Google claims breakthrough in Quantum computing

[Cnut237]

research: "4 quantum numbers"

In quantum mechanics, the principal quantum number (symbolized n) is one of four quantum numbers assigned to all electrons in an atom to describe that electron's state.

I'm familiar with the basic physics. But we are talking about qubits here, not atomic structure.

A qubit is a quantum bit, a quantum binary digit. It holds information on a two-state system. So for example spin could be used, the qubit is in a superposition of 'up' and 'down', and measurement collapses the wavefunction into either 'up' or 'down'. Similarly we could use polarisation, the qubit's polarisation is a superposition of horizontal and vertical, measurement resolves to one of the two values - analagous to 0 or 1.

Your '4' value doesn't refer to 4 discrete outcomes, but to 4 degrees of freedom in an atomic context. There are a lot more than 4 possible combinations of quantum numbers... but this isn't relevant to qubits, because a qubit holds one bit of information (or rather a superposition, but resolves to one bit). Another example: what if your qubit is a photon? You can see how the principal quantum number defining the electron shell is irrelevant here.

[1714012364]

1714012364

[1714012364]

1714012364

[1714012364]

1714012364

[1714012364]

1714012364

[1714012364]

1714012364

[franky1]

well you can continue with your google search for average joe stuff...
ill continue programming

by the way google quantum computers quarternary

just treat the binary stuff as the translated ready for legacy computer stuff
where as the internal workings of quantum computers that a legacy system cant understand is quaternary

oh and bit is about single object/symbol
you can have binary(2) bit
quarternary(4) bit
hexidecimal(16) bit

have fun with your studies, hope you can catch up

[Cnut237]

well you can continue with your google search for average joe stuff...
ill continue programming

have fun with your studies, hope you can catch up

You're quite rude, aren't you? I mean consistently, not just as a one-off. I'm not rising to it, though :p
I freely admit I'm not an expert in quantum computing, but I do have a background in theoretical physics, with a sizeable chunk of that being QM, so I have a decent grasp of the quantum side.

by the way google quantum computers quarternary

I don't have to... now you're confusing qubits with qudits. This all started with you saying that qubits have 4 states, which they don't!

qbits have 3 states

qubits actually have 4 states

binary has 2 states
0-1

qubit is base 4 or otherwise known as quarternary logic (as oppose to binary logic)
0  1
  X
2  3

oh and bit is about single object/symbol
you can have binary(2) bit
quarternary(4) bit
hexidecimal(16) bit

This is getting a bit absurd now. Hexadecimal is not 16 bit, it's 4 bit. Why? 2⁴, that's why: 2, 4, 8, 16. You don't need 16 binary digits to encode a hexadecimal. Hex '1' is 0001 in binary. Hex 'F' is 1111.

[franky1]

hex is 16.. hex converted to binary is 4 binary bits
this is where you are mistaken. always thinking of the after converted format to binary

you thing hex is just 4.... (facepalm)
ill show you again
hex is not 0123(4)
hex is 0123456789ABCDEF(16)

16 not 4
you are totally not thinking outside the binary box
try to not think of just the binary conversion,
then you can start thinking about the scope of quantum computers and not just its limitation based on when converted to binary

by the way quantum computer hardware is 4 states like binary is 2 states
so hex in binary is (4)²
so hex in quantum is (2)⁴

anyway, maybe best to just continue with your research and hope one day you get out the binary box to expand your mind to things bigger than 2 options
but for now you seen stuck thinking everything is binary, including hex
sorry but there is no point trying to give you more hints as you admit your not wiling to even google search

have fun
no point arguing no more. your definition of hex shows where your stumbling(limiting yourself to binary)

[Cnut237]

have fun
no point arguing no more.

Agreed - I knew we'd agree on something in the end!
It was still nice having the discussion - thanks!

[moviebuff777]

But if quantum computing actually happens, then won’t regular passwords for bank accounts and emails, etc. be most at risk? I mean, there’s a lot more at risk than just Bitcoin and at least Bitcoin private keys have a bunch of digits.

[franky1]

But if quantum computing actually happens, then won’t regular passwords for bank accounts and emails, etc. be most at risk? I mean, there’s a lot more at risk than just Bitcoin and at least Bitcoin private keys have a bunch of digits.

the temperature needed to measure other measures of atoms is so low dont expect it to be a household computer device.
so it will be large industrial machines renting time to individuals (think cloud services)

quantum cant just break encryption. it can just make bruteforcing more efficient
but dont worry. what takes millions of years in binary computing will still take years in quantum

to put it simple. MD5 is not broke because its been made reversible. its broke because people have 'rainbow tables' that list many combinations thus making it easy to find results.

bitcoins level is sooo dense that to store every keypair would take more storage than available on normal computers. the time to do it is as i said multiple years. then the time to reference each one of those for value..
still makes quantum a time painstaking task.

no one would waste a billion dollar machine to brute force a coin which once doing so will collapse the value to make it not worth doing financially.
things like fiat which are legally endorsed to stay active as they are tied to tax law and minimum wage law keeps fiat as a more active target worth hitting. because fiat is not a one hit wonder but a continual target

and ofcourse theres the business profitable side of asking why waste resources and timme on a possible hit of a few coins. when they can make more money analysing other things. like DNA/science. which can earn them more money...

take elon musts space X he is not wasting money just for the dream of mars. he doing it to charge a fee for his transportation services. he wants to be the spacial taxi service. not a dream maker.

google dont do things for dreams. they want to make money out of it.
why waste years bruteforcing something when they can make money from science grants doing dna/ energy research