Lawrence Krauss: Quantum Computing Explained

[Katashi_itto]

[jimlup]

1. Excellent - thanks for posting...

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)

While I have understood the basics of QC for some time I'm still trying to work out how I would read out my QC.

So here's the problem (I'm typing this so that I can organize my own thoughts actually. Read if you are interested.):

1. You wish decrypt an encryption scheme which consists of giving the product of two prime numbers. The person performing the encryption has produced the encryption by multiplying two large primes (N-bits) and then broadcasts the result as their "public key (2N bits.)" The person encrypting then encrypts the message using one of the two primes. They also communicate the other of the two primes to the end user as the "private key." Thus the end user can decrypt the encryption by simple division. My QC is designed to break this encryption and discover the two primes.

2. My QC consists of a machine which can perform the Boolean multiplication of these two primes (each N-Qbits long with quantum coherence carefully maintained throughout the operation). The multiplication results in a single number which is 2N-Qbits long. I must be very careful not to read or interfere with any of these Qbits as that we result in decoherence which would be lose of the computation.

3. In order to read out my QC I must measure the end result so that it exactly is the public key (2N-bits long.) Then the "answer" is waiting patiently for me in the input registers and all I have to do is read out the values which are now no longer Qbits but have become 1's or 0's. This is the tricky part as I don't know how to actually do this - even in theory. I have two schemes which might work. In the first I simply remeasure each bit until it is the value I want. In the other I simply define each bit to be 1 or 0 depending on what I read. It seems to me that both of these readout schemes have difficulties. In the first I don't know how long I will have to wait to get the readout I want and if I do it one Qbit at a time but does that cause decoherence upstream of the bits I've already read? In the 2nd scheme it seems that though I can define 1 or 0 anyway that I choose that leaves me unsure of how to define these at the input points. ... anyway this is where I'm stuck. Maybe scheme 1 works fine and if I read out the Qbits one by one waiting until I get the answer then once I've read all 2N-Qbits this way I'm done and have the answers sitting warmly in the input registers each N bits long. Or have I lost my coherence along the way?

[Katashi_itto]

2. Sounds seriously fascinating, will have to read more before I have any worthy response!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

3. I always pictured it kinda like this...

Regular computing: "2+2=4"

1:Quantum Computing: "2+2=,.....4,.....you sure?
2:Yup.
1:Wait a sec, in all space/time?
2:Yer over-thinking it, Dude.
1:I'M over-thinking it? Who the fuck are you talking to?
2:I guess, myself.
1:Exactly!
2:So? What's your point?
1:You know, I really hate you when you do this.
2:You mean, "You hate yourself."
1:STOP IT!!!
2:Stop what?
1:I don't even remember anymore.
3:You two finished?
1&2:Huh? With what?
(long pause)
1&2:....(together) "4".
3:You sure?
1&2:Now don't YOU start!

[jimlup]

4. Recommend reading "Quantum Reality"

By Nick Herbert - quite an interesting discussion of consciousness which seems to have a connection to the problem of understanding what they hell the quantum wavefunction collapse actually means. I'm still dumbfounded by it and I've thought about it a lot. I think the so called "Many Words" interpretation makes the most sense to me at this point. Which is astounding as I dismissed it as totally dopey when I first heard about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Reality-Beyond-New-Physics/dp/0385235690

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. Kinda like the cat that is dead AND alive stuff.

[jimlup]

7. Yeah exactly that

It sounds like weird hypothetical stuff but to physics it is absolutely unavoidable. There is no objective reality there is only the wave function and what happens when we observe it is open to interpretation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

8. Luckily, bears still shit in the woods.

[jimlup]

9. Only if someone "sees" them shit...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. ...

[jimlup]

5. Another interesting video interview if you have time: