Flawed Diamonds May Be the Key to Quantum Computing

[FluxCapacitor]

Well, finding the chunk of binary data that makes sense amidst a sea of noise is already practised in forensic computing, but I agree that this isn't quite the same problem. My short answer is that I don't have a real answer.

My long answer is pretty much conjecture a bunch of conjecture - do we need to build a bunch of different parallel systems that each model one of the possible states for c simultaneously, and se which one makes sense? I hope not. I think/hope that some of the heavy lifting is going to be done by the guys thinking about quantum hard drives. I'm hoping that just as we have techniques for finding legitimate file systems on hard drives today, in the future we will have techniques for identifying valid file systems within quantum superposed datasets. So c comes out as a quantum memory space, and we apply these techniques to scan the superposed state for valid data? As I say, I don't really have hard answers...

 

[Hijax]

Ifwhen stable qu-memory is developed, it will definitely do something for memory as well.
Basically, as FluxCapacitor stated, it is very, very far removed from trinary memory. On a 1-bit level, one in isolation has three states(one of which is both of the others, and as close to magic as you get in computing). But put two of them together, and things start getting wierd.
Imagine a memory core consisting of two traditional bits. it has 4 possible states: 00, 01, 10, 11.
One consisting of two 'trinary bits' would have nine: 00, 01, 02, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22.
Bot when you have one consisting of two qubits, it can exist in any possible combination of those four possible states. if we label the states 0, 1, 2, 3, the possible states for the quantum memory can be denominated 0, 1, 2, 3, 01, 02, 03, 12, 13, 23, 012, 023, 013, 123, 1234, with the numbers denomination which of the states are true. that's 15 possible states(not 16, as the savvy reader might expect, since the 'null' state doesn't exist, as one of the states has to be true)

 

[Knife]

Firstly, while this statement is true, the article clearly states such quantum computing propagates data at RAM-speeds and only exists for a few seconds. So, it wouldn't makes sense to replace either RAM or HDD with qubits.

Secondly, distance is a factor in propagation of data on a motherboard. If you put registers on the opposite size of the motherboard they will most definitely be slower to access than those built into the chip; one of the reasons why they are so darned expensive is because they have to be physically close to the parts of the CPU, and so room has to be made for them.

And as for quantum networks, if FluxCapacitor is on the ball here, it's sounding incredibly expensive since every single link has to be forged in the fires of quantum entanglement, and you would need a pair of magic quantum boxes for every single link in the internet. It would certainly solve identity issues, though, if the connections must be all unique.

That said, I'm certain there will be some avenues of attack left open on a quantum network. I think the best thing we can say is that it would be different. Quantum links seem very solid, though, especially when set alongside comparable technologies like wifi and 3/4G.

Man, this is getting well beyond realms familiar to me, as my knowledge of quantum mechanics is pretty basic and probably outdated, and I'm not terribly intimate with networking either.

Anyway, if I had to do a bit of prediction, I'd say the network of the future would look very much like the network of today except that certain key connections will be done via quantum entanglement instead of wire, probably all on the backbone, away from consumers. That said, general quantum computing may impact the state of routers (assuming a large increase in speed of quantum algorithms, they may have a quantum component to do their routing). The end result: faster internet for everyone! Hooray!

Well as with any network - the hardware isn't as important as software for the purposes of hacking and I doubt there will be any major differences in security protocols (with a certain correction for quantum computer capabilities, which kind of raises the question of how to protect usual computers from quantum hacking but that's another story)

So linked magic quantum boxes of lag -10? I'm down with that. Hooray!

 

[pneuma08]

I never thought I'd say this, but it sounds like a job for theoretical mathematicians.

 

[Hijax]

I never thought I'd say this, but it sounds like a job for theoretical mathematicians.

It's a job for...

 

[Zenode]

THE COMPUTER IS NOW DIAMONDS!

[small]....sorry[/small]

OT: If Quantum Computing comes to be real...whats the next step above that?...Organic Computers?

 

[pneuma08]

Ifwhen stable qu-memory is developed, it will definitely do something for memory as well.
Basically, as FluxCapacitor stated, it is very, very far removed from trinary memory. On a 1-bit level, one in isolation has three states(one of which is both of the others, and as close to magic as you get in computing). But put two of them together, and things start getting wierd.
Imagine a memory core consisting of two traditional bits. it has 4 possible states: 00, 01, 10, 11.
One consisting of two 'trinary bits' would have nine: 00, 01, 02, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22.
Bot when you have one consisting of two qubits, it can exist in any possible combination of those four possible states. if we label the states 0, 1, 2, 3, the possible states for the quantum memory can be denominated 0, 1, 2, 3, 01, 02, 03, 12, 13, 23, 012, 023, 013, 123, [0123], with the numbers denomination which of the states are true. that's 15 possible states(not 16, as the savvy reader might expect, since the 'null' state doesn't exist, as one of the states has to be true)

I dunno about you, but I like my memory stable for more than a few seconds. But assuming that gets solved, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[Edit] Actually, thinking about it, caching would still need to be done in binary since qubit speeds are so slow, and that kind of defeats the purpose of just replacing RAM with quantum memory. Then we go back to the tradeoff between purely binary vs purely quantum.

 

[pneuma08]

THE COMPUTER IS NOW DIAMONDS!

[small]....sorry[/small]

OT: If Quantum Computing comes to be real...whats the next step above that?...Organic Computers?

That is a thing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing]

 

[sosolidshoe]

For everyone spouting the "nothing is unhackable" line, do you have any comprehension of what the concept of "entangled particles" actually entails? Simply; unless you, the receiver, have the specific and precise set of particles which are entangled with the set used by the transmitter, it is literally impossible under all the known laws of physics to intercept any data sent from one to the other. That set of particles is only capable of communication between them, and thus the data is inaccessible from the outside.

Picture a single fibre-optic line stretching from one side of a sports field to the other, with a computer at either end, both isolated from external access. Now imagine that said cable is intangible, and has a virtually unlimited range.

Now, if we were to develop a system and set of protocols capable of using entanglement in place of the current Internet network, opportunities would exist to subvert the system yes, but that's not what the article is discussing.

 

[(LK)]

Still, the speed hit is significant enough to be a drawback in many cases, and if I was worried about strict optimization I wouldn't want to trade my 100-or-so instructions for a single qubit operation all the time; it would depend on the algorithm involved. So perhaps we'll see a "quantum module" with a quantum processor or something built into computers rather than pure quantum computers. I'm picturing a "quantum card" that fits into a PCIe slot in my head right now (although in actuality it would more likely be a component on a motherboard or perhaps even a cpu chip).

As it was explained to me by an engineer something like that is likely, yes. There are certain computational tasks for which quantum computing has an amazing advantage in efficiency, and certain others where it has no advantage over a typical silicon-based solution.

So any sort of general-purpose computer that used quantum technology would likely have a quantum module running alongside a suite of contemporary computer hardware, with the quantum elements only being used on certain calculations for which quantum has an advantage.

It sounds likely, though, that quantum computers would remain specialist devices which are only used for performing the kind of calculation that quantum has an advantage at, rather than it becoming part of some awkward parallel processing scheme for home computing.

Quantum computers would probably just end up being a form of mainframe supercomputer that is only typically used for batch processing of certain kinds of data. More "big iron" than Alienware.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Woot, it's a nerd-off! I love it when folks on the internet have an actually intelligent and reasoned discussion about stuff... *mutters to self* See, Flux, the internet isn't ALL trolls and knobheads!

Knife is getting the hang of it, and pneuma, Hijax and (LK) make very good points - this technology will certainly have its uses, but quantum computers will not be better for absolutely everything we ever compute. The point-to-point entanglement networks I describe as 'unhackable' would likely not comprise the entire internet, but almost certainly the military would use such techniques, and they'd trickle into the top end of the corporate sector from there. It could be the physical representation of the "2-speed internet" that networking junkies are trying to avoid, but think is kinda inevitable (but that's a topic for another thread...). Or it could end up as backbones for the rest of us, with traditional binary subnets hanging off that we're all connected to. I guess we'll see soon enough.

Another thing that has been mentioned academically in quantum computing is the possibility for true randomisation. The idea is that if we can find a way to 'spin' the qubit so it settles randomly into either real state or the superimposed state, with equal or even just known probabilities, smart guys can build a true digital randomiser out of it all. It's the computer equivalent of actually tossing a coin or rolling dice rather than writing an algorithm to simulate randomness. Again, I believe the word is 'nifty'. Randomisation from computably semi-predictable algorithms is what killed WEP, and will kill WPA soon enough - but what if the next wireless protocol isn't truly quantum, but it is quantum random encrypted? That ought to be pretty strong.

Once again, I'm just spitballing here, and I'm always an optimistic (somewhat evangelistic) type about new tech, but I reckon that there are some really promising ideas about quantum computing bouncing around...

 

[bader0]

Nothing is unhackable.

Nothing.

Edit: First thought when I stopped to not kneejerk react is that touting it as "unhackable" makes it sound like the Titanic of computers.

its unhackable unless you have a quantum computer which will probably not be available for personal use for a very very long time

Quantum entanglement doesn't work that way. Information is shared between the two entangled particles, and only those two entangled particles, with no transit in between. There is no way to intercept it or monitor it, and it's actually one of the few things not subject to the rule that nothing travels faster than light, although "propagates" might be a better term than "travels" here. Therefore, a network consisting of entangled particles is unhackable. The computers on that network, on the other hand, are a different story.

ahh i see....i think.... i probably need to research this further because i though i had a much better grasp on the situation than i obviously do. Thank you for stopping me before i said something really ignorant or stupid lol

 

[Sylocat]

Anybody else think the book Timeline by Michael Crichton? Also this is awesome! Slowly advancing further into the future

It made me think of his book Congo, when they were searching for type IIb diamonds (which happened to be streaked with impurities) in order to make supercomputers.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Impossible-to-hack now?

Yeah, no more so than current ones.

It's "impossible" due to the laws of physics. At the quantum level, simply measuring something changes it (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). So it's impossible to steal any kind of useful information without alerting the network.

Of course, you can still password spoof a computer, but remote hacking a network secured by quantum mechanics will get much, MUCH harder.

 

[Buizel91]

wouldn't this lead to Quantum Consoles to?...Good lord...

Still this is awesome! The future is right round the corner!....and over a cliff, in a cave, in a desert, in an unknown area >.>

 

[MrDarkling]

My brain hurts...a lot

 

[Vrach]

Now diamonds are a nerd's best friend as well!

My brain just imploded.

We can just replace it with a Quantum Computer

We can make it better, stronger, faster - we have the technology

OT: Awesome, but... why did you have to make such an awesome choice of picture for the article? It almost overshadows the damn news itself

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

I'll take two futures, please.

I can already see it now; peoples computers being stolen... for diamonds. Heists of armored trucks just so Anonomous can build personal Quantum Computers. Movies, popularizing these feats!

I like.

Ain't gonna happen. First because someone's going to start creating flawed synthetic diamonds, and second because if DeBeers tries to shoehorn in on the action the business interests involved are large enough to bitchslap them silly.

sounds like a movie venture to me.

 

[A.A.K]

Wait for Crysis 5 using the Crytek Engine 11. wooo...