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