement
> by Tom Siegfried
> February 17, 2020
>
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics
>
> A quantum strategy could verify the solutions to unsolvable problems — in 
> theory
> by Emily Conover
> January 24, 2020
>
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory
>
>
> @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/81b5965b-caf5-4bfe-afe7-1ec3d7e304d9%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

[Philip Thrift]

Quantum computing, entanglement, and theorem provers

"We show that the class MIP* of languages that can be decided by a 
classical verifier interacting with multiple all-powerful quantum provers 
sharing entanglement is equal to the class RE of recursively enumerable 
languages."

MIP*=RE
by Scott Aaronson 
January 14th, 2020
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512

ref: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383

Verifying proofs to very hard math problems is possible with infinite 
quantum entanglement
by Tom Siegfried
February 17, 2020
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-quantum-technique-highlights-math-mysterious-link-physics

A quantum strategy could verify the solutions to unsolvable problems — in 
theory
by Emily Conover
January 24, 2020
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-strategy-could-verify-solutions-unsolvable-problems-theory


@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/7ff809f4-9f17-416d-8eb2-d27283ac%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computing News

[Philip Thrift]

GPUs are used to execute computational physics programs, for example (and 
deep-net learning programs, of course).

@philipthrift



@philipthrift

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 6:33:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> No need to wait for the future, almost all computers now have a GPU to 
> handle the screen graphics which is as powerful as the CPU and optimized to 
> be faster for some operations.
>
> Brent
>
> On 10/2/2019 9:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> It is hard to judge. I tend to suspect future computers may have an array 
> of processors. A computer might have several types of processors, One might 
> be a qubit processor, another a neural network on a hardware level, another 
> a spin-tronic processor and at the core will probably be a classical 
> von-Neumann processor. 
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8db3b8f5-e5d6-4714-9804-308a064739f2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computing News

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

No need to wait for the future, almost all computers now have a GPU to 
handle the screen graphics which is as powerful as the CPU and optimized 
to be faster for some operations.


Brent

On 10/2/2019 9:46 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
It is hard to judge. I tend to suspect future computers may have an 
array of processors. A computer might have several types of 
processors, One might be a qubit processor, another a neural network 
on a hardware level, another a spin-tronic processor and at the core 
will probably be a classical von-Neumann processor.


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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4935472c-41b9-f7e1-f9ec-598000e256e5%40verizon.net.

Re: Quantum Computing News

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

That is very,...adaptable. My focus as a user of QC or photon, or bio-protein 
computing, would be the capability (perhaps imaginary), for accelerating 
technical progress. Otherwise, it's a well-funded hobby. Yes yes to encryption 
breaking of course. Maybe that is what it will ever be, just a high speed code 
breaker? 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2019 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing News

It is hard to judge. I tend to suspect future computers may have an array of 
processors. A computer might have several types of processors, One might be a 
qubit processor, another a neural network on a hardware level, another a 
spin-tronic processor and at the core will probably be a classical von-Neumann 
processor.
LC

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:26:33 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
So quantum supremacy has been attained and QC will spank regular computing like 
a red headed step child. 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Sep 30, 2019 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing News

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 4:09:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
For the first time a fully controllable ten-qubit spin register with a quantum 
memory of 75 seconds has been developed. And they managed to achieve this 
without using any error correcting at all which the researchers believe is the 
next step; they conclude their article in the September 11 2019 Physical review 
with:
"our multiqubit register paves the way for the realization of rudimentary 
few-node quantum networks comprising tens of qubits. This will enable the 
investigation of basic error correction codes and algorithms over quantum 
networks".
A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory Over One Minute

John K Clark

If they can sustain a qubit for one minute they must have a fairly robust 
quantum error correction code.
LC
 https://arxiv.org/abs/1905. 02094

A 10-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute
C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. 
Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, T. H. Taminiau(Submitted on 6 May 2019 
(v1), last revised 9 May 2019 (this version, v2))
Spins associated to single defects in solids provide promising qubits for 
quantum information processing and quantum networks. Recent experiments have 
demonstrated long coherence times, high-fidelity operations and long-range 
entanglement. However, control has so far been limited to a few qubits, with 
entangled states of three spins demonstrated. Realizing larger multi-qubit 
registers is challenging due to the need for quantum gates that avoid crosstalk 
and protect the coherence of the complete register. In this paper, we present 
novel decoherence-protected gates that combine dynamical decoupling of an 
electron spin with selective phase-controlled driving of nuclear spins. We use 
these gates to realize a 10-qubit quantum register consisting of the electron 
spin of a nitrogen-vacancy center and 9 nuclear spins in diamond. We show that 
the register is fully connected by generating entanglement between all 45 
possible qubit pairs, and realize genuine multipartite entangled states with up 
to 7 qubits. Finally, we investigate the register as a multi-qubit memory. We 
show coherence times up to 63(2) seconds - the longest reported for a single 
solid-state qubit - and demonstrate that two-qubit entangled states can be 
stored for over 10 seconds. Our results enable the control of large quantum 
registers with long coherence times and therefore open the door to advanced 
quantum algorithms and quantum networks with solid-state spin qubits.

| Subjects: | Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics 
(cond-mat.mes-hall) |
| Journal reference: | Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019) |
|  DOI : | 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031045 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:1905.02094 [quant-ph] |
|   | (or arXiv:1905.02094v2 [quant- ph] for this version) |

-- 
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/ 700eb606-a3dd-484f-98cc- 372f27a6f0bf%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30ca0062-e374-4c66-8dfb-2b7a9df6f83a%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 i

Re: Quantum Computing News

[Lawrence Crowell]

It is hard to judge. I tend to suspect future computers may have an array 
of processors. A computer might have several types of processors, One might 
be a qubit processor, another a neural network on a hardware level, another 
a spin-tronic processor and at the core will probably be a classical 
von-Neumann processor.

LC

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:26:33 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> So quantum supremacy has been attained and QC will spank regular computing 
> like a red headed step child. 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Mon, Sep 30, 2019 7:10 pm
> Subject: Re: Quantum Computing News
>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 4:09:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> For the first time a fully controllable ten-qubit spin register with a 
> quantum memory of 75 seconds has been developed. And they managed to 
> achieve this without using any error correcting at all which the 
> researchers believe is the next step; they conclude their article in the 
> September 11 2019 Physical review with:
> "*our multiqubit register paves the way for the realization of 
> rudimentary few-node quantum networks comprising tens of qubits. This will 
> enable the investigation of basic error correction codes and algorithms 
> over quantum networks*". 
>
> A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory Over One Minute 
> <https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031045>
>
> John K Clark
>
>
> If they can sustain a qubit for one minute they must have a fairly robust 
> quantum error correction code.
>
> LC
>
>  https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02094
>
> A 10-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute 
> C. E. Bradley 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Bradley%2C+C+E>
> , J. Randall 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Randall%2C+J>, M. 
> H. Abobeih 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Abobeih%2C+M+H>
> , R. C. Berrevoets 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Berrevoets%2C+R+C>
> , M. J. Degen 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Degen%2C+M+J>, M. 
> A. Bakker 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Bakker%2C+M+A>
> , M. Markham 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Markham%2C+M>, D. 
> J. Twitchen 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Twitchen%2C+D+J>
> , T. H. Taminiau 
> <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Taminiau%2C+T+H>
> (Submitted on 6 May 2019 (v1 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02094v1>), last 
> revised 9 May 2019 (this version, v2))
>
> Spins associated to single defects in solids provide promising qubits for 
> quantum information processing and quantum networks. Recent experiments 
> have demonstrated long coherence times, high-fidelity operations and 
> long-range entanglement. However, control has so far been limited to a few 
> qubits, with entangled states of three spins demonstrated. Realizing larger 
> multi-qubit registers is challenging due to the need for quantum gates that 
> avoid crosstalk and protect the coherence of the complete register. In this 
> paper, we present novel decoherence-protected gates that combine dynamical 
> decoupling of an electron spin with selective phase-controlled driving of 
> nuclear spins. We use these gates to realize a 10-qubit quantum register 
> consisting of the electron spin of a nitrogen-vacancy center and 9 nuclear 
> spins in diamond. We show that the register is fully connected by 
> generating entanglement between all 45 possible qubit pairs, and realize 
> genuine multipartite entangled states with up to 7 qubits. Finally, we 
> investigate the register as a multi-qubit memory. We show coherence times 
> up to 63(2) seconds - the longest reported for a single solid-state qubit - 
> and demonstrate that two-qubit entangled states can be stored for over 10 
> seconds. Our results enable the control of large quantum registers with 
> long coherence times and therefore open the door to advanced quantum 
> algorithms and quantum networks with solid-state spin qubits.
>
> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics 
> (cond-mat.mes-hall)
> Journal reference: Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019)
> DOI : 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031045 
> <https://arxiv.org/ct?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1103%2FPhysRevX.9.031045&v=785c2928>
> Cite as: arXiv:1905.02094 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02094> [quant-ph]
>   (or arXiv:1905.02094v2 <https://arxi

Re: Quantum Computing News

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:10 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If they can sustain a qubit for one minute they must have a fairly robust
> quantum error correction code.
>

Not necessarily. Take a look at this article from 2013, it only involved
single isolated Qubits not 10 interlocking ones as in the more recent work
but "*the coherence time of the qubits was extended to 3 hours at cryogenic
temperatures and 39 minutes at room temperature*":

Room-Temperature Quantum Bit Storage Exceeding 39 Minutes Using Ionized
Donors in Silicon-28 

John K Clark





A 10-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute
> C. E. Bradley
> 
> , J. Randall
> , M.
> H. Abobeih
> 
> , R. C. Berrevoets
> 
> , M. J. Degen
> , M.
> A. Bakker
> 
> , M. Markham
> , D.
> J. Twitchen
> 
> , T. H. Taminiau
> 
> (Submitted on 6 May 2019 (v1 ), last
> revised 9 May 2019 (this version, v2))
>
> Spins associated to single defects in solids provide promising qubits for
> quantum information processing and quantum networks. Recent experiments
> have demonstrated long coherence times, high-fidelity operations and
> long-range entanglement. However, control has so far been limited to a few
> qubits, with entangled states of three spins demonstrated. Realizing larger
> multi-qubit registers is challenging due to the need for quantum gates that
> avoid crosstalk and protect the coherence of the complete register. In this
> paper, we present novel decoherence-protected gates that combine dynamical
> decoupling of an electron spin with selective phase-controlled driving of
> nuclear spins. We use these gates to realize a 10-qubit quantum register
> consisting of the electron spin of a nitrogen-vacancy center and 9 nuclear
> spins in diamond. We show that the register is fully connected by
> generating entanglement between all 45 possible qubit pairs, and realize
> genuine multipartite entangled states with up to 7 qubits. Finally, we
> investigate the register as a multi-qubit memory. We show coherence times
> up to 63(2) seconds - the longest reported for a single solid-state qubit -
> and demonstrate that two-qubit entangled states can be stored for over 10
> seconds. Our results enable the control of large quantum registers with
> long coherence times and therefore open the door to advanced quantum
> algorithms and quantum networks with solid-state spin qubits.
>
> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics
> (cond-mat.mes-hall)
> Journal reference: Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019)
> DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031045
> 
> Cite as: arXiv:1905.02094  [quant-ph]
>   (or arXiv:1905.02094v2  [quant-ph] for
> this version)
>
> --
> 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/700eb606-a3dd-484f-98cc-372f27a6f0bf%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3PagJcbMYPVT-44QKFPgpXybozZ-O6Zwfq5Rx3VLN9vw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Computing News

[Philip Thrift]

Chris Monroe [http://iontrap.umd.edu ]: "You 
can either have really clean qubits that are hard to build but you don't 
need too many of them, or you can have crappy qubits and you need a 
gazillion of them."

https://www.afr.com/technology/why-google-wasn-t-really-the-first-to-achieve-quantum-supremacy-20190927-p52vg6

@philipthrift

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 4:09:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> For the first time a fully controllable ten-qubit spin register with a 
> quantum memory of 75 seconds has been developed. And they managed to 
> achieve this without using any error correcting at all which the 
> researchers believe is the next step; they conclude their article in the 
> September 11 2019 Physical review with:
> "*our multiqubit register paves the way for the realization of 
> rudimentary few-node quantum networks comprising tens of qubits. This will 
> enable the investigation of basic error correction codes and algorithms 
> over quantum networks*".
>
> A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory Over One Minute 
> 
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/48b0a701-48b2-480d-b4af-ca10bbc1c8d7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computing News

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

So quantum supremacy has been attained and QC will spank regular computing like 
a red headed step child. 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Sep 30, 2019 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: Quantum Computing News

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 4:09:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
For the first time a fully controllable ten-qubit spin register with a quantum 
memory of 75 seconds has been developed. And they managed to achieve this 
without using any error correcting at all which the researchers believe is the 
next step; they conclude their article in the September 11 2019 Physical review 
with:
"our multiqubit register paves the way for the realization of rudimentary 
few-node quantum networks comprising tens of qubits. This will enable the 
investigation of basic error correction codes and algorithms over quantum 
networks".
A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory Over One Minute

John K Clark

If they can sustain a qubit for one minute they must have a fairly robust 
quantum error correction code.
LC
 https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02094

A 10-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute
C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. 
Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, T. H. Taminiau(Submitted on 6 May 2019 
(v1), last revised 9 May 2019 (this version, v2))
Spins associated to single defects in solids provide promising qubits for 
quantum information processing and quantum networks. Recent experiments have 
demonstrated long coherence times, high-fidelity operations and long-range 
entanglement. However, control has so far been limited to a few qubits, with 
entangled states of three spins demonstrated. Realizing larger multi-qubit 
registers is challenging due to the need for quantum gates that avoid crosstalk 
and protect the coherence of the complete register. In this paper, we present 
novel decoherence-protected gates that combine dynamical decoupling of an 
electron spin with selective phase-controlled driving of nuclear spins. We use 
these gates to realize a 10-qubit quantum register consisting of the electron 
spin of a nitrogen-vacancy center and 9 nuclear spins in diamond. We show that 
the register is fully connected by generating entanglement between all 45 
possible qubit pairs, and realize genuine multipartite entangled states with up 
to 7 qubits. Finally, we investigate the register as a multi-qubit memory. We 
show coherence times up to 63(2) seconds - the longest reported for a single 
solid-state qubit - and demonstrate that two-qubit entangled states can be 
stored for over 10 seconds. Our results enable the control of large quantum 
registers with long coherence times and therefore open the door to advanced 
quantum algorithms and quantum networks with solid-state spin qubits.

| Subjects: | Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics 
(cond-mat.mes-hall) |
| Journal reference: | Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019) |
|  DOI : | 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031045 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:1905.02094 [quant-ph] |
|   | (or arXiv:1905.02094v2 [quant-ph] for this version) |

-- 
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/700eb606-a3dd-484f-98cc-372f27a6f0bf%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/471141188.1512593.1569893187086%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Quantum Computing News

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 4:09:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> For the first time a fully controllable ten-qubit spin register with a 
> quantum memory of 75 seconds has been developed. And they managed to 
> achieve this without using any error correcting at all which the 
> researchers believe is the next step; they conclude their article in the 
> September 11 2019 Physical review with:
> "*our multiqubit register paves the way for the realization of 
> rudimentary few-node quantum networks comprising tens of qubits. This will 
> enable the investigation of basic error correction codes and algorithms 
> over quantum networks*".
>
> A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory Over One Minute 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

If they can sustain a qubit for one minute they must have a fairly robust 
quantum error correction code.

LC

 https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02094

A 10-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute
C. E. Bradley 
, J. 
Randall 
, M. 
H. Abobeih 
, R. 
C. Berrevoets 

, M. J. Degen 
, M. 
A. Bakker 
, M. 
Markham 
, D. 
J. Twitchen 

, T. H. Taminiau 

(Submitted on 6 May 2019 (v1 ), last 
revised 9 May 2019 (this version, v2))

Spins associated to single defects in solids provide promising qubits for 
quantum information processing and quantum networks. Recent experiments 
have demonstrated long coherence times, high-fidelity operations and 
long-range entanglement. However, control has so far been limited to a few 
qubits, with entangled states of three spins demonstrated. Realizing larger 
multi-qubit registers is challenging due to the need for quantum gates that 
avoid crosstalk and protect the coherence of the complete register. In this 
paper, we present novel decoherence-protected gates that combine dynamical 
decoupling of an electron spin with selective phase-controlled driving of 
nuclear spins. We use these gates to realize a 10-qubit quantum register 
consisting of the electron spin of a nitrogen-vacancy center and 9 nuclear 
spins in diamond. We show that the register is fully connected by 
generating entanglement between all 45 possible qubit pairs, and realize 
genuine multipartite entangled states with up to 7 qubits. Finally, we 
investigate the register as a multi-qubit memory. We show coherence times 
up to 63(2) seconds - the longest reported for a single solid-state qubit - 
and demonstrate that two-qubit entangled states can be stored for over 10 
seconds. Our results enable the control of large quantum registers with 
long coherence times and therefore open the door to advanced quantum 
algorithms and quantum networks with solid-state spin qubits.

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics 
(cond-mat.mes-hall)
Journal reference: Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019)
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031045 

Cite as: arXiv:1905.02094  [quant-ph]
  (or arXiv:1905.02094v2  [quant-ph] for 
this version)

-- 
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/700eb606-a3dd-484f-98cc-372f27a6f0bf%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum Computing News

[John Clark]

For the first time a fully controllable ten-qubit spin register with a
quantum memory of 75 seconds has been developed. And they managed to
achieve this without using any error correcting at all which the
researchers believe is the next step; they conclude their article in the
September 11 2019 Physical review with:
"*our multiqubit register paves the way for the realization of rudimentary
few-node quantum networks comprising tens of qubits. This will enable the
investigation of basic error correction codes and algorithms over quantum
networks*".

A Ten-Qubit Solid-State Spin Register with Quantum Memory Over One Minute


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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv25411Zswcic75EHfUBqCm3wSHr_rw7z71cV2k7Enx5gg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

[Philip Thrift]

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 > 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.

Re: Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:06 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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

-- 
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/CAJPayv3ksbrm_9kS7RJmzMEdp6FPwXBWhiWrBmASMJnkmVtZsA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

[Lawrence Crowell]

I meant to say different authors, but for some reason I wrote the same. 
This looks like a material that has a lot of interest out there.

LC

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 8:04:25 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Here is a paper by the same authors that appears to address this physics. 
> It is not the science magazine article, but it covers the same material. It 
> is an experimental paper. As a topological superconductor that is defined 
> on edge states on the boundary it appears this is a 2-dimensional surface 
> and there is a mixture between anyonic statistics and fermionic Cooper 
> pairing of electrons with opposite momenta. This has some theoretical 
> implications. The authors talk of nonabelian stats, which I think refer to 
> anyons, and the nonabelian aspects may be with this quantum blurring of 
> anyonic and superconductive physics.
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.07396.pdf
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:56:22 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion a scalable quantum computer could bring about a 
>> singularity in human affairs as surely as Drexler's nanotechnology, and the 
>> most promising way of achieving this is through a fault tolerant 
>> topological quantum computer. In the current issue of the journal Science 
>> (August 16 2019) a revolutionary new type of superconductor has been 
>> discovered, uranium ditelluride (UTe2), that may turn out to have some 
>> considerable bearing on this. Nick Butch, from the National Institute of 
>> Standards and one of the authors of the paper says:
>>
>> *"This is potentially the silicon of the quantum information age. You 
>> could use uranium ditelluride to build the qubits of an efficient quantum 
>> computer."*
>>
>> ferromagnetic spin-triplet superconductivity 
>> <https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6454/684>
>>
>> Uranium Ditelluride is a very unusual superconductor for several reasons:
>>
>> 1) It is a topological superconductor, meaning that the interior is a 
>> insulator but the surface is a superconductor.
>> 2)  It can tolerate enormously strong magnetic fields, much higher than 
>> other superconductors.
>> 3) Most superconductors are spin singlet, this means that the spins in 
>> the electrons in the Cooper Pairs, which carry the electrical current in 
>> all superconductors, are lined up in a antiparallel direction; but Uranium 
>> Ditelluride is spin triplet, their electron spins are perpendicular.
>>
>> All this adds up to the surface of uranium ditelluride being the ideal 
>> stage set to produce logic gates made of Majorana pseudoparticles that 
>> obey non-Abelian statistics. And that means you could store quantum 
>> information topologically which would make it very resistant to quantum 
>> decoherence for the same reason you're unlikely to be able to untie a knot 
>> by just bumping it, you might change its shape but not its topological 
>> properties. And quantum decoherence is by far the most important 
>> obstacle we must overcome if we want to build a scalable quantum computer.
>>
>> And that is not the only new development in the last few weeks, Javad 
>> Shaban and his team found something similar in Indium arsenide (InAs) 
>> although you must get it much colder before it becomes superconducting, 
>> .007 Kelvin verses 1.6 Kelvin for Uranium ditelluride. 
>>
>> Phase signature of topological transition in Josephson Junctions 
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.01179.pdf>
>>
>> Dr. Shabani said:
>> *"We see value in these particles because of their potential to store 
>> quantum information in a special computation space where quantum 
>> information is protected from the environment noise. As a result, we have 
>> sought to engineer platforms on which these calculations could be 
>> conducted. The new discovery of topological superconductivity in a 
>> two-dimensional platform paves the way for building scalable topological 
>> qubits to not only store quantum information, but also to manipulate the 
>> quantum states that are free of error. These findings strongly supports the 
>> emergence of a topological phase in the system. This offers a scalable 
>> platform for detection and manipulation of Majorana bounds states for 
>> development of complex circuits for fault-tolerant topological quantum 
>> computing."*
>>
>> By the way, the leading company in all this is none other than Microsoft.
>>
>> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b4767c7-3bab-4d3d-9cc0-4b1a638c09c1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 8/21/2019 3:55 PM, John Clark wrote:
In my opinion a scalable quantum computer could bring about a 
singularity in human affairs as surely as Drexler's nanotechnology


It's been 32yrs and it's revolutionized cosmetics.

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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84a33173-73b3-6864-784a-16515ff8797f%40verizon.net.

Re: Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

[Lawrence Crowell]

Here is a paper by the same authors that appears to address this physics. 
It is not the science magazine article, but it covers the same material. It 
is an experimental paper. As a topological superconductor that is defined 
on edge states on the boundary it appears this is a 2-dimensional surface 
and there is a mixture between anyonic statistics and fermionic Cooper 
pairing of electrons with opposite momenta. This has some theoretical 
implications. The authors talk of nonabelian stats, which I think refer to 
anyons, and the nonabelian aspects may be with this quantum blurring of 
anyonic and superconductive physics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.07396.pdf

LC

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:56:22 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> In my opinion a scalable quantum computer could bring about a singularity 
> in human affairs as surely as Drexler's nanotechnology, and the most 
> promising way of achieving this is through a fault tolerant topological 
> quantum computer. In the current issue of the journal Science (August 16 
> 2019) a revolutionary new type of superconductor has been discovered, 
> uranium ditelluride (UTe2), that may turn out to have some considerable 
> bearing on this. Nick Butch, from the National Institute of Standards and 
> one of the authors of the paper says:
>
> *"This is potentially the silicon of the quantum information age. You 
> could use uranium ditelluride to build the qubits of an efficient quantum 
> computer."*
>
> ferromagnetic spin-triplet superconductivity 
> <https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6454/684>
>
> Uranium Ditelluride is a very unusual superconductor for several reasons:
>
> 1) It is a topological superconductor, meaning that the interior is a 
> insulator but the surface is a superconductor.
> 2)  It can tolerate enormously strong magnetic fields, much higher than 
> other superconductors.
> 3) Most superconductors are spin singlet, this means that the spins in the 
> electrons in the Cooper Pairs, which carry the electrical current in all 
> superconductors, are lined up in a antiparallel direction; but Uranium 
> Ditelluride is spin triplet, their electron spins are perpendicular.
>
> All this adds up to the surface of uranium ditelluride being the ideal 
> stage set to produce logic gates made of Majorana pseudoparticles that 
> obey non-Abelian statistics. And that means you could store quantum 
> information topologically which would make it very resistant to quantum 
> decoherence for the same reason you're unlikely to be able to untie a knot 
> by just bumping it, you might change its shape but not its topological 
> properties. And quantum decoherence is by far the most important 
> obstacle we must overcome if we want to build a scalable quantum computer.
>
> And that is not the only new development in the last few weeks, Javad 
> Shaban and his team found something similar in Indium arsenide (InAs) 
> although you must get it much colder before it becomes superconducting, 
> .007 Kelvin verses 1.6 Kelvin for Uranium ditelluride. 
>
> Phase signature of topological transition in Josephson Junctions 
> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.01179.pdf>
>
> Dr. Shabani said:
> *"We see value in these particles because of their potential to store 
> quantum information in a special computation space where quantum 
> information is protected from the environment noise. As a result, we have 
> sought to engineer platforms on which these calculations could be 
> conducted. The new discovery of topological superconductivity in a 
> two-dimensional platform paves the way for building scalable topological 
> qubits to not only store quantum information, but also to manipulate the 
> quantum states that are free of error. These findings strongly supports the 
> emergence of a topological phase in the system. This offers a scalable 
> platform for detection and manipulation of Majorana bounds states for 
> development of complex circuits for fault-tolerant topological quantum 
> computing."*
>
> By the way, the leading company in all this is none other than Microsoft.
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d366c8f-9222-4f3c-8cce-81ec23569ad0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Thoughts:Is this Uranium compound radioactive do you think? As in hazardous? 
Drexler's nanotech looks best used in medical microrobots, and not 
manufacturing-and that prize goes to 3D-bulk printing.I believe there has been 
problems in getting these entanglements in QC to successfully attain actual 
operations. Does this sound right?How many successful operations per sec will 
QC need to do, before it dramatically achieves 'supremacy?'How many successful 
operations per sec will it take to achieve a network that improves on, or 
creates, new inventions for humans?What I am attempting to do to is ascertain 
impact on society, how much, and when?  

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2019 6:56 pm
Subject: Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

In my opinion a scalable quantum computer could bring about a singularity in 
human affairs as surely as Drexler's nanotechnology, and the most promising way 
of achieving this is through a fault tolerant topological quantum computer. In 
the current issue of the journal Science (August 16 2019) a revolutionary new 
type of superconductor has been discovered, uranium ditelluride (UTe2), that 
may turn out to have some considerable bearing on this. Nick Butch, from the 
National Institute of Standards and one of the authors of the paper says:
"This is potentially the silicon of the quantum information age. You could use 
uranium ditelluride to build the qubits of an efficient quantum computer."
ferromagnetic spin-triplet superconductivity
Uranium Ditelluride is a very unusual superconductor for several reasons:
1) It is a topological superconductor, meaning that the interior is a insulator 
but the surface is a superconductor.
2)  It can tolerate enormously strong magnetic fields, much higher than other 
superconductors.
3) Most superconductors are spin singlet, this means that the spins in the 
electrons in the Cooper Pairs, which carry the electrical current in all 
superconductors, are lined up in a antiparallel direction; but Uranium 
Ditelluride is spin triplet, their electron spins are perpendicular.

All this adds up to the surface of uranium ditelluride being the ideal stage 
set to produce logic gates made of Majorana pseudoparticles that obey 
non-Abelian statistics. And that means you could store quantum information 
topologically which would make it very resistant to quantum decoherence for the 
same reason you're unlikely to be able to untie a knot by just bumping it, you 
might change its shape but not its topological properties. And quantum 
decoherence is by far the most important obstacle we must overcome if we want 
to build a scalable quantum computer.
And that is not the only new development in the last few weeks, Javad Shaban 
and his team found something similar in Indium arsenide (InAs) although you 
must get it much colder before it becomes superconducting, .007 Kelvin verses 
1.6 Kelvin for Uranium ditelluride. 
Phase signature of topological transition in Josephson Junctions

Dr. Shabani said:"We see value in these particles because of their potential to 
store quantum information in a special computation space where quantum 
information is protected from the environment noise. As a result, we have 
sought to engineer platforms on which these calculations could be conducted. 
The new discovery of topological superconductivity in a two-dimensional 
platform paves the way for building scalable topological qubits to not only 
store quantum information, but also to manipulate the quantum states that are 
free of error. These findings strongly supports the emergence of a topological 
phase in the system. This offers a scalable platform for detection and 
manipulation of Majorana bounds states for development of complex circuits for 
fault-tolerant topological quantum computing."
By the way, the leading company in all this is none other than Microsoft.
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21xusoDeKTf2thrg2L2Z%3DF%3DkfxEQTwTz%3DThA3Vtah%2BCQ%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/616439921.594582.1566432358378%40mail.yahoo.com.

Very recent developments in topological quantum computing ​

[John Clark]

In my opinion a scalable quantum computer could bring about a singularity
in human affairs as surely as Drexler's nanotechnology, and the most
promising way of achieving this is through a fault tolerant topological
quantum computer. In the current issue of the journal Science (August 16
2019) a revolutionary new type of superconductor has been discovered,
uranium ditelluride (UTe2), that may turn out to have some considerable
bearing on this. Nick Butch, from the National Institute of Standards and
one of the authors of the paper says:

*"This is potentially the silicon of the quantum information age. You could
use uranium ditelluride to build the qubits of an efficient quantum
computer."*

ferromagnetic spin-triplet superconductivity
<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6454/684>

Uranium Ditelluride is a very unusual superconductor for several reasons:

1) It is a topological superconductor, meaning that the interior is a
insulator but the surface is a superconductor.
2)  It can tolerate enormously strong magnetic fields, much higher than
other superconductors.
3) Most superconductors are spin singlet, this means that the spins in the
electrons in the Cooper Pairs, which carry the electrical current in all
superconductors, are lined up in a antiparallel direction; but Uranium
Ditelluride is spin triplet, their electron spins are perpendicular.

All this adds up to the surface of uranium ditelluride being the ideal
stage set to produce logic gates made of Majorana pseudoparticles that obey
non-Abelian statistics. And that means you could store quantum information
topologically which would make it very resistant to quantum decoherence for
the same reason you're unlikely to be able to untie a knot by just bumping
it, you might change its shape but not its topological properties. And quantum
decoherence is by far the most important obstacle we must overcome if we
want to build a scalable quantum computer.

And that is not the only new development in the last few weeks, Javad
Shaban and
his team found something similar in Indium arsenide (InAs) although you
must get it much colder before it becomes superconducting, .007 Kelvin
verses 1.6 Kelvin for Uranium ditelluride.

Phase signature of topological transition in Josephson Junctions
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.01179.pdf>

Dr. Shabani said:
*"We see value in these particles because of their potential to store
quantum information in a special computation space where quantum
information is protected from the environment noise. As a result, we have
sought to engineer platforms on which these calculations could be
conducted. The new discovery of topological superconductivity in a
two-dimensional platform paves the way for building scalable topological
qubits to not only store quantum information, but also to manipulate the
quantum states that are free of error. These findings strongly supports the
emergence of a topological phase in the system. This offers a scalable
platform for detection and manipulation of Majorana bounds states for
development of complex circuits for fault-tolerant topological quantum
computing."*

By the way, the leading company in all this is none other than Microsoft.

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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21xusoDeKTf2thrg2L2Z%3DF%3DkfxEQTwTz%3DThA3Vtah%2BCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Parallel "paths" in quantum computing

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 9:19:57 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/7/2019 2:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:59:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/7/2019 11:15 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> If a multiplicity of somethings isn't present in a quantum computer, then 
>> how does the speedup occur?
>>
>>
>> By not decohering at every bit flip and keeping the single state rotating.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then how does an answer come out?
>
>
> By decoherence at the end.
>
>
> Brent
>
>

Well, sure. But there is still a multiplicity of somethings. 

Histories.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39d9/11e25b835ce8d34910c0a9e02f22ef8d4c41.pdf
 :

*In QMT a system is defined by a triple (Ω, A, D) where Ω is the set of*
*histories, A is the event algebra and D is the decoherence functional. An 
event is a set of histories and the event algebra is the set of all events 
to which the theory assigns a measure. The event algebra is, then, a subset 
of the power set of Ω. *

*The decoherence functional is a function with two arguments D : A × A → C 
such that*
*• D(A, B) = D(B, A)*
*∗ ∀ A, B ∈ A ;*
*• For any finite collection of events A1, . . . , Am ∈ A, the m × m matrix*
*Mab := D(Aa, Ab) is positive semi-definite ;*
*• D(Ω, Ω) = 1 ;*
*• D(A ∪ B, C) = D(A, C) + D(B, C) ∀ A, B, C ∈ A such that A ∩ B = ∅ .*
*The quantum measure, µ(E), of an event E ∈ A is given by the diagonal of 
the decoherence functional D:*
*µ(E) := D(E, E).*

 
@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/ee3f2667-c56d-40ad-b2e7-8fa31b57f596%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel "paths" in quantum computing

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 8/7/2019 2:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:59:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 8/7/2019 11:15 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 1:03:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 8/6/2019 11:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 1:00:23 PM UTC-5, Brent
wrote:



On 8/6/2019 6:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If the QC does its task effectively, the output
basis qbits will be put into definite states,


Relatively to the observer, but in the global
state, the observer will inherit the superposition
state, by linearity of the tensor products and of
the evolution.


In something like Shor's algorithm there is only
one final state with non-vanishing probability. 
Yet this is the kind of algorithm that Deutsch
cites as proving there must be many worlds.

Brent




That there is a multiplicity of /somethings/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories>

is the basis for all semantics of quantum computing (by
computer scientists) that I have ever seen.


Same for classical computation...there are lots of
states or functions.  Did anyone think there had to be
multiple worlds for the computer to work?

Brent




There is classical parallel hardware, e.g. made with
multiple processors.

Parallelism in quantum computers is achieved by parallel
"worlds" or "paths":

Quantum Path Computing
- https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735

<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1709.00735&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFru47zPN3LturOmKgNuixbWCjlHg>

Quantum circuit dynamics via path integrals: Is there a
classical action for discrete-time paths?
-
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aa61ba
<https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aa61ba>


But as you note with scare quotes, calling those "worlds" or 
"paths" is just metaphorical.  They are not worlds you can
visit or paths you can take. They are aspects of mathematical
abstractions.

Brent



A “problem of time” in the multiplicative scheme for the
n-site hopper
Fay Dowker, Vojtˇech Havlicek, Cyprian Lewandowski, and
Henry Wilkes
-

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39d9/11e25b835ce8d34910c0a9e02f22ef8d4c41.pdf

<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39d9/11e25b835ce8d34910c0a9e02f22ef8d4c41.pdf>
"Quantum Measure Theory (QMT*) is an approach to quantum
mechanics,
based on the path integral, in which quantum theory is
conceived of as a generalized stochastic process."
*

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfda/1caa5afbbd9e2d6dcff5456325b60b64b909.pdf

<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfda/1caa5afbbd9e2d6dcff5456325b60b64b909.pdf>

The sum-over-histories formulation of quantum computing
- https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607151
<https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607151>

@philipthrift






If a multiplicity of somethings isn't present in a quantum
computer, then how does the speedup occur?


By not decohering at every bit flip and keeping the single state
rotating.

Brent






Then how does an answer come out?


By decoherence at the end.




Like in the solution  here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735

QPC solves specific instances of simultaneous Diophantine 
approximation problem (NP-hard) as an important application.


QPC does not explicitly require exponential complexity of resources by 
combining tensor product space of path histories inherently existing 
in the physical set-up and path integrals naturally including histories.


Interesting, but looks more aspirational than proven.  It reminds me of 
attempts to solve NP-hard problems using some analog schemes.


Brent



more here: https://faculty.ozyegin.edu.tr/burhangulbahar/publications/

@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 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa7c599

Re: Parallel "paths" in quantum computing

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 4:56:51 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Then how does an answer come out?
>
>
By LOCC = local operation and classical communication Largely this is a 
Hadamard gate for selection and a classical signal on the ancillary states.

LC
 

>
> Like in the solution  here:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735
>
> QPC solves specific instances of simultaneous Diophantine approximation 
> problem (NP-hard) as an important application. 
>
> QPC does not explicitly require exponential complexity of resources by 
> combining tensor product space of path histories inherently existing in the 
> physical set-up and path integrals naturally including histories. 
>
> more here: https://faculty.ozyegin.edu.tr/burhangulbahar/publications/
>
> @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/80befa3a-33b1-4605-b40a-3da517595ef0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel "paths" in quantum computing

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:59:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/7/2019 11:15 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 1:03:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/6/2019 11:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 1:00:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/6/2019 6:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the QC does its task effectively, the output basis qbits will be put 
>>>> into definite states,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Relatively to the observer, but in the global state, the observer will 
>>>> inherit the superposition state, by linearity of the tensor products and 
>>>> of 
>>>> the evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In something like Shor's algorithm there is only one final state with 
>>>> non-vanishing probability.  Yet this is the kind of algorithm that Deutsch 
>>>> cites as proving there must be many worlds.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That there is a multiplicity of *somethings*  
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories
>>>
>>> is the basis for all semantics of quantum computing (by computer 
>>> scientists) that I have ever seen.
>>>
>>>
>>> Same for classical computation...there are lots of states or functions.  
>>> Did anyone think there had to be multiple worlds for the computer to work?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is classical parallel hardware, e.g. made with multiple processors.
>>
>> Parallelism in quantum computers is achieved by parallel "worlds" or 
>> "paths":
>>
>> Quantum Path Computing
>> - https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735 
>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1709.00735&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFru47zPN3LturOmKgNuixbWCjlHg>
>>
>> Quantum circuit dynamics via path integrals: Is there a classical action 
>> for discrete-time paths?
>> - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aa61ba
>>
>>
>> But as you note with scare quotes, calling those "worlds" or  "paths" is 
>> just metaphorical.  They are not worlds you can visit or paths you can 
>> take.  They are aspects of mathematical abstractions.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> A “problem of time” in the multiplicative scheme for the n-site hopper
>> Fay Dowker, Vojtˇech Havlicek, Cyprian Lewandowski, and
>> Henry Wilkes
>> - 
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39d9/11e25b835ce8d34910c0a9e02f22ef8d4c41.pdf
>> "Quantum Measure Theory (QMT*) is an approach to quantum mechanics,
>> based on the path integral, in which quantum theory is conceived of as a 
>> generalized stochastic process." 
>> * 
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfda/1caa5afbbd9e2d6dcff5456325b60b64b909.pdf
>>
>> The sum-over-histories formulation of quantum computing
>> - https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607151
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>
>
>
> If a multiplicity of somethings isn't present in a quantum computer, then 
> how does the speedup occur?
>
>
> By not decohering at every bit flip and keeping the single state rotating.
>
> Brent
>





Then how does an answer come out?


Like in the solution  here:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735

QPC solves specific instances of simultaneous Diophantine approximation 
problem (NP-hard) as an important application. 

QPC does not explicitly require exponential complexity of resources by 
combining tensor product space of path histories inherently existing in the 
physical set-up and path integrals naturally including histories. 

more here: https://faculty.ozyegin.edu.tr/burhangulbahar/publications/

@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/fa7c599b-01d6-43d0-9bb7-9690eff937b1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel "paths" in quantum computing

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 8/7/2019 11:15 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 1:03:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 8/6/2019 11:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 1:00:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 8/6/2019 6:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If the QC does its task effectively, the output basis
qbits will be put into definite states,


Relatively to the observer, but in the global state,
the observer will inherit the superposition state, by
linearity of the tensor products and of the evolution.


In something like Shor's algorithm there is only one
final state with non-vanishing probability.  Yet this is
the kind of algorithm that Deutsch cites as proving
there must be many worlds.

Brent




That there is a multiplicity of /somethings/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories>

is the basis for all semantics of quantum computing (by
computer scientists) that I have ever seen.


Same for classical computation...there are lots of states or
functions.  Did anyone think there had to be multiple worlds
for the computer to work?

Brent




There is classical parallel hardware, e.g. made with multiple
processors.

Parallelism in quantum computers is achieved by parallel "worlds"
or "paths":

Quantum Path Computing
- https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735>

Quantum circuit dynamics via path integrals: Is there a classical
action for discrete-time paths?
- https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aa61ba
<https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aa61ba>


But as you note with scare quotes, calling those "worlds" or 
"paths" is just metaphorical.  They are not worlds you can visit
or paths you can take.  They are aspects of mathematical abstractions.

Brent



A “problem of time” in the multiplicative scheme for the n-site
hopper
Fay Dowker, Vojtˇech Havlicek, Cyprian Lewandowski, and
Henry Wilkes
-

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39d9/11e25b835ce8d34910c0a9e02f22ef8d4c41.pdf

<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39d9/11e25b835ce8d34910c0a9e02f22ef8d4c41.pdf>
"Quantum Measure Theory (QMT*) is an approach to quantum mechanics,
based on the path integral, in which quantum theory is conceived
of as a generalized stochastic process."
*

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfda/1caa5afbbd9e2d6dcff5456325b60b64b909.pdf

<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfda/1caa5afbbd9e2d6dcff5456325b60b64b909.pdf>

The sum-over-histories formulation of quantum computing
- https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607151
<https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607151>

@philipthrift






If a multiplicity of somethings isn't present in a quantum computer, 
then how does the speedup occur?


By not decohering at every bit flip and keeping the single state rotating.

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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e886399-3e62-575e-da96-7c77f4a0121e%40verizon.net.

Re: Parallel "paths" in quantum computing

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 1:03:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:29:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/2019 11:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 1:00:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/6/2019 6:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> If the QC does its task effectively, the output basis qbits will be put 
>>> into definite states,
>>>
>>>
>>> Relatively to the observer, but in the global state, the observer will 
>>> inherit the superposition state, by linearity of the tensor products and of 
>>> the evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> In something like Shor's algorithm there is only one final state with 
>>> non-vanishing probability.  Yet this is the kind of algorithm that Deutsch 
>>> cites as proving there must be many worlds.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That there is a multiplicity of *somethings*  
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories
>>
>> is the basis for all semantics of quantum computing (by computer 
>> scientists) that I have ever seen.
>>
>>
>> Same for classical computation...there are lots of states or functions.  
>> Did anyone think there had to be multiple worlds for the computer to work?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> There is classical parallel hardware, e.g. made with multiple processors.
>
> Parallelism in quantum computers is achieved by parallel "worlds" or 
> "paths":
>
> Quantum Path Computing
> - https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00735
>
> Quantum circuit dynamics via path integrals: Is there a classical action 
> for discrete-time paths?
> - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aa61ba
>
>
> But as you note with scare quotes, calling those "worlds" or  "paths" is 
> just metaphorical.  They are not worlds you can visit or paths you can 
> take.  They are aspects of mathematical abstractions.
>
> Brent
>
>
> A “problem of time” in the multiplicative scheme for the n-site hopper
> Fay Dowker, Vojtˇech Havlicek, Cyprian Lewandowski, and
> Henry Wilkes
> - 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39d9/11e25b835ce8d34910c0a9e02f22ef8d4c41.pdf
> "Quantum Measure Theory (QMT*) is an approach to quantum mechanics,
> based on the path integral, in which quantum theory is conceived of as a 
> generalized stochastic process." 
> * 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfda/1caa5afbbd9e2d6dcff5456325b60b64b909.pdf
>
> The sum-over-histories formulation of quantum computing
> - https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607151
>
> @philipthrift
>
>



If a multiplicity of somethings isn't present in a quantum computer, then 
how does the speedup occur?

 @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/d683b679-e81b-40cb-828e-cd950d687de9%40googlegroups.com.