Hacker News Reader

Comment by machina_ex_deus | Hacker News Reader

They should go back to the drawing board and actually get a stronger argument they really have a quantum computer.

For those not following https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6645, their quantum supremacy experiments used quite a bad metric that's very easily spoofable. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01657

Quantum computer is the perpetual motion machine of the 21st century. I'm sure we'll never get there, but getting an insight like the second law of thermodynamics of why it's impossible will be important too.

And I don't buy the attitude of "the errors will be bad", that's like "there is always friction" to perpetual motion machines. There needs to be something deeper.

View on HN

If you can write a publication demonstrating quantum computers won't get there, you'd be famous. As it stands, quantum computers are improving remarkably year-over-year, both in theory and in practice. There is no guarantee, either on theoretical or practical grounds, that quantum computers will be better. Likewise, there's no guarantee of the converse.

This wormhole stuff, or more specifically the way it's presented and intentionally broadcasted, however, does a disservice to the field.

You cant prove a negative. Quantum Computers need to prove superiority in some useful calculation not just arbitary math equation nobody uses or wants.

There exists no quantum computer in physical form. There only exists mathematical models simulated touting to be a quantum computer proved by a classical computer.

This in particular is obviously not a great presentation of research, but what prompts your skepticism that QC is possible in general? Unlike perpetual motion, quantum phenomena is observed all over the place. It's a difficult engineering problem to set up an environment where we can directly manipulate it, but it doesn't exactly need any new physics.

Gil Kalai ("Henry and Manya Noskwith Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, Professor of Computer Science at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, and adjunct Professor of mathematics and of computer science at Yale University" - from Wikipedia) is a noted skeptic of quantum computing. Here's an article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/gil-kalais-argument-against-q...

I don't think there's any physical argument which prevents them from existing. However what is well known is that all existing schemes require exponential energy input to scale (for example because dilution refrigeration becomes exponentially difficult)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com