Bitcoin Forum

https://i.imgur.com/20jPYuA.png

I didn`t claim to have any knowledge or expertise on quantum computer;  (https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/06/the-worlds-highest-performing-quantum-computer-is-here)I am just curious about the industry and how beautiful they are bringing technology from our current state to the future.

However, this topic may supply ideas about how quantum worked as it is. Well to summarize its ultimate function here`s the first, traditional computing bits are in a state of either “0” or “1”, which mean it cannot solved easily the problem. With quantum computer, both 0s` and 1s` are working simultaneously, making it possible to solved problems with multiple probable solutions, this is called “quantum superposition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition)”. This is in fact the science of quantum physics.

As I`ve do the math ??? in google, I found out that it can really poised risk on certain features which is underlying on blockchain technology to mostly in its minimal, to mention few are “How Private Addresses might compromised its encryption and mining capabilities”.

Well, forget about adresses because it is prone to hack but to mining industry, its risky knowing super computer with huge computing power can do the algorithm faster than the actual mining state. If one miner can gain access to quantum computer, they could produce hashes very quickly and gain dominance, leaving the network exposed to 51% attack.

For more details, click me… (https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-survive-quantum-computers/)

Self Reflection

Which off-course, on my views could possibly be risky, however, given that bitcoin developers are not behind  of such technology - perhaps "quantum resistant encryption scheme" might work...

I do not claim to be an expert in quantum computing or even quantum physics. But I do have some prior knowledge on the subject.

The beauty of bitcoin is that it is open source and allows people to make changes in the code which makes it scalable and relatively adaptable. There are quantum-resistant protocols out there. The threat that quantum computing poses to bitcoin is very much the problem quantum computing poses on any SHA-26 encryption, however, research is already underway to counter this threat.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-37110-4_9 (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-37110-4_9)
This is a link to a research paper that specifically looks into how these protocols can be used to make bitcoin quantum-resistant.

The fact bitcoin uses SHA-26 encryption is nice because it means when an industry-standard algorithm comes out to provide quantum-resistant encryption, it can easily be adopted by the users of the network, and network users will have the incentive to make the switch.

The threat lies between now and when these algorithms are available. I'm not worried so much about Honeywell or another research quantum-computer being used to launch a 51% attack on the BTC network, I'm more worried about a nation-state like China trying to use the technology to take down bitcoin, but I will say that with the power quantum-computers have, I'm sure bitcoin isn't high on the list of targets for quantum-cyber attacks, I would assume China would be more interested in using that technology against other quantum-computing capable nations.

time to uncover the myths of quantum

quantum is not some weird SCI-FI extra dimension.
nor is it creating new things.
instead its just measuring the previously before unmeasurable. and being more accurate than previous technology

take for instance the visual spectrum of light. our eyes only see a mixture of a certain amount of the primary colours.. yet we then made tech that measured infrared and ultraviolet and used it for things like night vision goggles and heat detection

thats quantum. where we first thought the only colours were a mix of the primary colours because thats all we seen previously

..
now quantum computers. is not 0's and 1's and maybe 0's and maybe 1's.. but instead its the new ability to not measure things in only 2 dimensions of 0 and 1. but more dimensions/steps/variables.
take for instance binary being 0 volts of electric as 0 and 1 volt of electric as 1.
and in the past volt meters found it hard to measure 0.33v or 0.66v so people just stuck with 0 and 1 volt and only 2 measures they can use predictable/comfortably without much error

now imagine we can accurately without error measure the difference between 0v,0.33v,0.66vand 1v meaning now we can have 4 variables per pulse/transister instead of 2.

now instead of jsut yes or no/on off/true false. we can have more expressive choices in 4 options
so instead of single direction stop forward. we can have
stop, left, right forward(3d vectors instead of 2d)
so instead of single options yes or no. we can have
no, sometimes, most times, yes

all of this opens up more options. allowing a base 2 to become base 4
it allows hex to be stored in just 2 'bits' instead of 4 bits
it allows base64 to be stored in 3 'bits' instead of 6 bits
so 8bits can store a numeric of 65536 instead of just 256

its not some sci fi extra dimensional universe. its just standard 'dimensions' of going from 2d to 3d

..
now that simple lesson has sunk in
quantum computers wont do much for the efficiency of 256bit hashing.. at most expect 2x efficiency gain.
so dont worry much about anyone making a quantum super computer to out hash the network
the millions of binary based ASICS far far far outpace any quantum systems of any scale for the forseeable future

but the signature process of the eliptic curve is more vector based than binary/hex based and binary computers are not good at these vectors, but quantum is.
however this is not some massive change.
firstly the path of bits a quantum system follows to get to the destination is different then the path a binary system would. so trying to go from a binary problem to a qubit puzzle thenback to a binary solution will not always get the intended binary result

take for instance
needing to get to 256
in binary its answer is 11111111
in quantum(0,1,2,3) it could be
3333 using jsut 4 bits, where if 3 represents 1v in qubit would be 1v in binary thus 1111
thus not the answer a binary system would recognise as 256 but instead as 16
thus a translater that turns each qubit into 2binary bits.
q0=b00
q1=b10
q2=b01
q3=b11
thus reducing the efficiency of the process by having to decompress quantum to binary per try

and keep in mind if it takes a few eons(millions of millions of years) for binary to brute force  bitcoin signature. it will still take thousands of years for quantum.

..
in short quantum is not some new magic that jsut uses magic glitter dust to come to an answer
it just is a transister based system using 4 options instead of 2. and requires the system to be kept at a very very low temperature to keep it able to measure the smaller variables inbetween


p.s
those who have read stories that its wormhole tech/alternative universe/different dimension sci-fi.. its not. its just the patent owners are deliberately trying to be deceptive about the meaning of different dimension. to avoid competitors from stealing the real concepts and making better alternatives faster and cheaper before the patent owners get their competitive head start

if you want to avoid the myths.
binary has 2 'gates' quantum has 4 'gates'
(well some researchers are now seeing how practical/possible it would be to measure 8 gates.. but thats for future generations to play with)

hopefully i dumbed things down enough for beginners

Before you fear about the damage Quantum computers may do to BTC, fear the damage it is capable of doing to everything else that is computer/internet-related.

Just because they exist, it does not mean that they are available for hackers or negative-minded individuals yet. The entire internet/computer domain has to move towards a position where they're safe from these computers before they become widely available - nobody is that blind to let this become the thing without proper precautions. They probably pose as much of a risk to the average equipment as NASA's computers from 1995 posed for the average equipment at the time.

I don't think that's accurate - I know we've been here before though. The advantage of quantum processing is in the superposition, the ability to explore many paths at once - but it still resolves to a classical 0/1 outcome.

---

For Honeywell specifically, I am skeptical because of the metric they've chosen to use:


---

I've shared this a few times, and make no apology for doing so again - it's all open to discussion of course, I'm not claiming to be any authority on the subject, just an enthusiast - but here's my summary of how quantum computing can and will affect bitcoin:

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies use the same underlying cryptography as banks, the Internet and other modern forms of communication. If a quantum computer could crack Bitcoin, we would have much bigger problems, because it would also crack banks, military communications, government secrets and so on. If cryptographic community isn't worried about these quantum computer developments, then neither should you.

Well it depends on what they use it for I guess. I am more concered about super computers in general like when a computer is smarter then all the human brains in the world combined we are screwed! we will end up living in a terminator world someday

 Well it depends on what they use it for I guess. I am more concered about super computers in general like when a computer is smarter then all the human brains in the world combined we are screwed! we will end up living in a terminator world someday
[/quote] How can one develop a supercomputer if one doesn't have a superbrain? There is no need to be concern at this point and I believe whoever has that much brain, they will not risk human race. They will indeed make sure that it is developed for our interest or they won't develop at all.

Certainly. It would be a global cryptography crisis, which would lead even to a cyber security crisis which would lead to an even bigger financial crisis.

Additionally, it is silly to believe that proccessing power would develop and cryptography wouldn't develop at the same time. As proccessing power goes up, cryptographers will create new and more complex solutions for those super computers to solve.

BTC #QC
 

As long as we didn't see the objective use case of quantum computing in our technological time, it is still unclear ( i mean it is not public, but conspiracies will)

What everyone could always believed was the conspiracies underlying the issue of BTC on behalf.


And this one is true, bitcoin is attached to the internet, so in the first place, internet network will be the significant one to be aware of (not for the public users), but by tech developers out there.

Whereas, the problem of bitcoin could all over world; all users in the world using bitcoin (including tech geeks and users/investors). Not to mention that it is currency online something that impacted cryptoeconomis.

How can one develop a supercomputer if one doesn't have a superbrain? There is no need to be concern at this point and I believe whoever has that much brain, they will not risk human race. They will indeed make sure that it is developed for our interest or they won't develop at all.
[/quote]
The usage of quantum computer are not for public use yet, and the companies that are using building their quantum computer are only on its test phase, like Google for faster webcrawling algorithm and whatnot, the public usage of quantum computer is still a long way because as I said before they are still on the test phase and even if they have it already, they will use it probably for complex equations such as precise landing for space exploration and such, the quantum computing does not pose a threat in my opinion because we are reaching a plateau in computing speed and quantum computing will be the solution.

Last time I've read about quantum computers, there was a problem with the vibrations: a truck passing nearby could affect the results of the computer. If that's still not fixed, QC is not reliable for anything more than lab tests. The longer the task (like cracking Bitcoin) the bigger the chance a vibration has broken the results. So Bitcoin, the banking system, communication and so on ... we are safe.

What if they put a quantum computer inside a bunker?The problem with vibrations might be solved. ;D
Anyway,I think the quantum computers are way over-hyped as a technology,kinda like the blockchain technology.They are still very expensive to create and implement and they still have major flaws.
I'm no expert in quantum computers,but I assume that they will become a thing after 20 years.
There's still time for Bitcoin/blockchain technology to improve .

that is exactly what has been happening for centuries, even before computers as cryptography predates computers. it is a never ending struggle to always stay ahead of the technology when it comes to cryptography. the most recent one that is in our lifetime and popular is the SHA-1 hash algorithm which became obsolete years before they found the first collision by spending a tremendous amount of computing power. by that time nobody was even using SHA-1 for anything security critical.

QCs aren't magical tech given by some unearthly being. While we don't fully understand the realm of quantum physics yet, several advancements on the field has led us to exploiting and perusing quantum superposition in computing. This isn't exactly as scary as some people are trying to imply. Think of it as a very good computer being a lot more accurate and a lot more faster than the fastest computer that we have today, and that's what you get. By the time we reach QCs with enough capability to render most crypto algorithms useless, we are already ahead of said tech and exploits used by QC won't affect said algorithms. Heck, even before a commercially-produced QC is in the market, we are already developing several quantum-resistant algorithms capable of withstanding attacks from a QC. The tech is good and promising, but crypto enthusiasts know that they need to be always ahead of the tech by a mile, and I'm pretty sure BTC devs are in the same line of thinking so I think we'll be good.

Im not sure that company like this who building quantum computers for science will use them to hack bitcoin

Yes Quantum computers are commonly used by hackers to hack This is not a very secure computer they have all the access In that case they get our personal information very easily. With technology, this computer will never be able to rise because its circulation is much less There is not much interest in using this computer when working in crypto.

Earth crust always helps with smaller earthquakes now and then. They can be felt by instruments at great distances and they don't really have a schedule on where and when they strike.


At least blockchain technology gave us Bitcoin and its chain, which works very well. QC is only at hype and lab-test phase.

It isn't just physical vibrations, it's any interaction with the world outside the quantum system. The system needs to be perfectly isolated - or as near perfect as can be managed. Any interaction can lead to loss of information through the collapse of the wave function. Electromagnetic fields or any form of radiation can trigger loss of quantum coherence. This is why quantum computers have to be cooled close to absolute zero.

The biggest challenge to developing a workable, large-scale quantum computer is not simply increasing the number of qubits to increase the processing power, it's reducing decoherence to a manageable level. Obviously as we add qubits then decoherence becomes more of an issue, because we increase heat in the system - but it is this decoherence rather than number of qubits that is the primary obstacle.

We also need to understand that the underlying physics here - interaction with the outside environment leading to collapse of the wave function - is precisely what allows measurement of a quantum system to occur in the first place. Where a normal classical bit can be 0 (off) or 1(on) depending on flow of current, a system of entangled qubits is more of a probabilistic smear of values across 0 and 1 and everything in between. When we then try to take measurement, we collapse the wave function into a definite 0 or 1 value. This is how quantum computers work, and how (in certain circumstances and for certain use cases) they provide a phenomenal advantage over classical computers. QCs can, through entanglement, process many possibilities at once, whilst still, through collapse, evaluating to a definite binary yes/no end state.

The problem with quantum computers today is that, it is still on early stage, although it is cool and fancy to hear the word 'quantum' in  it, like quantum physics, the complexity of it is still hidden to our understanding, what we have is just all an idea of it on how it really works. We don't even know if it can break the blockchain, well 'ideally' it can but can we made a quantum computer that strong? I believe we will not be having blockchain forever, that's for sure as the world tech advances there will be a greater system than it, however I don't think the main purpose of quantum computing is to break the cryptography in the first place.

The motivation would be purely economical.
If it is more profitable to hack the network instead of using its processing power contributing to it, people will act dishonestly.

Actually qbits are not limited to 4 states, but that's what our current technology can achieve to detect so far...

Thankfully the required changes will eventually make it into Bitcoin before this ever becomes an issue. Its not like the devs didn't know about it, i know they do because I directly asked about it like 6 or 7 years ago on IRC.

It is old news, long known. So now Honeywell will compete with IBM and Google?, well the race is on i guess. First customers will be very large institutional/State clients anyway, who else can afford to operate those building sized computers anyway? But that's exactly how classical computers evolved. Its only a matter of time, and time IS the 4th dimension...

Don't worry, quantum computers will not affect the blockchain, and it may take dozens of years to be able to affect, until we reach that time.
Bitcoin will have updated its algorithms in order to make decoding difficult or impossible.
check the altcoin because they have that problem because they follow bitcoin.
and big services with some accounts will have that problem.

That's correct. Still, people keep coming and asking over and over again what measures Bitcoin takes against QC or claiming that QC will bring the end of Bitcoin.
Even this thread is about what QC means for BTC.
I think that although we keep reassuring them (even if some may be post-hungry trolls), we need a bigger banner "we are not scared of QC (and ghosts)".

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that straightforward.
The issue is that if bitcoin is upgraded to be quantum-resistant, then all coins will then need to be moved to new quantum-resistant addresses.
What happens to coins that aren't moved (or can't be moved, because either the key has been lost or the owner is deceased)?
Coins that aren't moved would remain vulnerable and could be stolen by anyone with a sufficiently powerful QC.
Do we leave them to be stolen? Or do we put in place say a 3 month deadline to move, and anything not moved by that time is burnt?
Both options are contentious, both bring their own problems.

At the level of isolation needed to find private keys from public, even a neutrino would disturb the system. Gravitation waves from someone making a step would wipe it out. Snapping fingers, moving eyes, breathing, etc. in a far away place would be enough.

Something more - if QC needs any kind of switching - following a program instead of hard-wired single-purpose system - any switching inside it would be enough to destroy the state.

My opinion on this :

• It is not just blockchain which is going to suffer tremendously because of these computers of used incorrectly , it's also the government websites , banks , big institutions , therefore what I know is that the government will for sure look forward to regulate it somehow .

• It is expensive to own one therefore it won't be that much of a problem right now but the problem will be in the future when the computers might become affordable , this is what happens when we talk about technologies and all , over the time they are reinvented in a way which actually makes them more common and affordable therefore we do have time to make some adjustments in the Blockchain technology right now . The developers should take into account.

•Now above all what matters is your personal protection , you have to make sure that , you take care of what kind is apps you are installing , where you are storing your Bitcoins.. lot of things , one needs to be as safe as they can even a little bit of carelessness from the user side might be a night of party for a hacker 😂 , don't worry people I do think we are going to see some restrictions regarding the new quantum computers , no way government is gonna let this slide .

I think you're overstating the fragility. I do agree that the greater the complexity, the more difficult it is to achieve sufficient stability... but having said that, the problem of decoherence is by no means insurmountable. Have a look at this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14053-w), published back in February.

Instead of the more standard silicon, this approach uses quantum dots as a basis, with artificial 'atoms' constructed around them. The resultant stability increase is considerable. The reason this works is that they remove the noise associated with having a nucleus and its spherical electron shells... instead they can just apply a voltage to pull additional electrons into orbit around the dot, and so build up clean, flat electron shells without any of that atomic complexity. It is then quite straightforward to fill each shell and then add one final electron to a new outermost shell. So the closed (fully doubly-occupied) shells sum to spin zero, and we can take the spin of the single electron in the final shell as the qubit... but a much more stable qubit than might be obtained via the silicon approach.

to simplify cnuts reference and explanation
because they are trying to measure the amount of electrons at the near atomic level where they need to measure 4 gates (options) as 1e 5e 13e 25e

this small size, the amount of electrons and proximity can all cause confusion from one thing to the next
heck even outside interference, the charge itself can move the electrons they are trying to measure

or for ELI-5 (exaggerating the numbers to bigger understandable numbers) a particle that can handle a measure of upto0.31v and able to measure
0.01v as g0
0.05v as g1
0.13v as g2
0.25v as g3

with many many reasons to have this gap and many reasons to not have the gaps of equal amount
EG not equal 0 8 16 24 but 1 5 13 25

because interference would make things never an absolute 0v.. so hence 0.01v (1electron)

and as more electrons(ELI-5 volts) are included the more interference is caused
so the 'measures' are spaced at gaps of 4 8 12 separations
because a interference of 1 electron might confuse the measuring instrument that a 1electron is actually 50% more(2electron) or a interference of 5electrons might make it measure as 50% less(3electron) so only measuring if something rounds to 1 or rounds to 5 means less confusing readings due to interference
...
if they measures at 1 2 3 4 electron increments as i just explained a 1electron could be mis measured as 2
and a 5 electron might be mis measured as a 3 or 4

so they are trying to keep a good enough gap to allow for interference to be rounded out to the nearest measure unit they want

they also are trying to keep the number of electrons total requirement per particle low at 31
because more then 31 means the distance between one particle(dot) to the next would need to increase to ensure the 31 electrons does not cause a next particle set to 1 actually showing 5 due to a 25% interference factor of its previous particle(dot)
imagine it if a particle was charged at 31 the interference may cause something to close to read as 15 or something a little apart read as 5 or further apart read as 1 meaning.. if they had measures of 100 then the distance would need to be even further.
 
thus less dots per inch, thus less particles per chip. thus less operations per chip

also more electrons clustered together can generate heat and other charge things which is not just about interference. but about heat of the device

but i assure you of one thing
unlike cnut who is still poking around the realm of 'spooky magic' myths of king arthurs stories(einstein)
its not about electrons being in many places at once. its simply about having a most accurate method of measuring something accounting for interference variation
i assure you that electrons are not both 1 and 5 and 13 and 25 at the same time
just interference could make a charge of 5 appear as a 3 or a 8 due to the interference affecting the charge

which if the measuring device wanted to just measure 4567 then a charge of 5 would fluctuate between all of the indicators due to interference
..
the whole thing about a item can be many things until its measured. is not voodo magic
its that a charge of constant 0.05v due to interfence might be 1second 0.04v and another 0.06v
heck even the measuring instrument might add or take away a bit of charge

its not about magical 0.05 is also 0.10 . but that the measuring instrument may not be accurate or the interference make offset the 0.05 to at one time be 0.04 or the next second 0.06 because it varies doue to outside interference and accuracy of the measuring device

Quantum computing is some time off now, at least where it is more common place. I often hear from people when they find out I'm "in to bitcoin", that when quantum computing comes out it is going to ruin the blockchain.  There's nothing saying it can't be used to update and strengthen the chain. Nonetheless its an extremely interesting technology.

@franky1, I disagree profoundly with your assessment, and with who it is who is poking around in the realm of 'magic' :)

No, of course they're not.
The numbers 1, 5, 13, 25 come from the fact that we are talking about electron shells for a silicon quantum dot. We are always talking about a single valence electron, a single electron in the outermost shell, with the inner shells all filled, i.e. 0+1, 4+1, 12+1, 24+1. In each case, the spin of a full shell sums to zero. It is the single valence electron that is used, its spin property becoming the qubit that we measure. From the paper:



---
Edit:

This is not true. Wave-particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle are fundamental to quantum mechanics. Here's a probability-density plot of the electron in hydrogen:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

'uncertainty' 'probability'
is about accuracy to measure it

its not about it being multiple things at one time
its about a 5v charge is not actually 5v. its
1millisecond 4.98 another millisecond 4.99 another milisecond5.00 another millisecond5.01 and so on
meaning in a time stream of 10 milliseconds it can vary from 4.98 to 5.02
and a measuring instrument just calls it 5.00v as a average/or due to limitations of accuracy

its not and never has nor ever will be about that in any specific second it being both 5.02 and 4.98 at the same time

but hey. you want to stick with the myths of just throwing the buzzwords around
meanwhile ill keep explaining them in plainer non science common wording.

oh and one last funny, you say its
'one valence electron' .. but then quote these words
very distinct peaks appear at transitions 4 → 5, 12 → 13 and 24 → 25. To understand the significance of these electron numbers
anyway it has been fun
but for other readers its
accuracy is distinctly measurable at 4<>5 electrons..  12<>13 electrons and 24<>25 electrons

and ofcourse 0 is not absolute zero due to many factors like interfence so 0 is the 0<>1

but atleast we have finally jumped over the previous topic elsewhere and you finally recognising the 4 gate
base 4 maths.. instead of the 2 gate base 2 math of binary
yea quantum is base 4.. and if just translated to base 2. the translator would be the thing that decides what to round up or down to.

its never been about multiple positions at the same time its about instrument measuring limitations and the accuracy of rounding things off

Quantum physics is all about probability density. An electron in a quantum system is not in a definite single position, or even in definite multiple positions, instead it is best defined as a smear of probabilities across a range of positions. This is absolutely fundamental to quantum mechanics. When we take a measurement, the electron resolves into a definite state. In terms of a single qubit, 0 or 1. It is the act of measurement that creates the certainty. Prior to measurement, it makes no sense to say the electron is at point A or point B, because prior to measurement the electron cannot really be considered as a point-like particle. Please read about the Measurement Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem). (Consider also Schrödinger's cat. It is the act of measurement that forms the interface between the quantum and the classical worlds. This leads onto the question of whether the wave function actually collapses, and whether the Copenhagen interpretation should be the standard - a more esoteric subject, for a different time.)

Yes. A number of electron shells are filled (with electrons). And then a single additional electron is added to a new shell. It is this single electron (its spin) that can be used as a qubit. There may be 4,12 or 24 electrons in closed shells, but there is always one additional electron in the outermost shell.


No, it isn't.

no no no
using your own link of the hydrogen image.
that is not an image of an actual electron being in multiple places..
its a mathematical graph is possible places an electron could be

EG if i said i was on a street in washington
showing a map of washington of all the possible streets im on does not mean im then on all streets, it just shows te probability that im going to be on those streets and not streets of say new york
so on a map of USA washington would be lit up like a christmas tree of white light of all the streets lit up. and then dark map for the rest of america.

what its also saying about the uncertainty is that the microscopic light of the measuring device interferes with a electrons fixed position before the measure and can move it slightly.

again
imagine a volt meter
there is a charge of 0.5v but the volt meter to take a measure requires 0.01v to do is job so a volt meter should read 0.49v to be accurate of how many volts it receives.. but they know the volt meter itself has caused the 0.01 discrepency so they call it 5v.

the image of the HYDOGEN DENSITY PLOTS
is jsut a pre-prepared map of posiblilities.
its not showing actual positions of where an electron is at a single point in time
its showing a map of all the possible roads a electron can move on.. but without knowing all the factors they cant tell where in that map it at any even second
did you even read the wiki
its about difference between classical macro accuracy vs micro accuracy

the myth is that an eelectron is in muliple places at any single time
the reality is that an electron is in a single place at any time. but interference from many things can move it/vary it depending on time and whats interfereing

EG
light from a microscope can charge the particle and shift the electrons a bit. so what your seeing when looking at it is not the position it was before seeing it.

its not that the light freezes it in place in this universe.. where without the light its zippig around different universes.
its that the light can shift it from a previous position. to a new position because of the charge of the light

ok how to word it in a more illustrative way
if you are standing on mainstreet. .. you are not also standing on jersey shore. nor also standing on wimbledon common. you not in some special super position

but under classical mapping all someone knows is your in a city.
now if you send spot of spotters in to look around the city for you. suddenly you will see the energy of a crowd running towards you and if the crowd is charging at you fast enough you will try to run down another street.

atleast try to read the wiki you even linked
here ill save you time


its the same as cell phone triangulations. they cannot predict where you will be.. but they can plot/triangulate the area your most likely to be based on the limited info they have got. but then when they do ping your phone to locate you. then they know where you are.

it does not mean your phone is in 100,000 locations in a 10m² grid between cell towers

..
once they can get more accurate at measuring the things that interfere with the radio waves of cell hone towers. they can then before more accurate as measuring small distances. like locate you within a 2m range instead of a 20 metre range

as for the 'spin' and the 4 gates
now your being a little pedantic.
right now most companies are only trying to handle 4gates.
because accuracy at such a small level is only good for 4 gates reliably..
but yea in the future once they can calculate more intereferences to be more precise then yea maybe they can open up to 8 gates.
but right now its 2gate(binary) 4gate(QC)
.
as for the 'spin' different companies measure different things in different ways.
some measure just charge. some measure just light waves . some measure a combination of both

its like binary
you can measure the wattage to a bulb off or on gives you an answer
you can measure the visual of a bulb. off or on gives you an answer
you can measure both to get a second opinion/double checked answer

or you can measure something else that has 2 options like a electric motor connected to a toilet seat. up is on down is off.

the whole spin thing is not some magic voodoo of an object jumping in and out of different universes at the same time
its that if they charge 4 electrons. they can test those 4 electrons. and then have a separate control electron which should follow a certain magnetic bath based on the effect that the 4 electrons. thus use the spin control electron as the double check/validator

the problem still arises that i they have not accounted or all interfences that spin can be off a little.
which is why they have to keep the dot cold, sound and vibration proof and away from other EM emitting devices. 
have a nice day. its been fun

It has, actually. :) It's weird how in the many CV19 threads I seem to find myself on the same side of the argument as you, and arguing many of the same points from the same perspective. But whenever we come to a quantum computing thread, we can't agree at all.

You are thinking of an electron as being best described at all times as a particle, when that's not the case. The Schrödinger wave equation is the best description of what an electron is in a quantum sense. Have a look at wave-particle duality, and in particular the double-slit experiment.
The thing with quantum mechanics is that we know that the wave function is a great representation of what is happening on a quantum level. And we know that measuring the system always gives a definite value. That's not the same as saying that the 'definite' value always exists in a quantum sense, but is just hidden from us. There is some nuance here. The question of what the underlying reality is that the quantum mechanical description represents is somewhat contentious, which is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the Copenhagen interpretation.
The problem is that our human brains have evolved to cope with human problems, spotting predators and identifying food and manipulating tools, all in the everyday macroscopic environment. When we try to explain what the maths of QM tells us, it is difficult to frame it in human terms. There are plenty of people who understand the maths, and understand that the wave function explains what actually exists better than does a simple particle explanation... but there is no-one alive who understands exactly what quantum mechanics means in terms of an absolute physical reality, it's just that the particle explanation is not, from that quantum perspective, either accurate or sufficient.

ill let you continue to play around with the science lab theory experiments that backdate 100 years
and make things sound over complex about the 'spooky'

meanwhile ill continue on about the practical uses that are actually happening right now
oh and slight spoiler. there is no dead cat in a box

but yea 4 gates measured by the difference of a charge of 1 electron, 5 electrons, 13 electrons, 25 electrons and double checked by a separate electron and measuring a feature abut that

not all QC computer companies follow the same 'lets measure the spin of another electron too'
not all QC computers companies follow the same 1 5,13,25 gaps to avoid interference.
not all QC companies follow the same 31 electron per dot
heck some are avoiding electrons altogether and instead just using photons

but one thing for sure is the 4 gate instead of 2 gate is pretty much a default standard protocol for all companies for atleast the next few years

but i hope this topic has clarified things in normal english.. without jumping back into the realm the mythical buzzwords of the unexplained 'spooky'
because i know a few people like to just use the buzzwords to sound like they know. but not really able to describe it outside the theory. or unable to describe a practical use, thus obviously cant really know what it really means

If I base my knowledge on what I saw in Avengers: Endgame and think that Quantum physics was the technology that was used as a base in order to go into the past and return to their current time (and maybe even future), then I don't understand the reason why Quantum computing couldn't mine BTC at a quicker rate than current one. Then comes a fact to my mind that with the rise in speed of mining BTC, rises the difficulty. So even if Quantum computing ever becomes able to try to destroy the ultimate BTC mining industry, won't this difficulty part affect as a hurdle there as well? The only problem I see is that, current miners won't be able to mine BTC if this takes place and it'll turn into a fully centralised industry.

Thanks for that.

I do wade in on a lot of different subject areas on this forum, largely to broaden my understanding. But on quantum physics I will stand my ground. I am not an expert on quantum computing, as I've said before. This is because my expertise is on the quantum side, rather than the computing side. I'm not just some idiot spouting buzzwords. Perhaps assume a degree of competence, unless you can invalidate it.

---

(edited to remove some bragging and aggressive posturing)

hey

i could also beat my chest of how the illusion of a particle at micro-nano level is a physical hard surface piece of dust
i could also beat my chest of how in reality but only visible at the pico level a particle is actually all just waves. creating resistance depending on how compressed they are

imagine zooming it up from the pico level to the macro level to see a particle is like a gas or water.. so lets go with the oceans water. .. its all just flowing interfering with each other and making waves and currents
where when the 'tide' is high at one side of the planet. the 'tide' is low in another side of the planet
its not that one small particle of water on one side of the planet is also on the other side.
its that the fluid motion of one affects the other
that stuff is just simple science now adays

heck they call it 'spooky science' of a high tide at one side is spooky to be a low tide on the other side 'at the same time'
but its not. its just the limitation of accuracy of measuring the wave at the speed of light..
once you realise speed can be faster but not measurable in the gamma range. it starts to make sense
its just too fast to see it happen so call it 'magic' (slight of hand)


anyway back to 'particals'/'electron dots' and free electrons vs electron shells
if you compress the water. and not give them much room to move, the energy of the waves creates resistance and so many waves in such a small area gives the feeling that it is solid because the resistance prevents another wave from passing through it and instead bouncing off it. thus the 'feeling' of solidity

its like making a ice cube by compressing water but even the ice is still waves(at the pico level). just moving slower and less distance and more of them in a confined area to resist other things passing through

so a ice cup can the hold water without the water just flowing through it/mixing with it.
all based on how free the waves get to move and how much space there is to spread or confined within


i understand there are waves all around us and they are all at different wave lengths and amplitudes which make the difference from sound radio electromagnetic light and radiation
i understand all thats stuff.
(heck i was playing with radio frequency crystal diodes in the 90's (CB/ham radio era)) just for fun

anyway if we go with the ice cup holding water image we can go into the whole interferance of the less compressed waves of the water interfering with the compressed waves of the cup. melting the cup.
or the interference of the compressed waves of the cup interfering with the water to slowdown and freeze the water waves. we can go into the details of how light and sound waves can affect the water and the ice.
where say light waves can melt the ice and cause leakage of the water

where by even if you poured in water at 10^oc into the icecup. the ice cup would actually reduce the temperature of the water. so when measured. you'd expect 10oc but actually get a lower number due to the cup interference.
or if you used a certain thermometer that was warm. it would heat the water a bit. again affecting the result

it does not mean that the water is actually both at 9oc and 11oc its that you should before measuring it, by doing some theory math. that the water might be between 9-11 but you just dont know until you measure it
but to remember that the measuring device might affect the result too

but all that chest thumping at the pico level that everything is a wave of energy.. just over complexes the 'electron' charge and orbit of the nano scale of QC

Agreed on this fellow. We already had deep discussions regarding the quantum computing and it's teraflops of power to solve complex equations. Sadly, though cryptography might just look easy one for teraflops of energy but it's useless if you overlook the data that is generated as output hash. What to say, it's garbage and nothing much while the input would take ages to solve it.

However if over the time SHA would have stayed in the primary stage only then it could have been judgemental but again everything sticks at garbage out put that is produced by algorithm. It's non sense to us, and quantum computer as well.

Here's some evidence of wave-particle duality:

https://www.labbulletin.com/custom/quantum-interference.jpg
https://www.labbulletin.com/articles/20130513_4

lol
thats funny
once you realise the stuff of the pico level and then go back to the macro level/micro level you realise whats described in the 'duality' is not accurate. its been simplified into macro-micro observational words

lets just try using 'particle' as compressed wave causing resistance.
and lightwave as uncompressed wave free to flow

the duality experiment you showed is where when light waves are projected through a wall with 2 slits. the light waves before the wall are hundreds of light waves beaming out each at different degrees of 360^o from the light source
technically millions of waves each at different 360,000micro degrees...
technically billions of waves each at different 360,000,000nano degrees
technically trillions of waves each at different 360,000,000,000pic degree's
depending on the level/how accurately your able to observe/measure then smaller bits in between

but lets stick with macro (normal human eye 360 level observation)
and when going through the slits 2 beams carry on straight. and the rest dont get through due to the wall

but the waves just a couple micro/nano/pico degree's +/- hit the wall(particle of compressed waves) and the interference resists the light wave and bounces(reflects) the light wave in the opposite direction  than its input angle

so instead of seeing just 2 beams f light going straight through the slot. you see it spread out in multiple angles. because of the effect/interference from the wall edges

but now we are just diverting far off the QC topic.

the while theory is that at macro level of just 360o light your observation would be that only 2 beams of light get through and they continue on in a straight line from source through the slit to the there side.
where as at micro 360,000o there would be some reflection off the edges of the slits

..
at pico level its explaining that the waves of the wall interfere and resist the waves of light
at macro level its saying that 'light bends' and is not acting light a wave in one direction but like a solid coil/spring that can be bent around corners

..
its just explaining at human eye level
'oh my god its magic, light can bend'
vs science
'its about the reflection of light due to the interference from the slits in the wall' and also the interference of the other waves of light

heck even the article you link explains the experiment is about the defraction due to the interference from the grating

what will be mind blowing is when you get to the pico level understanding of everything is a wave or more precisely zillions of waves.
and the makeup/mix and their interference/resistance strengths on each other determine what property it has at the micro/macro scale

and 'splitting an atom' is not a macro illusion of cutting apple in half. but instead resisting the electro/radio/light wavelenths away to get to the gamma waves protected within those other lower wavelength 'shells'(layers)

we could them move into the more detailed positive gamma and negative gamma. but i think we have gone way passed the QC topic

Agreed, let's leave it there or we will just continue forever. We each have a different understanding of what wave-particle duality means.