Researcher: First Quantum Computers are 5 to 10 Years Out

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

Yeah, no. Get back to burning MOAR coal and polluting Victoria even harder (because that's what you do "the best" in your country right now).

Before you make any more butthurtly-stupid comments like that, learn to see people's profiles and get the picture about where they are from. Until then - dismissed, kiddo.
 
People here seem to have the wrong idea about quantum computing.
It's not meant for personal use and definitely not for entertainment. Quantum computing would be useful for significantly speeding up certain calculations (factoring of large numbers for example).

Don't expect to find it in your home one day and definitely not for a reasonable price. At least not anytime soon.
 
[citation][nom]Prescott_666[/nom]That first quantum computer will be the equivalent of an Intel 4004 and be running in a University Lab somewhere. The first commercial processors will be 10 years after that, cost thousands of dollars, and require cryogenic cooling. The first home computers will be 10 years after that.[/citation]
Wow, you might want to come out of that cave every once in a while. Working quantum computer chips have been around for around 5 or 6 years maybe more if you count the military ones we probably never hear about. You are right about one thing, those early ones were much like the first Intel 4004 and extremely expensive. However the industry is a bit beyond that already. Maybe not ready to go get one at Best Buy but soon enough.
 
Qbits, eh entangled spins on the lil' buggers ... electrons and holes passe? Great shakes no doubt. Amazing, still ... how little my three (3) computers influence my woodworking skills which relate to a "hobbiest" experimental throw I'm taking at Levinthals Paradox.

I read stories about **really really** good experimentalists who know things must be so without explicit calculation. Qbits you say ...
 
[citation][nom]murzar[/nom]So.. back to quantum computers!This article is very vague.. just like the scientists researching these technologies. I don't understand why they think us to be stupid and use scientific words to confuse us out of the details.[/citation]

Chances are it's based on a lack of understanding on Tom's end rather than a dumbing down on the researcher's end.

An article's author can only write about what they understand, otherwise they run the risk of screwing something up.
 
[citation][nom]thecolorblue[/nom]patently absurd. what you are saying is essentially that science funding should be eradicated... set to zero. there is no way to predict what channels of research will change the world for the better... absolutely no way. apparently you disapprove of research in general. anti-science morons such as yourself are pathetically clueless.over half (approaching 60%) of the united states annual budget is channeled directly into the military and the military-industrial complex. do you even have the slightest clue how much money 60% of the annual US budget is? Do you?and here you are pointing at the tiniest sliver of fraction of a forgotten rivulet of an ant's piss drop fraction of the budget and saying... STOP SCIENCE - FEED THE HUNGRY.how about you educate yourself before talking next time[/citation]

Though I don't disagree entirely with what you said, historically some of man's greatest achievements have been the product of or funded by military budgets. Roads in the Roman Empire? Built for better travel of roman armies. first functional airplane? Built for a military contract. First jet engine? Designed by the losing german army in WWII to try and combat numerical advantage. Internet? Commissioned by the military to help separate bases communicate.

Basically, even if a tiny pissant fraction of funding goes to aimless research doesn't mean that that 60% of the US budget you mentioned is doing nothing productive.
 
First - to the people complaining about research funding, you clearly don't understand how research funding works, or how much of a nation's budget it is. Let me put it this way; you could help a few people with it, but it's not gonna make a huge difference. At the same time, you get rid of the funding, and there's lots of people who will lose jobs.

Second - concerning the proposed time until implementation, I suspect that if their breakthrough is as significant as suggested, then it may not be far off.

Third - the rate of adaptation and commercialization will not likely be that far off. I don't think it can be compared to the first computers because or general understanding is much better than then, and the desire and ability for companies to leverage such technology will be greater as well. Even the basic information on how to do it will spread faster thanks to the internet, so maturation will likely occur considerably faster. The first PC was the introduction of technology that didn't exist before. Quantum computing appears to be more directed towards leveraging tech that already exists, but in a new way - the difference between creating the first processor and getting them to operate in concert.

Finally, I wouldn't worry too much about the end of inventiveness. Whenever anyone makes a new invention, everyone asks what's next. We usually have no idea what the next step will be, let alone how to use what we're already working on. Someone will come up with a new idea later on, and people will spend copious amounts of time trying to reach that goal too.
 
We will have quantum computers, but with Windows 12 on them you will be reduced to using the Microsoft Store and XBox Live on it.
 
[citation][nom]husker[/nom]Apparently you have a computer. You should have donated that money to help the homeless, hypocrite.[/citation]
what about you....just because i said something that you disagree with does not make a hypocrite....idot
 
[citation][nom]frombehind[/nom]Yes, but does it play Crysis?[/citation]

I think that is actually a good question. With all the years we have been developing traditional processors, i'm not sure if the very first quantum ones will be able to beat the others. Am I missing something?
 
[citation][nom]kdw75[/nom]We will have quantum computers, but with Windows 12 on them you will be reduced to using the Microsoft Store and XBox Live on it.[/citation]

Or move to Linux
 
The main reason why we need Quantum Computers yesterday is the extreme energy needs of modern data centre servers and super computers. These facilities use vast amounts of electricity and it is only set to increase not decrease in the immediate future. Quantum Computing will most likely save A LOT of power while enabling a 'quantum' leap in computing power as well. It's very, very important.
 
This article is very misleading. There's a professor with a functioning quantum computer in his lab at my college.
 
I actually met some of theses scientists at science forum in Canberra. I can't wait for robust room temperature models. Go the Aussies!
 
A quantum computer could not play crysis as we know it. Quantum computers exist in both on and off state as well as every state in between.

A quantum computer could simply, and instantly, tell you every possible crysis outcome from attacking an enemy checkpoint using a jeep mounted machine gun or going at with an RPG.

A quantum computer would make crysis pretty boring.
 
Australian CSIRO is not even ranked in the top 50. What the hell are you talking about?

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). Now who is number 1?
USA USA USA USA. Havard is number 1.


The australians and there tinsy contribution is so tiny its like less then zero.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom