Quantum Computing

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Wait, so computers are female now, like on Star Trek.



When do we get the hot looking green aliens?

Mind their tears!

[flipper35]

Isn't that what powers the improbability drive?

[mjohnson]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

BB84 is a quantum key distribution scheme developed by Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard in 1984. It is the first quantum cryptography protocol. The protocol is provably secure, relying on the quantum property that information gain is only possible at the expense of disturbing the signal if the two states one is trying to distinguish are not orthogonal (see no-cloning theorem) and an authenticated public classical channel. It is usually explained as a method of securely communicating a private key from one party to another for use in one-time pad encryption.

OH I see...

It still seems like that only uses quantum-info as a tamper-indicating device. It doesn't stop someone from hacking it - it's just impossible to cover up the hack. Maybe that's how it's useful for distributing OTKs? So that both sides know that nobody's peeked?

Computing is a whole nuther thing. We have one at work and it seems like they're still working on what to do with it. Like they have to invent completely new mathematics and programming concepts. It _sounds_ cool though with all of the clacking and pumping of the massive kit of cryo gear that keeps it alive.

[charlesbahn]

BB84 is like the first flight at kittyhawk. QM has been around (theoretically) since the big E - 1930's; BB84 was the first use of QM for a practical application. That was in 1984 (it is not cheap or easy, but if you don't think it is being used today by those that really need and can afford to do it- ie. Uncle S, think again)

Advances in QM are not coming quickly, but it will be worth the wait. If you want a steady job in the future, start studying QM. It isn't that difficult, it is just extremely "unfamiliar." The math of E's theory of relativity (differential geometry) is much more difficult than the math of QM.

Shut up and calculate!

Charles

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by charlesbahn

Will also render all current computer password algorithms useless since it can test every possibility at one time

Hmm, doesn't current secure tech put in rate limits?

[charlesbahn]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

Hmm, doesn't current secure tech put in rate limits?

One reason QM is the "holy grail" is that no traditional password system will be secure. A QC tests all possibilities instantaneously. Only a quantum key will be secure (any attempt to "measure" the QK will render it useless.

Charles

[charlesbahn]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

The only thing more fascinating and mysterious than quantum computers are biological ones. And they’ve been around a long time.

Actually, I suspect that the basics of neurotransmission will turn out to be quantum events, which are a basis of nature since (probably) before the Big Bang.

Charles

[Aurel]

With QM, I am assuming bitcoins will be worthless since computers will have the power to mine them instantly...but ssh, BTC is going up right now.

[charlesbahn]

Originally Posted by Aurel

With QM, I am assuming bitcoins will be worthless since computers will have the power to mine them instantly...but ssh, BTC is going up right now.

Yes, but you have at least a few years......probably.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

Mind their tears!

Well out on the hot-crazy chart...

[charlesbahn]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

So, like, instead of like filling up a barrel by throwing in one BB at a time, QC is, like, throwing all of 'em in at once?

Yes, good analogy, but it begs the quantum question, which barrel?

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Isn't that what powers the improbability drive?

NO, that is a really hot cup of tea

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Well out on the hot-crazy chart...

She's not green. She's French-Vietnamese

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by red-beard

She's not green. She's French-Vietnamese

...and scares me !

I've been out of the game for a while, but many times things like QC are "theoretical".... they don't apply to the "real world" of computers imo. For three decades I had almost total access to the fastest processors and 'plexes commercially available..."the keys to the kingdom" so to speak. MIPS (Millions Instructions Per Second) can be deceiving to many that don't understand. Sometimes faster is slower when it comes to applying the latest and greatest....it just depends . But I never worked with Crays either....so who knows...dyadic, quadratic, quantumatic

I wuz a geek...

T-Rex...

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Well out on the hot-crazy chart...

these are the ones, but not the original