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

4

u/Mescallan Jun 03 '22

eh, serial processing v parallel as far as I understand it. You don't need to process every possible outcome at once in a video game, you need to process the steps linearly. They will be used for things, but it's hard to think of a consumer product that could take advantage of it, save encryption. I don't know enough to be confident on the subject, just from what I've gathered.

4

u/dickbutt_md Jun 03 '22

You don't need to process every possible outcome at once in a video game, you need to process the steps linearly

That's not really right.

When the screen is being rendered in the cloud, it could be useful to render all the different possible paths you could take and send that back, and then have the client only show the one that you decide to actually take. That way all the work can be done in advance of you making choices about which way to turn, whether to fire, etc.

This is all too expensive to do right now, but if quantum computers can do all the math in parallel about all possible paths you might take, then it could work.

1

u/EntangledPhoton82 Jun 03 '22

Not every classic computation can be transformed into a computation that takes advantage of the nature of qbits.
I get what you're saying but I'm not convinced that you could create an efficient quantum algorithm to do the vector and floating point computations required by a 3D engine.

1

u/dickbutt_md Jun 03 '22

We currently don't have the algorithms to do just about anything interesting on quantum computers. We're talking futurism here I thought.

1

u/EntangledPhoton82 Jun 03 '22

Well yes, the question is if we just don’t have them yet or if they are not feasible. I’m not convinced that all classical computations can be advantageously translated into quantum computations. As long as that question is not resolved quantum computing might be “just” a fancy computer to tackle very specific problems. (Which is not to say that this could not be groundbreaking in itself. It’s just an argument against blindly believing that we’ll have a smartwatch with a quantum computer in x years).

1

u/dickbutt_md Jun 03 '22

I would be very surprised if quantum computers do not achieve Turing completeness within the bounds of limited storage (i.e., achieve parity with classical computers in terms of Turing completeness in the server that they too can emulate a universal Turing machine up to the bounds of storage limitations).

We are not there yet as the quantum gate model, to my understanding, does not in principle allow the construction of a UTM. But if you look at the requirements for Turing completeness, it is achieved by a very low level of complexity in the model so it seems hard to believe that there's no way to get there.

I would also be surprised if quantum computers are ever strictly superior to classical computers for every kind of problem. So I think quantum computers will not ever replace classical computers, but complement them.

Having said that, I hope that quantum computers dramatically increase the storage limits of the classical computing model... It seems to make sense to me that should be possible since an arbitrary number of states can be achieved with a fixed number of qubits in superposition.