Submitted by giuliomagnifico t3_zuxy0d in technology
CreamofTazz t1_j1m59n4 wrote
Reply to comment by eggybread70 in An IBM Quantum Computer Will Soon Pass the 1,000-Qubit Mark by giuliomagnifico
So far quantum computers are only really good at solving complex math equations faster than digital computers
Mind you a lot of encryptions are just really complex math equations that your computer is given the answer to. Because QCs use superpositions of qubits (meaning they're in a complex state of 2 or more variables) they're able to hold significantly more information per qubit than a bit (which is just a single state of 0 or 1).
nagareteku t1_j1mhvgd wrote
Qubits do not store any more information than bits, it is just that the representation of n qubits requires 2^(n) bits because there are 2^(n) different combinations that n qubits can take.
Qubits "store" just as much information as bits, the primary difference is that qubits have a probability of being observed at both states at once. Consider a 2-level state qubit with state |0> ground and |1> excited. A quantum state can be a normalised linear combination of |0> and |1>. It does not consist of every single state similar to how a pair of spinning D20s does not store all 400 possible combinations.
When observed, the qubit collapses to either |0> or |1> with their respective probabilities depending on the observable. Repeated measurements will only show the same result, as predicted by the Born Rule due to wavefunction collapse. This means that while each qubit holds a superposition of both |0> and |1>, when measured, it will produce a fixed result of length 1 bit.
Such a system produces only probabilistic results, and not definite results from the classical computers we are used to. Quantum computing will make a lot of brute-force algorithms scale better, but it wont replace classical computers, nor provide a universal speedup or extreme amounts of storage. Furthermore, the larger the number of qubits, the harder it is to ensure that all qubits are properly isolated from each other.
nicuramar t1_j1nvke3 wrote
> Qubits do not store any more information than bits
How don't they, though, when each qubit requires a complex number (with modulus 1) to describe? Even if this information isn't directly available to measurement.
Shorts_Man t1_j1oekjw wrote
Are quantum processors only good for one calculation since all the qubits are collapsed afterwards?
sirbruce t1_j1mx8i3 wrote
> it wont replace classical computers, nor provide a universal speedup or extreme amounts of storage.
That's a very bold and definitive statement about future technology. In truth no one can really know what quantum computing might enable in the future.
Also, for someone making definitive statements,
> due to wavefunction collapse
is an odd choice of phrase given that wavefunction collapse is ill-defined and not even proven to actually exist.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments