On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 6 Jul 2020, at 14:41, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Monday, July 6, 2020 at 6:46:16 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:19 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh >>> >> >> > *Take it from me when I say no nation on this planet is doing >>> strategic planning on quantum computers.* >> >> >> NSA, Army Seek Quantum Computers Less Prone to Error >> <https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/12/nsa-army-research-aim-more-advancedand-less-noisyquantum-systems/162029/?oref=d-river> >> >> >> The Pentagon is Trying to Secure Its Networks Against Quantum Codebreakers >> <https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/05/pentagon-trying-secure-its-networks-against-quantum-codebreakers/157276/?oref=d1-related-article> >> >> John K Clark >> > > This may be the case. Quantum computing is interesting, and with the IBM > QE I wrote a couple of simple codes to prepare entangled states and to flip > them in a Hadamard gate. The QE runs at 50 qubits, which is a narrow path > so to speak. It is also an ungainly thing that sits in a cryro-tank. Maybe > diamond with nitrogen atoms at specific locations will lead to practical > q-computers. The big issue needed to be cracked is quantum error > correction, where progress on this in time may lead to more practical > quantum computers or processors that might in the future enter into > computers. It is possible in a few decades that quantum computers might > begin to appear all around us. It will probably take a fair amount of time. > > Sabine's assessment of quantum metrology over quantum computing is > probably correct in the next decade or two. > > > I agree. The work of Kitaev and Friedmann have convinced me that quantum > computer will exist, like the theorem of Shannon has shown that > telecommunication is possible. Now, the tasks which remain are quite > difficult, and I have no idea if this will take some decades, a century or > a millenium. If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my > lifetime, I will be impressed…, but I have few doubt that in some future, > quantum computing will work, probably for the military before the general > public. China seems to have already build telephone nets which seems to be > quantum secured, although it is hard to verify. Quantum Cryptographic > applications will precede computations per se. > > I am not at ease with what the human will do with such a technology, but > that’s another matter. > > Bruno > > > Kitaev pioneered nonabelian anyons. The horizon of a black hole has two spatial dimensions, which means all QFTs on the stretched horizon are anyonic. This means all QFTs holographically projected into the spacetime bulk have the same fundamental data. This comports with Wigner's small group theory, where fundamental physics is with small groups and symmetries. Large groups emerge from degeneracy splitting or as broken symmetry versions of large groups.
Quantum computing can solve a set of problem not contained in the set P for standard computing. These are bounded quantum polynomial sets of algorithms. It was hoped that quantum computers could solve NP problems in P space/time, but the need for a classical key transmission demolishes this. They are faster in principle and may run faster based on physical differences instead of mathematical ones. The Shor algorithm does illustrate an in-principle almost instantaneous speed for factorization. If we could do quantum computing we could do even better. The near horizon condition of a black hole hole is an anti-de Sitter spacetime, and a standard computer connected to such will have a time-looping or closed timelike curve system where by it can refine a quantum computation. A quantum computer works by constructive and destructive interference. This means a quantum computing output is really a sort of Fourier transformation. The need for a classical key destroys the NP = P possibility with q-computering. However, if we could couple this to a closed timelike curved processor, the constructive and destructive interference would occur in a sense out of time. It is a bit like the old cheat of inventing a time machine based on a set of theories and specs, building the machine and sending those plans back in time to yourself. Of course we do not have a black hole to do this, but we might get the next best thing, a quark-gluon plasma. The IR Feynman diagrams of quarks and gluons in this are divergent in number, and it is in principle possible I think to emulate a holographic setting. Using a quark-gluon plasma as a computing system is obviously not easy as plucking one out of the LHC ALICE detector to actually compute with would be a hard trick. LC > > > > > > LC > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a9e390b-a33c-4cbd-b9ac-fa87fa4874b4o%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a9e390b-a33c-4cbd-b9ac-fa87fa4874b4o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d7ac48e-fa7c-4ca5-9224-c4a0688ff372o%40googlegroups.com.
