When a quantum computer is put to work on a problem, it considers all possible answers by simultaneously arranging its qubits into every combination of "zeroes" and "ones."
This has got to stop.
This has got to stop.
In 2001, I was interviewed about quantum computing by a reporter (from the Sydney Morning Herald, if I recall correctly) who repeatedly asked me for a "simple, concrete explanation" of how quantum computers work.
If you take this request really (really!) literally, such an explanation probably isn't possible. If it was, you could efficiently simulate the elements of the explanation on a conventional computer, and quantum computers would offer no real advantage over conventional computers. In fact, in my opinion, what's interesting about quantum computing is precisely the gap between our ability to give such a simple, concrete explanation and what's really going on. You _can_ give a (fairly) simple indirect explanation of how they work - simple if someone's comfortable with complex numbers and vectors - but it is pretty indirect.
I explained this to the reporter, who made all the right noises, and then gave him the "simultaneously in all possible states" explanation as an example of the kind of nonsense that sounds good, but actually obscures the truth of what's going on.
You can probably guess the rest: when the article came out, I was in there, quoted saying something along the lines of "When a quantum computer is put to work on a problem, it considers all possible answer by simultaneously arranging..."
The problem is that this line is just too tempting and pat a story for reporters. It creates the illusion of understanding (in my opinion), while leaving the more complex truth undisturbed.
But I haven't really managed to figure out what part of this 'rumor' is actually true.
Do you mind explaining where this idea comes from, and whether it's remotely right, or what?
Also this: http://www.het.brown.edu/people/andre/qlambda/index.html
but the basic idea is that quantum computers allow operations to be taken on an entire list simultaneously (entanglement).
?
Popular science journalists always fall back on the simplified multi-universe explanation to explain quantum computing. I wish they would adopt another paradigm too, but in general I want to see a better quality of synopses of technical papers in popular journalism.
Getting back to the subject of the article... Scott Aaronson has always said the most interesting use of quantum computing would be to simulate natural processes. This may be the first significant achievement of that. (At least that I have heard of.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
If it also happens to correspond to human intuition, I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.
Deleted comment
CITATION NEEDED
Quantum mechanics is indeed a different viewpoint
As I recall, the Feynman diagram approach assumes that every conceivable interaction between particles that could happen does happen with a given probability depending on the interaction's complexity.
Indeed, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is quite a mind fuck - if you know the exact speed of a particle, the location of particle become utterly uncertain to the point that it could be anywhere in the universe.
So what specifically is your problem with the above quote?