I've been reading about theories and conceptual ideas behind quantum computing (if and when achievable), and one of the strongest foundations of producing a computer that is able to make calculations directly over quantum mechanical properties, is that, in theory, a single quantum unit could run an infinite amount of simultaneous threads, hence, in theory, a quantum computer made of a certain number of particles, could in effect run simultaneous threads correspondent to every single particle in the universe, in effect simulating the entire universe at the same time with a limited number of particles.
Considering that Quantum Computing is 10 - 20 years away, what are your prospects on the impact such technology will have in our lives?
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Quantum computing is only one of multiple paths of technology evolution that could enable us to continue the exponential growth of computational capacity
beyond Moore's law, which is going to hit a wall sooner or later (around 2020).
I see two problems with it, one is that the massive parallelism makes it extremely suitable but only for special sets of problems (e.g. breaking encryption by factoring huge numbers).
So if we'd like to have a full immersion VR world, strong superhuman AI and computer-brain interfaces we probably have to combine it with other promising future computing technologies reliant on nanotech
such as 3-D molecular computing with self assembling nanotube circuitry and - most importantly - by emulating biology, that is by introducing chaotic self-organizing processes and emergent properties to the world of computation, which is already being done.
The other, most grave problem with QC is that by adding more qubits the computing power of a QC increases exponentially but so does the difficulty in engineering those things.
A single quantum unit is not able to run an infinite (i hate that word) number of simultaneous threads but the number is so high that it may seem like infinite.
A computer with 10 qubits would be able to run 2^10 simultaneous threads in theory, whereas a computer with 1000 qubits would be able to run 2^1000 threads, thats the power of exponential growth.
However, increasing the number of qubits makes a quantum computer exponentially susceptible to premature decoherence (collapse of wave function) - the slightest disturbance from outside would lead to a failure.
I've been reading about theories and conceptual ideas behind quantum computing (if and when achievable), and one of the strongest foundations of producing a computer that is able to make calculations directly over quantum mechanical properties, is that, in theory, a single quantum unit could run an infinite amount of simultaneous threads, hence, in theory, a quantum computer made of a certain number of particles, could in effect run simultaneous threads correspondent to every single particle in the universe, in effect simulating the entire universe at the same time with a limited number of particles.
Considering that Quantum Computing is 10 - 20 years away, what are your prospects on the impact such technology will have in our lives?
Goodbye to all encryption and computer security currently in existence.
I've been reading about theories and conceptual ideas behind quantum computing (if and when achievable), and one of the strongest foundations of producing a computer that is able to make calculations directly over quantum mechanical properties, is that, in theory, a single quantum unit could run an infinite amount of simultaneous threads, hence, in theory, a quantum computer made of a certain number of particles, could in effect run simultaneous threads correspondent to every single particle in the universe, in effect simulating the entire universe at the same time with a limited number of particles.
Considering that Quantum Computing is 10 - 20 years away, what are your prospects on the impact such technology will have in our lives?
Goodbye to all encryption and computer security currently in existence.
There is computer security today?
PumpAction wrote:
Ronhrin wrote:
Considering that Quantum Computing is 10 - 20 years away, what are your prospects on the impact such technology will have in our lives?
Deadlier weapons and somehow they would find a way to make more/better selling porn with it.
Well, I was thinking the replies would be more along the lines of, we can simulate the entire known universe and perhaps get an output of what really is the universe, etc etc.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Well you know, you gotta feed that computer with some sort of information as it is not going to do that himself. In the mean time humanity will find a way to bring porn on quantum computers. Or why do you think personal computers in the 80s suddenly needed more than 16 colors
You should've asked me what I'd like to see happening with such technology. And that would be to use it in medical analysis to help the fight against cancer and other illnesses.
Well you know, you gotta feed that computer with some sort of information as it is not going to do that himself. In the mean time humanity will find a way to bring porn on quantum computers. Or why do you think personal computers in the 80s suddenly needed more than 16 colors
You should've asked me what I'd like to see happening with such technology. And that would be to use it in medical analysis to help the fight against cancer and other illnesses.
Human enhnancement, biological immortality
I meant the question under a serious form, I was not mentioning a quantum computer for home usage, and yes that would probably be used to simulate vivid porn simulations
I meant a super quantum computer for research purposes, and my question really goes along these lines, do you think we will indeed be able to run infinite threads (as quantum mechanics claims) of calculus in a quantum computer, in effect giving us the chance to simulate all the particles in the universe on a machine constructed with a limited number of particles, or do you think we will most likely find something fundamentally wrong with quantum mechanics itself?
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Well you know, you gotta feed that computer with some sort of information as it is not going to do that himself. In the mean time humanity will find a way to bring porn on quantum computers. Or why do you think personal computers in the 80s suddenly needed more than 16 colors
You should've asked me what I'd like to see happening with such technology. And that would be to use it in medical analysis to help the fight against cancer and other illnesses.
Human enhnancement, biological immortality
I meant the question under a serious form, I was not mentioning a quantum computer for home usage, and yes that would probably be used to simulate vivid porn simulations
I meant a super quantum computer for research purposes, and my question really goes along these lines, do you think we will indeed be able to run infinite threads (as quantum mechanics claims) of calculus in a quantum computer, in effect giving us the chance to simulate all the particles in the universe on a machine constructed with a limited number of particles, or do you think we will most likely find something fundamentally wrong with quantum mechanics itself?
Who knows really? It's so far into the future we can only speculate. Assuming we do get one to work, what kind of architecture will it have? What will be limits on I/O? What are the applications... it's impossible to predict.
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
Not really, in about 10 yrs you'll have functioning and every day usage of nanotechnology, so QC aren't that far either.
oh... i guess you're a psychic....
i'd say we could have the very first optical processor in 20 years, but intel and ibm have working prototypes of optical ship and still working on improvements, unlike quantum ships
Not really, in about 10 yrs you'll have functioning and every day usage of nanotechnology, so QC aren't that far either.
oh... i guess you're a psychic....
i'd say we could have the very first optical processor in 20 years, but intel and ibm have working prototypes of optical ship and still working on improvements, unlike quantum ships
I just happen to see how fast we're developing. And working at near 0K (it's not degree Kelvins, just Kelvin) is not efficient, that's why ppl are researching the high temperature superconductors, like YBCO.
Point is, technology will go forward, and in 20 yrs. who knows what we'll have...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
I meant a super quantum computer for research purposes, and my question really goes along these lines, do you think we will indeed be able to run infinite threads (as quantum mechanics claims) of calculus in a quantum computer, in effect giving us the chance to simulate all the particles in the universe on a machine constructed with a limited number of particles, (...)
Ok, given that we can somehow circumvent the problems with premature decoherence in increasingly complex quantum computers (see my post above) it should be possible to simulate an entire universe or at least vast parts of it.
Such a universe could evolve on its own and even have intelligent life.
There are other ways, however, to spawn offspring universes, at least in theory, for example by heating up a tiny section of spacetime to incredibly high temperatures and then cooling it off.
The resulting instability could lead to a false vacuum and give birth to a new baby universe.
Black and white (worm) holes may lead to other universes too, if we could find a way to traverse them.
To get around the very very inhospitable conditions inside such a phenomenon would require us to essentially convert our intelligence to information or very tiny nanobots and somehow "inject" them through a wormhole into a new universe.
They then would go searching for matter on the other side (planets, suns..) and start rebuilding our civilization.
Another suggestion comes from Ray Kurzweil, he sees nonbiological intelligence (AI's) merging with our biological intelligence in the future.
The resulting explosion of life and exponentially growing intelligence will then spread out into the galaxy and beyond
and by "saturating matter with intelligence" he essentially predicts that the Universe will be transformed into one huge supercomputer in the future, or even gain self awareness.
All that given that the speed of light is not the ultimate speed limit, or else this transformation would be impossible since many other galaxies are moving away from ours with speed faster than light.
(since space can expand FTL without violating Einsteins relativity)
Seth Lloyd, the who wrote a book about what we're talking here, calculated the information content of the whole universe:
Kurzweil quoting Lloyd:
"Seth Lloyd estimates there are about 10^80 particles in the universe, with a theoretical maximum capacity of about 10^90 cps (calculations per second).
In other words a universe-scale computer would be able to compute at 10^90 cps.
To arrive at those estimates, Lloyd took the observed density of matter - about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter - and from this figure computed the total energy in the universe.
Dividing this energy figure by the Planck constant, he got around 10^90 cps.
The Universe is about 10^17 seconds old, so in round numbers there have been a maximum of about 10^107 calculations in it thus far.
With each particle able to store 10^10 bits in all of its degrees of freedom (including its position, spin, trajectory, charge...), the state of the universe represents about 10^90 bits of information at each point in time.
We do not need to contemplate devoting all of the mass and energy of the universe to computation.
If we were to apply 0.001 percent, that would still leave 99.99% of the mass and energy unmodified, but would still result in a potential of about 10^86 cps."
Then there's also the possibility of the Holographic universe, which would further increase the information content of the universe.
As mentioned before by helvete and the simulation argument we can't even be sure that we aren't living inside a simulation right now, however thats very unlikely, at least in my opinion.
Ronhrin wrote:
(...), or do you think we will most likely find something fundamentally wrong with quantum mechanics itself?
If quantum mechanics inherent unpredictability would turn out to be not so unpredictable at all, the "hidden variables" would apply. This would mean that the universe is turing computable at a fundamental level.
So, if quantum mechanics turn out to be wrong or not fundamental, this would make it even easier for us to simulate whole universes in quantum- or other kinds of supercomputers!
Oh god I hope at least some of you understood what I just wrote about.
Why do you all believe that uncertainty is embedded in QM because of humans inability to measure precisely?
It's not! It's embedded in it because the nature is uncertain... And I never liked hidden variables or many theory explanations, they all sound too... out there. Give me proof, real and testable experiments. And I'll agree with it. But this falls in the same box with string theory: sure the mathematic is nice and neat, but you cannot really prove it.
For me that's philosophy not physics...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Why do you all believe that uncertainty is embedded in QM because of humans inability to measure precisely?
It's not! It's embedded in it because the nature is uncertain... And I never liked hidden variables or many theory explanations, they all sound too... out there. Give me proof, real and testable experiments. And I'll agree with it. But this falls in the same box with string theory: sure the mathematic is nice and neat, but you cannot really prove it.
For me that's philosophy not physics...
You saying that nature is uncertain is presently speculative (although probable) aswell. I'm not a fan of hidden variables either but the fact is that there's alot we don't know (yet) about physics, computation and many other sciences. This remains subject to speculation, and sometimes philosophy until there are new means of experimentation and verification, better theories. This is not easy and takes time. And don't forget that nearly every grand idea, like Einstein's, started out as pure speculation.
Sitting there, denying everything that's speculative and demanding experiments that as of yet surpass our abilities is ignorant. Hopefully the LHC makes progress soon.
And you can't just deny something because it sounds too "out there". This is a mistake many have made in the past. Subjectivity is important and useful in many situations, but it is the nature of science and duty of scientists to remain as objective as possible, at least keep alternatives in mind, even if they sound stupid. (and btw. this whole topic is about mostly speculative themes)
And yes, string theory is in trouble indeed.
Could some one explain how a quantum computer works? I've read a bit on wiki but I still don't see how we should be able to simulate the universe. Or why 1 quantum unit would be able to do infinite threads? (what does that even mean?). Further more wouldn't I have to do the same simulation a fuck load of times to get a trustfull probabillity distribution?
Could some one explain how a quantum computer works? I've read a bit on wiki but I still don't see how we should be able to simulate the universe. Or why 1 quantum unit would be able to do infinite threads? (what does that even mean?). Further more wouldn't I have to do the same simulation a fuck load of times to get a trustfull probabillity distribution?
It's not easy to explain and I honestly don't know that much about the subject, it might be best if you read some sections of the Seth Lloyd book I mentioned, it's called Programming the Universe. (on usenet )
Admittedly I haven't read it (yet!), so I can't give you any directions.
The book should cover all you need to know:
Quote:
The book proposes that the universe is a quantum computer, and advances in the understanding of physics may come from viewing entropy as a phenomenon of information, rather than simply thermodynamics. Lloyd also postulates that the universe can be fully simulated using a quantum computer, however in the absence of a theory of quantum gravity, such a simulation is not yet possible.
Since it requires a working theory of quantum gravity this subject will remain speculative for quite a while.
Last edited by Shocktrooper on Wed, 23rd Feb 2011 11:04; edited 2 times in total
Thanks for the link(not sure if it isn't agaisnt the rules though). I will see if I have the time to look into it. Hopefully it is not just another physisist waving around his arms and calling it popular science :/.
Why do you all believe that uncertainty is embedded in QM because of humans inability to measure precisely?
It's not! It's embedded in it because the nature is uncertain... And I never liked hidden variables or many theory explanations, they all sound too... out there. Give me proof, real and testable experiments. And I'll agree with it. But this falls in the same box with string theory: sure the mathematic is nice and neat, but you cannot really prove it.
For me that's philosophy not physics...
You saying that nature is uncertain is presently speculative (although probable) aswell. I'm not a fan of hidden variables either but the fact is that there's alot we don't know (yet) about physics, computation and many other sciences. This remains subject to speculation, and sometimes philosophy until there are new means of experimentation and verification, better theories. This is not easy and takes time. And don't forget that nearly every grand idea, like Einstein's, started out as pure speculation.
Sitting there, denying everything that's speculative and demanding experiments that as of yet surpass our abilities is ignorant. Hopefully the LHC makes progress soon.
And you can't just deny something because it sounds too "out there". This is a mistake many have made in the past. Subjectivity is important and useful in many situations, but it is the nature of science and duty of scientists to remain as objective as possible, at least keep alternatives in mind, even if they sound stupid. (and btw. this whole topic is about mostly speculative themes)
And yes, string theory is in trouble indeed.
No, saying nature is uncertain isn't speculative. You just cannot go under some limit of accuracy no matter how you set up your measurement. It's the same as with Pauli principle. You just cannot put two fermions with the same quantum numbers in the same state.
No matter how hard you try that won't happen.
There is something called Fourier transform. The principle that governs the behavior of the function in the momentum and position space is directly observable from the properties of FT.
I know I shouldn't dismiss those theories, but currently I am not interested in them since the rules of Copenhagen interpretation (with some new additions) can describe and predict so many testable experiments...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
There is something called Fourier transform. The principle that governs the behavior of the function in the momentum and position space is directly observable from the properties of FT.
Maybe I'm wrong here but isn't the reason that we see the heisenberg principle because we build our theory on the assumption that momentum and position are conjugate variables? We have manifestly made them so which is why we can use the fourie transfom to go from one to the other.
Yeah, but FT works without any assumption on the space. All you need to have is Lebesgue integrable function. That by itself was discovered way before any QM and it points out that the uncertainty principle is something that is a fundamental fact of nature.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Yes but we only see this uncertainty because we have used canonical quantisation. It is still us(us who builds the theory) which decides that [x,p] =! 0. Because of that we see the same uncertainty as with fourie transforms.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
)
