• Thorry@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I’ll be honest, I don’t actually know what all the physics in those papers means. That’s not my job and not my expertise.

    Well maybe not the right dude to ask then?

    My 2 cents: we’ll never get to any sort of practical quantum computer size. As size increases, decoherence becomes a bigger problem. This is currently fixed by having more qubits to compensate. But as the size grows, the amount of qubits needed just to compensate for decoherence grows faster. So there’s a practical limit on how large of a machine is possible. And it isn’t like a smaller machine is just slower, it actually simply can’t do any of the cryptography breaking stuff.

    From my understanding decoherence is a fundamental part of reality, which can’t be helped. But who knows, there might be some breakthrough that allows for it to work. It might also be impossible given the laws of nature. And what I gather it’s also impossible to prove it can’t be done.

    So that’s why quantum computers have been in this limbo state for years now. They might be just around the corner or they might never exist.

    In the security world people are worried stuff is stored today, for it to be decrypted in 20 years time. So there is a push to think about this and take precautions. This seems smart, not because they think quantum computers will exist, but just as a precaution in case it turns out they do.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      That’s exactly the attitude the author was warning against. “Trust me, I know better, this is nothing”

    • jungle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Well maybe not the right dude to ask then?

      Are you an expert in QC? You didn’t read past the first few paragraphs, did you?