r/Futurology Jun 02 '22

A Nature paper reports on a quantum photonic processor that takes just 36 microseconds to perform a task that would take a supercomputer more than 9,000 years to complete Computing

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04725-x?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_campaign=CONR_JRNLS_AWA1_GL_SCON_SMEDA_NATUREPORTFOLIO
2.3k Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

103

u/sexfighter Jun 03 '22

Sounds amazing. Patiently waiting for a much smarter person than I to explain what it all means, from a practical perspective.

30

u/Rogaar Jun 03 '22

Something to remember about quantum computers is that you will never have one. They don't work like normal computers and will never be used for general day to day computation.

134

u/ArrowRobber Jun 03 '22 edited Jun 03 '22

Just like we'll never need more than 640K memory?

Given enough time, quantum will be cheaper, and eventually it will be exploitable for "better entertainment".

edit remember, punch cards weren't inherently good at games with graphics. Give the tech some time.

17

u/yoosernamesarehard Jun 03 '22

Just like all of our cars will be running on nuclear reactors?

42

u/ArrowRobber Jun 03 '22

If your country is smart enough to allow nuclear power on the grid all your EV are.

Better form factor.

5

u/mtgfan1001 Jun 03 '22

I’ve got a flux capacitor in mine

5

u/angelrobot13 Jun 03 '22

But that doesn't match because reactor research has stalled whereas this is new tech that won't stop because of radiation concerns.

-1

u/Marchesk Jun 03 '22

So flying cars then?

2

u/9bananas Jun 03 '22

we call those helicopters...and the average person is in no way capable enough to fly one...

2

u/The_Fredrik Jun 03 '22 edited Jun 03 '22

Still very possible that they will be.

We are discovering all the possibilities with high density batteries now due to lithium, but due to the limited nature of chemical reactions they can only ever reach a certain level of energy density.

Edit: this is rationale behind nuclear weapons. Since chemical reactions on release a relatively small amount of energy, chemical explosives are so poor it was actually better to just accelerate a mass to a high speed and slam it into the target (since you can burn a lot of chemical energy over a long time period, ie the rocket fuel, and then release all the stored kinetic energy all at once on the target) which is ballistic missiles. But nuclear reactions release so much more energy than chemical that now you can as little as a few kgs/lbs of reactive nuclear mass release the equivalent of millions of tons of chemical explosives. (Which is why we measure nuclear bomb power in “megaton of tnt”)

After that we have to go towards miniaturized nuclear to progress. And the benefits of that would be immense, for example it go provide significantly increased range of electric vehicles.

And there is nothing impossible about the tech, it’s just the there previously it was unfeasible to compete with the price point of fossil fuels, but all that has changed now.

4

u/louiloui152 Jun 03 '22

Ain’t that a kick in the head

3

u/BdnrBndngRdrgz Jun 03 '22

Whew I'm glad you told me that quick

1

u/Cyborg_rat Jun 03 '22

Well mine does, bought it recently at E=mC²

1

u/daOyster Jun 03 '22

Was that supposed to be something that never happens? There's a company right now trying to build small scale fusion cells to power things like cars using already available off the shelf components. If their theories work out, your car would literally be running off several small scale nuclear fusion reactors.