Monday, April 25, 2016

European Quantum Manifesto

SciAm reports:
The European Commission has quietly announced plans to launch a €1-billion (US$1.13 billion) project to boost a raft of quantum technologies—from secure communication networks to ultra-precise gravity sensors and clocks.

The initiative, to launch in 2018, will be similar in size, timescale and ambition to two existing European flagships, the decade-long Graphene Flagship and the Human Brain Project, although the exact format has yet to be decided, Nathalie Vandystadt, a commission spokesperson, toldNature. Funding will come from a mixture of sources, including the commission, as well as other European and national funders, she added.

The commission is likely to have a “substantial role” in funding the flagship, says Tommaso Calarco, who leads the Integrated Quantum Science and Technology centre at the Universities of Ulm and Stuttgart in Germany. He co-authored a blueprint behind the initiative, which was published in March, called the Quantum Manifesto. Countries around the world are investing in these technologies, says Calarco. Without such an initiative, Europe risks becoming a second-tier player, he says. “The time is really now or never.” ...

High-profile US companies are already investing in quantum computing, and Chinese scientists are nearing the completion of a 2,000-kilometre long quantum-communication link — the longest in the world — to send information securely between Beijing and Shanghai.

In Europe, the flagship is expected to fuel the development of such technologies, which the commission calls part of a “second quantum revolution” (the first being the unearthing of the rules of the quantum realm, which led to the invention of equipment such as lasers and transistors).
No, there is no practical utility to quantum communication or quantum computing.

Scott Aaronson and others comment on Candian PM Trudeau's description of quantum computing.

Here is my own attempt at a brief 35-second explanation:
Quantum mechanics is a system for tracking the potential observations of atoms, and other phenomena on that scale. In particular it allows calculating probabilities of multiple possibilities, even tho single outcomes are observed.

A quantum computer is a conjectural machine to do computations from interpreting those multiple possibilities as separate realities that can each contribute to what appears to be an almost-magic parallel computation. Despite almost a billion dollars in investment, no such speedups have been achieved.

12 comments:

  1. If only we had a teaching profession that could learn the eloquence of your brevity!

    ReplyDelete
  2. There aren't many politicians, bureaucrats or business leaders who have the necessary technical expertise to make a confident judgement as to whether quantum computing will actually work. They have to rely on the opinion of experts and when the experts disagree they will tend to go with whichever side has the most prestigious supporters. But the one thing they do understand is how costly it will be to their business or institution, and to their own reputations, if they miss out on the next big thing. So there is a kind of precautionary principle at work, in which they feel obliged to have a stake in every new technology just in case it does turn out to be the big one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. That's why you have you starve the beast.

      Delete
  3. Let me try my explanation of quantum mechanics: It is a glorified actuarial chart containing a zoo of theorized subatomic particles that substitute probabilistic Chinese boxes for any actual understanding of functional process or 'mechanics'.

    This is what happens when you let a profession of historical card cheats take over a science, you end up with a lot of slight of hand tricks and lose a fortune. When you don't know where your numbers are coming from and what they are actually assigned to, you truly have no idea what is going on. Throwing more money and complexity at the problem is not going to solve anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Boeing just got a patent that uses qubits and/or some quantum communication, I think it protects against SS7 and other "metacloud transfers" (my term.). That makes QC arguably practical, unless they pulled wool over the eyes of the PTO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that is pure nonsense because existing encryption and MACing is very secure. Find me an instance where they have been truly broken when used properly. Strength of encryption just requires some hardware extensions. In terms of cryptography, discrete logarithm with cyclic groups and cyclic subgroups of elliptic curves over finite fields or integer factorization work perfectly fine and show no signs of weakness. Lattice-based cryptography already has usable Java libraries! Quantum security can't even use routers! It's completely impractical and overkill. It's an overpopulation make-work conspiracy.

      Delete
  5. Boeing just got a patent that uses qubits and/or some quantum communication, I think it protects against SS7 and other "metacloud transfers" (my term.). That makes QC arguably practical, unless they pulled wool over the eyes of the PTO.

    ReplyDelete
  6. WWII era PADs are still unbreakable and the politicians want to throw billions at magic bullshit to encrypt their messages? Does it really take a PhD to know that scientists are attracted to money more than flies to honey? Producing results is not exactly the objective of government science so much as continued employment 'for perpetual further study'.

    Knowing people who work at the Patent and Trademark Office, I can honestly tell you that the patent examiners are far from perfect, and can and have been fooled. Why anyone would assume that a lowly patent examiner would have the ability to discern a design for a working qubit when there isn't even a coherent agreed upon 'interpretation' by the supposed 'experts' that would allow one to be possbible is beyond me. Even examinations of new patents to very mundane inventions sometimes fail to reveal that pre-existing patents are already on record for the same design, or that the design actually does not function as claimed.

    The horrible truth is, much of government funded science is nothing but an overpriced make-work project for scientists. The R means nothing without the D. This is why companies that produce actual products that are sold to actual people (not financially challenged politicians who think people's money belongs to them because they want it) discover things like new drugs and technologies. Real business works on finite timelines with actual concrete objectives they have to achieve to stay in business, such as producing a marketable product. Government financed anything has no objective purpose but to stay funded and grow their budgets. Watch Eisenhower's farewell address, he was already aware of this money pit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I'll write to Boeing and tell them that their new patent is hogwash. As a matter of public interest. :)

      Yeah, I have some experience with the PTO too. :(

      Delete
    2. I guess I'll write to Boeing and tell them that their new patent is hogwash. As a matter of public interest. :)

      Yeah, I have some experience with the PTO too. :(

      Delete
  7. Patents aren't supposed to issue unless invention has utility. Roger's a patent agent. This was granted. Just sayin.
    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20160105439&OS=20160105439&RS=20160105439

    ReplyDelete
  8. Patents aren't supposed to issue unless invention has utility. Roger's a patent agent. This was granted. Just sayin.
    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20160105439&OS=20160105439&RS=20160105439

    ReplyDelete