Fernando Rodriguez <frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com> wrote: > On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM waben...@gmail.com wrote: > > Boricua Siempre <borikua.197...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello > > > > > > I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating > > > systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers > > > > I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely > > based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based > > arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly > > conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such > > machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or > > Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-) > > And there probably never will. An operating system requires > deterministic behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an > expert) quantum computing can only deal with probabilities so a > quantum OS would probably crash :)
But isn't the stability of Linux and BSD running on a non deterministic hardware not proofed some years ago by the Pentium FDIV bug? ;-) More seriously, I don't think that in the forseeable future computers will be based only on quantum components. They probably will only be used as an additional arithmetic unit for some specific calculations. Therefore I don't think that the stability of an OS will be disturbed by the fact that these components are based on non deterministic quantum physics. We should not forget that the lasers that can be found in CD drives, the magnetic heads in modern hard disks, and also every FET are working with technology that is based on quantum effects. I never heard that any OS has problems with these components. Ok, maybe I'm wrong regarding CD players/writers. Their non deterministic behavior sometimes has driven me crazy. ;-) > What we do have is the quantum equivalent of the circuits you may do > on a high school computer club to add a few bits. The most complex > ones may run simple algorithms but are not much more than that as far > as I know. > > > can use particols moving faster than light but on other book > > > particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can > > > destroy universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my > > > english not good, still learning. > > > > I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that > > a quantum computer could be dangerous. :-) > > > > In fact, "a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity > > involved in an interaction" (wikipedia). > > > > I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can > > have a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell > > or a DNA molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in > > quantum computers. Quantum does there only means that they are > > using very small entities which can be described by the theories of > > quantum mechanic, like electron spins or quantum entangled photons. > > > > And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster > > than light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK > > there are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You > > probably > > There is a sort of analogue to a sonic boom for light speed. It > happens when a particle travels faster than light in a medium. No > massive particle can travel at the speed of light in vacuum but light > travels much slower through a medium and particles can be accelerated > much faster. It happens in nuclear reactors. Of course it doesn't > destroy the universe, it just emits a blue light known a Cherenkov > radiation. That's right and I'm aware of this phenomenon. But when I spoke about light speed, I meant the light speed in vacuum of course. > > mean "quantum teleportation". But this has nothing to to with the > > movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the > > quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the > > nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum > > attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous > > influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of > > its distance. But if you wanna know the quantum attributes of the > > second electron you need the information about the measurement of > > the first one. And because you cannot transmit this information > > faster than light you also cannot use "quantum teleportation" to > > really transmit information faster than light. > > The best laymen terms explanation I've heard of this is by Murray > Gell-Mann in The Quark and the Jaguar. The state is really determined > when the particles are "entangled". The principle of uncertainty > holds because we cannot know the state until we make the measurement > but there's "no spooky action at a distance." That would maybe be a solution for this problem and Einstein would probably be glad to hear about it. :-) But I think that it is very difficult to proof this theory. Damn language barrier. I can't really express what I'm thinking. But I will try. :-) If our universe is just a part of something "higher dimensional" (like in string theories) then we will have a fundamental problem to understand it. What we are see as particles or waves is maybe in fact some completely different. We see only the "projection" of the real "things" into our "world", not the underlaying "truth". And because our mind is emerging from a "low dimensional" brain it is maybe not able to understand the whole thing as a matter of principle. So, enough for today. My head is spinning now. It is a complex topic and I don't have a really deep understanding of it. I'm no scientist and I'm not be able to understand the complex mathematics that is the base of all these theories. All I can do is to philosophize in a foreign language that I barely can speak on a very low level about facts that I read in some popular scientific articles. But nevertheless it's fun to do this. :-) -- Regards wabe
