Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

January 18, 2018

ARTICLE: Quantum Computers Get Real [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Robert H McEachern wrote on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 22:56 GMT
"how far are we from a fully working quantum computer?" A long ways.

Here is a Classical QuBit coins that are entangled, but not in any definite state, until an axis of observation is chosen, and the observation is made. The pair of coins is fundamentally different than the more familiar pair of gloves, that is usually discussed. A real glove, with the fingers curling towards the palm, is indeed in a known state before being observed - it is KNOWN, a priori, that a right-handed glove will be identifiable as such, REGARDLESS of what angle it is eventually viewed from. But the same is not KNOWN about a coin - it is not KNOWN, a priori, that a coin, viewed from every angle, will always be "heads".

Unlike "handedness", which is indeed an attribute of a glove, "heads or tails" is NOT an attribute of a coin. It is an attribute (like spin and polarization), of the relationship BETWEEN the observer and the observed.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 23:41 GMT
"Put two or more qubits together and new interactions begin to emerge that have no counterpart in our everyday world..."

It may have no counterpart in a pair of gloves, but there is a direct counterpart in a pair of coins.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 23, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT
The problem that I see in the quantum calculus is that there is not scale reduction in the elements: when there is the first computer, the system start with vacuum tubes (great eniac), then medium Transistors Computer, then the first little chip intel 4004; it was many years to reach the actual solution.

If the starting point is a little-scale quantum computer, then the solution is not immediate, there is not a technological evolution; there are large scale quantum effect, like quantum drum, Josephson effect, superfluidity, superconducting quantum inteference device then some of these effects can be used to obtain a large scale quantum computer (coarse not-micrometer effect with great magnetic quantum fluxes without quantum chip).

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 15:02 GMT
"Quantum Computers Get Real"? Since they were too often claimed to already work in principle and getting available very soon for many years, I rather suspect desperate cries for funding. Maybe, I don't correctly understand entanglement and decoherence of two particles. So far, I admit failing to believe in mixed states.


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 02:59 GMT
I suspect that the solution to practical quantum computing lies in continuous function as the interpretation of a divisible quantum. The Bohr dictum assumes that because each of any wavelength of EMR carries the Planck Constant quantity of energy, the 'quantum leap' must also occur as its progenitor. Perhaps the quantum is more the result of spacetime differentiating a continuous change in energy out flow from a matter state seeking to maintain an optimal balance of energy to volume. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.