Flawed Diamonds May Be the Key to Quantum Computing

Recommended Videos

Thunderios

New member
Jun 9, 2010
16
0
0
When quantum computers go mainstream, people will ask why we played computer games that were less realistic than reality.
 

wolfapocalypse

New member
Apr 14, 2009
53
0
0
Anybody else think the book Timeline by Michael Crichton? Also this is awesome! Slowly advancing further into the future :D
 

insanelich

Reportable Offender
Sep 3, 2008
443
0
0
Tharwen said:
insanelich said:
Impossible-to-hack now?

Yeah, no more so than current ones.
Eh... quantum entangled particles are pretty much completely unhackable.
Issue is, nobody targets the encrypted data even now, seeing it'd take ages to break that encryption. But you got to get the data unencrypted at some point, and that's where you strike if you want to acquire the data.
 

Tiger Sora

New member
Aug 23, 2008
2,220
0
0
I'd better start saving up the 50 grand to buy one when they come out in 20ish years.
And no Lag, once everyone is using these. The future lag free since 2025
 

The Red Spy

New member
Dec 1, 2009
408
0
0
Hello geeks, look at your your Si, now back to C, back to your Si, now back to C.
Sadly, it isn't C, but if we changed that around it could behave like it's C.
Look down the table, now back up. Where are you? You're at your supercomputer with facilities your S wishes to be.
What's in your computer? It isn't C, theirs is, it's a qubit formed through shining a laser through your C to do those things you love. Look again, YOUR BITS NOW INVOLVE SUPERPOSITION.
Incredible calculations are possible when your computer uses C and not like Si.
I'm posting a Bolch sphere.

 

Kevonovitch

New member
Apr 15, 2009
512
0
0
huh, didnt Mass Effect 2 already explain quantom enganglement? lolz sorry had to XD and haven't they been toying with this idea for quite some time, hell first i heard of it was at an anime con years ago :p
 

mechanixis

New member
Oct 16, 2009
1,136
0
0
We're building legitimate technology with irregularly shaped crystals now? What are we, the Protoss?
 

bader0

New member
Dec 7, 2010
110
0
0
Zaik said:
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
 

ImprovizoR

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,952
0
0
Impossible to hack? Hackers will simply start using flawless diamond based hacking tool thingies.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
esperandote said:
I'll go ahead and come up with a name for this new third state... "Two".
I know there's probalby some major difference from quantum computing and a base 3 numeric system that i'm not getting.
Since one of the consequences of pretending you can divide by zero is that any two numbers can equal each other, kinda like this third value, I think that third value falls into the same category as i, which is what you get when you pretend you can take the square root of -1. We'll need a symbol for it.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
bader0 said:
Zaik said:
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.
 

Exocet

Pandamonium is at hand
Dec 3, 2008
726
0
0
McMullen said:
bader0 said:
Zaik said:
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.
Unless a particle was forged in secret in the lasers of Mt Doom.
One particle to rule them all!

...

Sorry,there was already so much geekiness,I just could not stopped myself.If anyone needs me,I'll be in that corner over there,very far away.
 

fulano

New member
Oct 14, 2007
1,685
0
0
I doubt they'll be ready for mass consumption any time soon. Give it 10 years, and maybe a nation with loads of cash could build some, but other than it's not even worth considering right now within our context.

It's awesome, though.
 

iblis666

New member
Sep 8, 2008
1,106
0
0
TheGuy(wantstobe) said:
esperandote said:
In traditional computing, the smallest form of information is the bit, which can represent either a 1 or a 0, while a qubit, the unit used for quantum computing, can represent a 1, a 0, or both at the same time.
I'll go ahead and come up with a name for this new third state... "Two".
I know there's probalby some major difference from quantum computing and a base 3 numeric system that i'm not getting.

bah and my teacher laughed at me when i said that base 3 was the future of computing :)
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,831
0
0
Scott Bullock said:
I tried to find a way to fit this into the article, but I just couldn't do it. Instead, I shall grace the comments section with it.

"The Computer is now Diamonds!"
The Computer your computer could compute like!
 

Knife

New member
Mar 20, 2011
180
0
0
Now I may be missing something here, but wouldn't replacing good old 2 state bits with 3 state qubits just earn us log(3) in base of 2 (about 1.58) increase in memory? So 30 Tera in qubits would be roughly equivalent to 48 Tera in bits? If so, then it seems rather non cost effective to make your PC out of diamonds.
 

(LK)

New member
Mar 4, 2010
139
0
0
I thought entanglement of particles was not a viable means of transmitting data?

From what I had been told, the entanglement would collapse after sending just 1 bit of data, meaning even a simple tweet would require a vast number of carefully entangled particles... whose use is a one-off affair.

Further, since particles need to be in proximity to be entangled again... this is effectively just a really contrived sneakernet.

Am I wrong? I'd like to be wrong.