1 yr. ago • 91%

Chinese scientists claim record smashing quantum computing breakthrough

www.scmp.com Chinese scientists claim record smashing quantum computing breakthrough

Paper says JiuZhang 3 is a million times faster than its predecessor and light years ahead of the world’s fastest supercomputer.

Everything Science @lemmy.world Chinese scientists claim record smashing quantum computing breakthrough

22 comments

I'll still hold back any enthusiasm for this stuff until a quantum computer can actually solve a real problem and not just a quantum computer benchmark.

40
- The only real problem I am aware of is breaking some types of public key encryption. Which is kinda bad because post quantum encryption is still in its infancy.
  
  9
  
  There's a lot you aren't aware of then. There's a lot of uses in biology and pharmacy, as well as physics research, machine learning, and weather predictions, just to name a few. (I know weather predictions doesn't sound sexy but it might be the most important one in the list)
  
  22
Chinese academia has proven itself to be generally unreliable in its factual accuracy

28
- That's a nice way to put it.
  
  1
I read about it here :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiuzhang_(quantum_computer) because there is nothing interesting in that scmp article.

How is it valid to call this a computer ? Seems like if I said : I am making fluid flow calculations by using a pipe and water. ~~Do get~~ Do I get it right ? These are not calculations ; these are experiments.

13
- To be fair, there's no real constraint to what a computer should look like, as long as it computes. You can build the foundational circuits of modern CPUs using dominos, and if you had the space you could build a one time use adder. It would compute the sum of two numbers, so it's technically a computer. Your pipe and water example is technically also a valid computer if built as such.
  
  8
  
  I understand your statement here and I agree with it. Yet I guess both you and the other user here (@cyd@lemmy.world) are missing what I am trying to describe. Maybe my explanation is not accurate and my understanding is not well developed.
  
  Let me illustrate with an example : we can study new planes models :
  a)- in a wind tunnel equipped with instrumentation (camera, smoke trail and so on), or
  b)- with numerical simulations on a computer.
  
  One method (a) is very specific to a very precise problem, it cannot be (easily) adapted to calculate various random problems. The other (b) is meant to be a versatile programmable computer and so can switch to a completely different problem in one microsecond.
  
  For what I understand, so-called quantum computers (of today) are more like option (a).
  
  Does this makes sense to you ?
  
  1
- These are not calculations ; these are experiments
  
  Alan Turing discovered, long ago, that calculations can be phrased as physical experiments. It's the basic idea behind the whole field...
  
  6
  
  I understand your statement here and I agree with it. Can you say the same about my previous comment ?
  Oops, I just noticed a typo in my previous comment ((~~Do get~~ Do I get it right ?))
  
  1
Didn't they claim something about superconductivity the other week? I'm going to claim the ability to levitate my own body. Lifting myself by my own bootstraps, so to speak, and other lies.

4
- I think you're referring to LK-99 which was from South Korea.
  
  21
  
  It's a shame the LK-99 hype has lead to LK-99 backlash because influencers couldn't make it in their backyard.
  
  LK-99 isn't "the one" but most signs show it's on the right track and if we can work out the manufacturing technique for this class of materials it will change everything.
  
  6
  
  Ah, yes, you are correct. I was mistaken. I was thinking of the levitating video that claimed to support the claim.
  
  -2
- All I have to say is:
  
  "Whose baby is that?",
  
  "What's your angle?", and
  
  "I'll buy that".
  
  3
  
  I wish I understood this comment.
  
  2
Half expected the title to be "my solar eclipse pic".

1

You've viewed 22 comments.