Interesting observation about the maximum lifetime of a bubble:
> I believe that, appearances to the contrary, the quantum computing fervor is nearing its end. That's because a few decades is the maximum lifetime of any big bubble in technology or science. After a certain period, too many unfulfilled promises have been made, and anyone who has been following the topic starts to get annoyed by further announcements of impending breakthroughs. What's more, by that time all the tenured faculty positions in the field are already occupied. The proponents have grown older and less zealous, while the younger generation seeks something completely new and more likely to succeed.
> In quantum computing, the classical two-state circuit element (the transistor) is replaced by a quantum element called a quantum bit, or qubit.
> In contrast to a classical bit, which can only be in one of its two basic states, a qubit can be in any of a continuum of possible states, as defined by the values of the quantum amplitudes α and β.
The thing is a transistor also exists in multiple states, and the transition between states is a continuous function. Anyone with some exposure to solid state physics will know this. It's a thresholding operation that turns what is a pure analog component into something digital. That IEEE published this surprises me, after all the well known Journal of Solid State Circuits is full of transistor designs behaving in decidedly analog (read: continuous) ways.
You don't use it as a part of computation in a normally understood sense. In a programming languages you are not exposed to the analogue features of the circuits - for quantum computing you are.
I find your reaction to be a positive sign. The sign that IEEE is willing to push envelope of knowledge (as of 2018). One can't push it without taking a risk of publishing something wrong, possibly very wrong.
I don't have any opinion on this topic, it's not my field of expertise. However, it's the first semi-technical article about quantum computing that I can follow along and understand.
Quantum computing is a narrow, specialized case of analog computing. To drivel on that replacing general purpose digital computers shows the incredibly retarded level of public perception of what computers are.
As someone outside of the field I don't follow your argument. The author stated that the problem is not just in the analog nature of quantum computer, but in the impossibly large amount of analog parameters to process and also to correct errors in.
Interesting observation about the maximum lifetime of a bubble:
> I believe that, appearances to the contrary, the quantum computing fervor is nearing its end. That's because a few decades is the maximum lifetime of any big bubble in technology or science. After a certain period, too many unfulfilled promises have been made, and anyone who has been following the topic starts to get annoyed by further announcements of impending breakthroughs. What's more, by that time all the tenured faculty positions in the field are already occupied. The proponents have grown older and less zealous, while the younger generation seeks something completely new and more likely to succeed.
The article is now 6 years old. Has anyone made significant progress in that time to solve the problems it discussed in a real way?
> In quantum computing, the classical two-state circuit element (the transistor) is replaced by a quantum element called a quantum bit, or qubit.
> In contrast to a classical bit, which can only be in one of its two basic states, a qubit can be in any of a continuum of possible states, as defined by the values of the quantum amplitudes α and β.
The thing is a transistor also exists in multiple states, and the transition between states is a continuous function. Anyone with some exposure to solid state physics will know this. It's a thresholding operation that turns what is a pure analog component into something digital. That IEEE published this surprises me, after all the well known Journal of Solid State Circuits is full of transistor designs behaving in decidedly analog (read: continuous) ways.
You don't use it as a part of computation in a normally understood sense. In a programming languages you are not exposed to the analogue features of the circuits - for quantum computing you are.
> That IEEE published this surprises me
I find your reaction to be a positive sign. The sign that IEEE is willing to push envelope of knowledge (as of 2018). One can't push it without taking a risk of publishing something wrong, possibly very wrong.
I don't have any opinion on this topic, it's not my field of expertise. However, it's the first semi-technical article about quantum computing that I can follow along and understand.
Quantum computing is a narrow, specialized case of analog computing. To drivel on that replacing general purpose digital computers shows the incredibly retarded level of public perception of what computers are.
It's replacing the PC with this: https://www.analogmuseum.org/english/collection/meda/43/
As someone outside of the field I don't follow your argument. The author stated that the problem is not just in the analog nature of quantum computer, but in the impossibly large amount of analog parameters to process and also to correct errors in.