Topic: HONEYWELL Quantum Computer: what does it mean to BTC (Read 678 times)

Agreed, let's leave it there or we will just continue forever. We each have a different understanding of what wave-particle duality means.

lol
thats funny
once you realise the stuff of the pico level and then go back to the macro level/micro level you realise whats described in the 'duality' is not accurate. its been simplified into macro-micro observational words

lets just try using 'particle' as compressed wave causing resistance.
and lightwave as uncompressed wave free to flow

the duality experiment you showed is where when light waves are projected through a wall with 2 slits. the light waves before the wall are hundreds of light waves beaming out each at different degrees of 360^o from the light source
technically millions of waves each at different 360,000micro degrees...
technically billions of waves each at different 360,000,000nano degrees
technically trillions of waves each at different 360,000,000,000pic degree's
depending on the level/how accurately your able to observe/measure then smaller bits in between

but lets stick with macro (normal human eye 360 level observation)
and when going through the slits 2 beams carry on straight. and the rest dont get through due to the wall

but the waves just a couple micro/nano/pico degree's +/- hit the wall(particle of compressed waves) and the interference resists the light wave and bounces(reflects) the light wave in the opposite direction  than its input angle

so instead of seeing just 2 beams f light going straight through the slot. you see it spread out in multiple angles. because of the effect/interference from the wall edges

but now we are just diverting far off the QC topic.

the while theory is that at macro level of just 360o light your observation would be that only 2 beams of light get through and they continue on in a straight line from source through the slit to the there side.
where as at micro 360,000o there would be some reflection off the edges of the slits

..
at pico level its explaining that the waves of the wall interfere and resist the waves of light
at macro level its saying that 'light bends' and is not acting light a wave in one direction but like a solid coil/spring that can be bent around corners

..
its just explaining at human eye level
'oh my god its magic, light can bend'
vs science
'its about the reflection of light due to the interference from the slits in the wall' and also the interference of the other waves of light

heck even the article you link explains the experiment is about the defraction due to the interference from the grating

what will be mind blowing is when you get to the pico level understanding of everything is a wave or more precisely zillions of waves.
and the makeup/mix and their interference/resistance strengths on each other determine what property it has at the micro/macro scale

and 'splitting an atom' is not a macro illusion of cutting apple in half. but instead resisting the electro/radio/light wavelenths away to get to the gamma waves protected within those other lower wavelength 'shells'(layers)

we could them move into the more detailed positive gamma and negative gamma. but i think we have gone way passed the QC topic

Here's some evidence of wave-particle duality:


https://www.labbulletin.com/articles/20130513_4

Agreed on this fellow. We already had deep discussions regarding the quantum computing and it's teraflops of power to solve complex equations. Sadly, though cryptography might just look easy one for teraflops of energy but it's useless if you overlook the data that is generated as output hash. What to say, it's garbage and nothing much while the input would take ages to solve it.

However if over the time SHA would have stayed in the primary stage only then it could have been judgemental but again everything sticks at garbage out put that is produced by algorithm. It's non sense to us, and quantum computer as well.

hey

i could also beat my chest of how the illusion of a particle at micro-nano level is a physical hard surface piece of dust
i could also beat my chest of how in reality but only visible at the pico level a particle is actually all just waves. creating resistance depending on how compressed they are

imagine zooming it up from the pico level to the macro level to see a particle is like a gas or water.. so lets go with the oceans water. .. its all just flowing interfering with each other and making waves and currents
where when the 'tide' is high at one side of the planet. the 'tide' is low in another side of the planet
its not that one small particle of water on one side of the planet is also on the other side.
its that the fluid motion of one affects the other
that stuff is just simple science now adays

heck they call it 'spooky science' of a high tide at one side is spooky to be a low tide on the other side 'at the same time'
but its not. its just the limitation of accuracy of measuring the wave at the speed of light..
once you realise speed can be faster but not measurable in the gamma range. it starts to make sense
its just too fast to see it happen so call it 'magic' (slight of hand)


anyway back to 'particals'/'electron dots' and free electrons vs electron shells
if you compress the water. and not give them much room to move, the energy of the waves creates resistance and so many waves in such a small area gives the feeling that it is solid because the resistance prevents another wave from passing through it and instead bouncing off it. thus the 'feeling' of solidity

its like making a ice cube by compressing water but even the ice is still waves(at the pico level). just moving slower and less distance and more of them in a confined area to resist other things passing through

so a ice cup can the hold water without the water just flowing through it/mixing with it.
all based on how free the waves get to move and how much space there is to spread or confined within


i understand there are waves all around us and they are all at different wave lengths and amplitudes which make the difference from sound radio electromagnetic light and radiation
i understand all thats stuff.
(heck i was playing with radio frequency crystal diodes in the 90's (CB/ham radio era)) just for fun

anyway if we go with the ice cup holding water image we can go into the whole interferance of the less compressed waves of the water interfering with the compressed waves of the cup. melting the cup.
or the interference of the compressed waves of the cup interfering with the water to slowdown and freeze the water waves. we can go into the details of how light and sound waves can affect the water and the ice.
where say light waves can melt the ice and cause leakage of the water

where by even if you poured in water at 10^oc into the icecup. the ice cup would actually reduce the temperature of the water. so when measured. you'd expect 10oc but actually get a lower number due to the cup interference.
or if you used a certain thermometer that was warm. it would heat the water a bit. again affecting the result

it does not mean that the water is actually both at 9oc and 11oc its that you should before measuring it, by doing some theory math. that the water might be between 9-11 but you just dont know until you measure it
but to remember that the measuring device might affect the result too

but all that chest thumping at the pico level that everything is a wave of energy.. just over complexes the 'electron' charge and orbit of the nano scale of QC

Thanks for that.

I do wade in on a lot of different subject areas on this forum, largely to broaden my understanding. But on quantum physics I will stand my ground. I am not an expert on quantum computing, as I've said before. This is because my expertise is on the quantum side, rather than the computing side. I'm not just some idiot spouting buzzwords. Perhaps assume a degree of competence, unless you can invalidate it.

---

(edited to remove some bragging and aggressive posturing)

If I base my knowledge on what I saw in Avengers: Endgame and think that Quantum physics was the technology that was used as a base in order to go into the past and return to their current time (and maybe even future), then I don't understand the reason why Quantum computing couldn't mine BTC at a quicker rate than current one. Then comes a fact to my mind that with the rise in speed of mining BTC, rises the difficulty. So even if Quantum computing ever becomes able to try to destroy the ultimate BTC mining industry, won't this difficulty part affect as a hurdle there as well? The only problem I see is that, current miners won't be able to mine BTC if this takes place and it'll turn into a fully centralised industry.

ill let you continue to play around with the science lab theory experiments that backdate 100 years
and make things sound over complex about the 'spooky'

meanwhile ill continue on about the practical uses that are actually happening right now
oh and slight spoiler. there is no dead cat in a box

but yea 4 gates measured by the difference of a charge of 1 electron, 5 electrons, 13 electrons, 25 electrons and double checked by a separate electron and measuring a feature abut that

not all QC computer companies follow the same 'lets measure the spin of another electron too'
not all QC computers companies follow the same 1 5,13,25 gaps to avoid interference.
not all QC companies follow the same 31 electron per dot
heck some are avoiding electrons altogether and instead just using photons

but one thing for sure is the 4 gate instead of 2 gate is pretty much a default standard protocol for all companies for atleast the next few years

but i hope this topic has clarified things in normal english.. without jumping back into the realm the mythical buzzwords of the unexplained 'spooky'
because i know a few people like to just use the buzzwords to sound like they know. but not really able to describe it outside the theory. or unable to describe a practical use, thus obviously cant really know what it really means

It has, actually. It's weird how in the many CV19 threads I seem to find myself on the same side of the argument as you, and arguing many of the same points from the same perspective. But whenever we come to a quantum computing thread, we can't agree at all.

You are thinking of an electron as being best described at all times as a particle, when that's not the case. The Schrödinger wave equation is the best description of what an electron is in a quantum sense. Have a look at wave-particle duality, and in particular the double-slit experiment.
The thing with quantum mechanics is that we know that the wave function is a great representation of what is happening on a quantum level. And we know that measuring the system always gives a definite value. That's not the same as saying that the 'definite' value always exists in a quantum sense, but is just hidden from us. There is some nuance here. The question of what the underlying reality is that the quantum mechanical description represents is somewhat contentious, which is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the Copenhagen interpretation.
The problem is that our human brains have evolved to cope with human problems, spotting predators and identifying food and manipulating tools, all in the everyday macroscopic environment. When we try to explain what the maths of QM tells us, it is difficult to frame it in human terms. There are plenty of people who understand the maths, and understand that the wave function explains what actually exists better than does a simple particle explanation... but there is no-one alive who understands exactly what quantum mechanics means in terms of an absolute physical reality, it's just that the particle explanation is not, from that quantum perspective, either accurate or sufficient.

no no no
using your own link of the hydrogen image.
that is not an image of an actual electron being in multiple places..
its a mathematical graph is possible places an electron could be

EG if i said i was on a street in washington
showing a map of washington of all the possible streets im on does not mean im then on all streets, it just shows te probability that im going to be on those streets and not streets of say new york
so on a map of USA washington would be lit up like a christmas tree of white light of all the streets lit up. and then dark map for the rest of america.

what its also saying about the uncertainty is that the microscopic light of the measuring device interferes with a electrons fixed position before the measure and can move it slightly.

again
imagine a volt meter
there is a charge of 0.5v but the volt meter to take a measure requires 0.01v to do is job so a volt meter should read 0.49v to be accurate of how many volts it receives.. but they know the volt meter itself has caused the 0.01 discrepency so they call it 5v.

the image of the HYDOGEN DENSITY PLOTS
is jsut a pre-prepared map of posiblilities.
its not showing actual positions of where an electron is at a single point in time
its showing a map of all the possible roads a electron can move on.. but without knowing all the factors they cant tell where in that map it at any even second
did you even read the wiki
its about difference between classical macro accuracy vs micro accuracy

the myth is that an eelectron is in muliple places at any single time
the reality is that an electron is in a single place at any time. but interference from many things can move it/vary it depending on time and whats interfereing

EG
light from a microscope can charge the particle and shift the electrons a bit. so what your seeing when looking at it is not the position it was before seeing it.

its not that the light freezes it in place in this universe.. where without the light its zippig around different universes.
its that the light can shift it from a previous position. to a new position because of the charge of the light

ok how to word it in a more illustrative way
if you are standing on mainstreet. .. you are not also standing on jersey shore. nor also standing on wimbledon common. you not in some special super position

but under classical mapping all someone knows is your in a city.
now if you send spot of spotters in to look around the city for you. suddenly you will see the energy of a crowd running towards you and if the crowd is charging at you fast enough you will try to run down another street.

atleast try to read the wiki you even linked
here ill save you time


its the same as cell phone triangulations. they cannot predict where you will be.. but they can plot/triangulate the area your most likely to be based on the limited info they have got. but then when they do ping your phone to locate you. then they know where you are.

it does not mean your phone is in 100,000 locations in a 10m² grid between cell towers

..
once they can get more accurate at measuring the things that interfere with the radio waves of cell hone towers. they can then before more accurate as measuring small distances. like locate you within a 2m range instead of a 20 metre range

as for the 'spin' and the 4 gates
now your being a little pedantic.
right now most companies are only trying to handle 4gates.
because accuracy at such a small level is only good for 4 gates reliably..
but yea in the future once they can calculate more intereferences to be more precise then yea maybe they can open up to 8 gates.
but right now its 2gate(binary) 4gate(QC)
.
as for the 'spin' different companies measure different things in different ways.
some measure just charge. some measure just light waves . some measure a combination of both

its like binary
you can measure the wattage to a bulb off or on gives you an answer
you can measure the visual of a bulb. off or on gives you an answer
you can measure both to get a second opinion/double checked answer

or you can measure something else that has 2 options like a electric motor connected to a toilet seat. up is on down is off.

the whole spin thing is not some magic voodoo of an object jumping in and out of different universes at the same time
its that if they charge 4 electrons. they can test those 4 electrons. and then have a separate control electron which should follow a certain magnetic bath based on the effect that the 4 electrons. thus use the spin control electron as the double check/validator

the problem still arises that i they have not accounted or all interfences that spin can be off a little.
which is why they have to keep the dot cold, sound and vibration proof and away from other EM emitting devices. 
have a nice day. its been fun

Quantum physics is all about probability density. An electron in a quantum system is not in a definite single position, or even in definite multiple positions, instead it is best defined as a smear of probabilities across a range of positions. This is absolutely fundamental to quantum mechanics. When we take a measurement, the electron resolves into a definite state. In terms of a single qubit, 0 or 1. It is the act of measurement that creates the certainty. Prior to measurement, it makes no sense to say the electron is at point A or point B, because prior to measurement the electron cannot really be considered as a point-like particle. Please read about the Measurement Problem. (Consider also Schrödinger's cat. It is the act of measurement that forms the interface between the quantum and the classical worlds. This leads onto the question of whether the wave function actually collapses, and whether the Copenhagen interpretation should be the standard - a more esoteric subject, for a different time.)

Yes. A number of electron shells are filled (with electrons). And then a single additional electron is added to a new shell. It is this single electron (its spin) that can be used as a qubit. There may be 4,12 or 24 electrons in closed shells, but there is always one additional electron in the outermost shell.


No, it isn't.

'uncertainty' 'probability'
is about accuracy to measure it

its not about it being multiple things at one time
its about a 5v charge is not actually 5v. its
1millisecond 4.98 another millisecond 4.99 another milisecond5.00 another millisecond5.01 and so on
meaning in a time stream of 10 milliseconds it can vary from 4.98 to 5.02
and a measuring instrument just calls it 5.00v as a average/or due to limitations of accuracy

its not and never has nor ever will be about that in any specific second it being both 5.02 and 4.98 at the same time

but hey. you want to stick with the myths of just throwing the buzzwords around
meanwhile ill keep explaining them in plainer non science common wording.

oh and one last funny, you say its
'one valence electron' .. but then quote these words
very distinct peaks appear at transitions 4 → 5, 12 → 13 and 24 → 25. To understand the significance of these electron numbers
anyway it has been fun
but for other readers its
accuracy is distinctly measurable at 4<>5 electrons..  12<>13 electrons and 24<>25 electrons

and ofcourse 0 is not absolute zero due to many factors like interfence so 0 is the 0<>1

but atleast we have finally jumped over the previous topic elsewhere and you finally recognising the 4 gate
base 4 maths.. instead of the 2 gate base 2 math of binary
yea quantum is base 4.. and if just translated to base 2. the translator would be the thing that decides what to round up or down to.

its never been about multiple positions at the same time its about instrument measuring limitations and the accuracy of rounding things off

@franky1, I disagree profoundly with your assessment, and with who it is who is poking around in the realm of 'magic'

No, of course they're not.
The numbers 1, 5, 13, 25 come from the fact that we are talking about electron shells for a silicon quantum dot. We are always talking about a single valence electron, a single electron in the outermost shell, with the inner shells all filled, i.e. 0+1, 4+1, 12+1, 24+1. In each case, the spin of a full shell sums to zero. It is the single valence electron that is used, its spin property becoming the qubit that we measure. From the paper:

This is not true. Wave-particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle are fundamental to quantum mechanics. Here's a probability-density plot of the electron in hydrogen:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Quantum computing is some time off now, at least where it is more common place. I often hear from people when they find out I'm "in to bitcoin", that when quantum computing comes out it is going to ruin the blockchain.  There's nothing saying it can't be used to update and strengthen the chain. Nonetheless its an extremely interesting technology.

to simplify cnuts reference and explanation
because they are trying to measure the amount of electrons at the near atomic level where they need to measure 4 gates (options) as 1e 5e 13e 25e

this small size, the amount of electrons and proximity can all cause confusion from one thing to the next
heck even outside interference, the charge itself can move the electrons they are trying to measure

or for ELI-5 (exaggerating the numbers to bigger understandable numbers) a particle that can handle a measure of upto0.31v and able to measure
0.01v as g0
0.05v as g1
0.13v as g2
0.25v as g3

with many many reasons to have this gap and many reasons to not have the gaps of equal amount
EG not equal 0 8 16 24 but 1 5 13 25

because interference would make things never an absolute 0v.. so hence 0.01v (1electron)

and as more electrons(ELI-5 volts) are included the more interference is caused
so the 'measures' are spaced at gaps of 4 8 12 separations
because a interference of 1 electron might confuse the measuring instrument that a 1electron is actually 50% more(2electron) or a interference of 5electrons might make it measure as 50% less(3electron) so only measuring if something rounds to 1 or rounds to 5 means less confusing readings due to interference
...
if they measures at 1 2 3 4 electron increments as i just explained a 1electron could be mis measured as 2
and a 5 electron might be mis measured as a 3 or 4

so they are trying to keep a good enough gap to allow for interference to be rounded out to the nearest measure unit they want

they also are trying to keep the number of electrons total requirement per particle low at 31
because more then 31 means the distance between one particle(dot) to the next would need to increase to ensure the 31 electrons does not cause a next particle set to 1 actually showing 5 due to a 25% interference factor of its previous particle(dot)
imagine it if a particle was charged at 31 the interference may cause something to close to read as 15 or something a little apart read as 5 or further apart read as 1 meaning.. if they had measures of 100 then the distance would need to be even further.
 
thus less dots per inch, thus less particles per chip. thus less operations per chip

also more electrons clustered together can generate heat and other charge things which is not just about interference. but about heat of the device

but i assure you of one thing
unlike cnut who is still poking around the realm of 'spooky magic' myths of king arthurs stories(einstein)
its not about electrons being in many places at once. its simply about having a most accurate method of measuring something accounting for interference variation
i assure you that electrons are not both 1 and 5 and 13 and 25 at the same time
just interference could make a charge of 5 appear as a 3 or a 8 due to the interference affecting the charge

which if the measuring device wanted to just measure 4567 then a charge of 5 would fluctuate between all of the indicators due to interference
..
the whole thing about a item can be many things until its measured. is not voodo magic
its that a charge of constant 0.05v due to interfence might be 1second 0.04v and another 0.06v
heck even the measuring instrument might add or take away a bit of charge

its not about magical 0.05 is also 0.10 . but that the measuring instrument may not be accurate or the interference make offset the 0.05 to at one time be 0.04 or the next second 0.06 because it varies doue to outside interference and accuracy of the measuring device

I think you're overstating the fragility. I do agree that the greater the complexity, the more difficult it is to achieve sufficient stability... but having said that, the problem of decoherence is by no means insurmountable. Have a look at this paper, published back in February.

Instead of the more standard silicon, this approach uses quantum dots as a basis, with artificial 'atoms' constructed around them. The resultant stability increase is considerable. The reason this works is that they remove the noise associated with having a nucleus and its spherical electron shells... instead they can just apply a voltage to pull additional electrons into orbit around the dot, and so build up clean, flat electron shells without any of that atomic complexity. It is then quite straightforward to fill each shell and then add one final electron to a new outermost shell. So the closed (fully doubly-occupied) shells sum to spin zero, and we can take the spin of the single electron in the final shell as the qubit... but a much more stable qubit than might be obtained via the silicon approach.

My opinion on this :

• It is not just blockchain which is going to suffer tremendously because of these computers of used incorrectly , it's also the government websites , banks , big institutions , therefore what I know is that the government will for sure look forward to regulate it somehow .

• It is expensive to own one therefore it won't be that much of a problem right now but the problem will be in the future when the computers might become affordable , this is what happens when we talk about technologies and all , over the time they are reinvented in a way which actually makes them more common and affordable therefore we do have time to make some adjustments in the Blockchain technology right now . The developers should take into account.

•Now above all what matters is your personal protection , you have to make sure that , you take care of what kind is apps you are installing , where you are storing your Bitcoins.. lot of things , one needs to be as safe as they can even a little bit of carelessness from the user side might be a night of party for a hacker 😂 , don't worry people I do think we are going to see some restrictions regarding the new quantum computers , no way government is gonna let this slide .

At the level of isolation needed to find private keys from public, even a neutrino would disturb the system. Gravitation waves from someone making a step would wipe it out. Snapping fingers, moving eyes, breathing, etc. in a far away place would be enough.

Something more - if QC needs any kind of switching - following a program instead of hard-wired single-purpose system - any switching inside it would be enough to destroy the state.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that straightforward.
The issue is that if bitcoin is upgraded to be quantum-resistant, then all coins will then need to be moved to new quantum-resistant addresses.
What happens to coins that aren't moved (or can't be moved, because either the key has been lost or the owner is deceased)?
Coins that aren't moved would remain vulnerable and could be stolen by anyone with a sufficiently powerful QC.
Do we leave them to be stolen? Or do we put in place say a 3 month deadline to move, and anything not moved by that time is burnt?
Both options are contentious, both bring their own problems.

That's correct. Still, people keep coming and asking over and over again what measures Bitcoin takes against QC or claiming that QC will bring the end of Bitcoin.
Even this thread is about what QC means for BTC.
I think that although we keep reassuring them (even if some may be post-hungry trolls), we need a bigger banner "we are not scared of QC (and ghosts)".