According to IBM"Quantum physics provides an intriguing basis for achieving computational power to address certain categories of mathematical problems that are completely intractable with machine computation as we know it today. We present a brief overview of the current theoretical and experimental works in the emerging field of quantum computing. The implementation of a functioning quantum computer poses tremendous scientific and technological challenges, but current rates of progress suggest that these challenges will be substantively addressed over the next ten years. We provide a sketch of a quantum computing system based on superconducting circuits, which are the current focus of our research. A realistic vision emerges concerning the form of a future scalable fault-tolerant quantum computer."from hereand here"The result is that the researchers are now ready to build a system that spans several qubits. ?The next bottleneck is now how to make these devices betters. The bottleneck is how to put five or ten of these on a chip,? Steffen says. ?The device performance is good enough to do that right now. The question is just: ?How do you put it all together??? "So maybe the first quantum computer in 10-15 years and why not a commercial one in 30-50 years max ?

Yes but what's the price ? and what is the size ? Anyway ifthere are already a quantum computer I reduce my projection for a standard customer in a horizon of 15-20 years (really excited !! )Do you think that some banks will invest in quantum computer in a close future ? Are there already some operating systems for a quantum computer and some programming languages to develop software on it ? I'm waiting for the first video game on a quantum computer unit (Skyrim at the power 10 )EDIT: Seriously in fact I'm a bit skeptic. Where are the performance of their computer ?from Wiki Umesh Vazirani, a professor at UC Berkeley and one of the founders of quantum complexity theory, made the following criticism:"Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Mosca and I wrote on "The power of adiabatic quantum computing." That speed up unfortunately does not hold in the setting at hand, and therefore D-Wave's "quantum computer" even if it turns out to be a true quantum computer, and even if it can be scaled to thousands of qubits, would likely not be more powerful than a cell phone."Comment made in 2007.It tells a lot about the credibility of the firm ...Well very skeptical...http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/20 ... 1According to world experts in the domain, this company is a dumb sh*t and their work a terrible misunderstanding of what a quantum computer is. FAKE ! I hope to see a TRUE quantum computer during my life !

Last edited by frenchX on February 27th, 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Before Bill Gates decided that being the richest person in the world meant he could help people rather than create some crazy cult where allocates such as Stephen Fry think you are a god he said this:QuoteWe always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.

- Traden4Alpha
**Posts:**23951**Joined:**

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxBefore Bill Gates decided that being the richest person in the world meant he could help people rather than create some crazy cult where allocates such as Stephen Fry think you are a god he said this:QuoteWe always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.Indeed! People over-estimate the short-term rate of adoption (which tends to be low due to conservatism, low asset turn-over rates, and adaptation risks/costs) and people underestimate the long-term cardinality of applications (which tends to be high once people figure out what they can do with the invention).

- Traden4Alpha
**Posts:**23951**Joined:**

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunI alway had this hunch that one could factor composite numbers with single photon interference, a cascade of half mirors, standing wave, and measuring path segments and see if that path segment observation affects the standing wave that maps A,B to A*B and back.Vague, isnt it? The parallelism would be in the cascade of possible paths the single photon takes, so it's not 'entangled state parallelism' but 'spatial path parallelism'I'm sure you can do something like this for small numbers but I've always been a bit skeptical about the scaling of QM computing to useful numbers of qubits. If one wants to factor something useful like a 1024 bit number into two O(512-bit) primes, one might need to create standing waves or path segment geometries accurate to better than 2 parts in 10^-154 to distinguish between closely-spaced candidate prime factors.It seems to me that the ability to create an N-qubit system, apply an M-step algorithm, and then read the outcome across the 2^N states becomes exponentially harder as N and M grow. In other words, scaling quantum computing may be no easier than scaling regular computing.But I'd love to be proven wrong!

Last edited by Traden4Alpha on February 27th, 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

- Traden4Alpha
**Posts:**23951**Joined:**

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunTrue. That would be if you encoded numbers on a real line (one spike, all other places empty), but you can also use binary encoding giving you linear scaling.I once read about this Afshar experiment. That's part of the gut feeling idea Hmmm... I think binary encoding only works if the solution on each bit can be recombined into a solution on the whole pattern. That doesn't seem likely for factoring but I could be wrong.I'm not sure how to use Afshar's rig to solve the factoring problem. But I'm not expert in these matters -- I usually take all my quantum problems to our friendly neighborhood quantum mechanic.

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxBefore Bill Gates decided that being the richest person in the world meant he could help people rather than create some crazy cult where allocates such as Stephen Fry think you are a god he said this:QuoteWe always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.i wonder who's going to mention the Moore's law first ...

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxBefore Bill Gates decided that being the richest person in the world meant he could help people rather than create some crazy cult where allocates such as Stephen Fry think you are a god he said this:QuoteWe always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.That's because we intuitively think in terms of linear growth/adoption when in fact it is nearer to exponential until saturation damps it.

I think the problem you'll face is that you're trying to use laws of nature to solve factorisation, a bit like a Sieve of Eratosthenes, but as soon as you introduce binary representations (thus imposing an ordering and significance on the mirrors) and adders then you part company with the underlying laws of nature.