I came across this, like usual, from a comment someone else made on an unrelated thread, which was about bitcoin actually. The same thread I made a post on recently here.

What do you techies think about quantum computing?

I don't know much about it just that is it a unicorn like ai. Is quantum computing coming closer into our purview like ai now or farther off?

Also thoughts on the comments on latest results from tests being proof of multiverses as a side question. There is some philosophy to chew on for other use who made a post about it!

Assuming you'd prefer serious speculations, since both subjects are as of yet exactly that, they are not Unicorns since those are entirely fanciful. These three subjects are not fiction but they are like speculating on the odds that the Wright Brothers would ever fly back when they were studying kite flying.

Quantum computing will be hugely important or rather I should say the research into it is since we don't even know for certain yet whether Qbits will be reliably successful as what we currently think of binary computation, but what we will learn is SO fundamental nobody yet knows what will be discovered. Googles breakthrough is an important step but that's all it is for now, a step. The end location is a long way off, in my view.

"Proof" is way too strong a word regarding The Multiverse. It is highly unlikely it can ever be actually proved beyond purely mathematical, which is really the only area in which "proof" really applies ands will always apply because Mathematics is an abstract concept. The rules are "set in stone" unlike the blend of chaos and order in the real world. Unless somehow there is a way for data to pass between universes (remember the very concept implies completely different sets of rules that don't necessarily translate. Consider how alien Quantum Mechanics is within our universe. We have no frame of reference for proper understanding. It can never bee intuitive and that's the foundation of everything we know and can probably ever know.

Your mention of AI is incidental, but it's potential very soon is massive. For most of human history most assumed other animals were dumb, unthinking brutes, probably largely from human conceit to see ourselves as special. We are actually special but so are other lifeforms. It doesn't ultimately matter really if anyone believes it is possible for electronic machines to really think or feel. Computers, including the original digital, counting on our fingers and the evolution to machines like the Abacus on up to ARM, RISC and x86 have already had massive effects on human development and that will only increase and very likely, exponentially. That cannot be overestimated.

If quantum computers ever become practical, what happens to asymmetric encryption? The whole business side of the internet currently depends on the practical insolubility of certain factoring operations.

I know there is a separate possibility of quantum encryption but that requires a physical manifestation of a quantum system to generate the keys and they tend to exist only at absolute zero. That's within the means of governments but not of ordinary citizens.

There are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, only one of which is the "many worlds" one. As far as I understand, there isn't any experiment we can do to distinguish between them, including running a quantum computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interp...ntum_mechanics

Current asymmetric algorithms in wide use would be broken (RSA, ECC), but there are other algorithms usable by classical computers, based on NP-hard problems, that quantum systems can't break. The main drawback is that key and/or signature sizes are much bigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

Quantum computers are here.
It will allow computations at fantastic speeds.
Get rid of your bitcoins now before they start making them left and right.
It's a Ponzi scheme anyway.

@jefro: I like your new sig.

Thanks. I try to change it once in a while.

"What do you techies think about quantum computing?"
I've been hearing 'bout it for 50 years(yeah, I'm that old.) Still waiting to see it.

Um, yeah, cutting edge Science moves slowly. That's a good part of it's accuracy and effects over time. It's a slow turning grinding wheel yet responsible for 90+% human progress, for good and for ill... thankfully mostly for the good so far.

To my mind, multiverses never recovered from a 2002 Wired article on "The New Convergence" which exclaimed

Which article in Wired is that business_kid? On one hand Wired is generally a decent tech publication but not particularly scientific or relevant in Cosmology, but it does seem unusual that they'd have an article referring to a mathematical concept as "church" unless it is referring to the fact that there is nor likely ever can be any evidence to support the concept beyond the abstraction of math.

I'm somewhat interested in the full article since I have barely a clue what that excerpt means especially the consideration of width. What possible difference does the existence of an object 50 billion galaxies wide have on the concept of the multiverse? After all it seems they are literally comparing apples to oranges at best since any object we can view is INSIDE our universe having nothing to do with anything outside if there even IS an outside.

We estimate there are currently over 150 billion galaxies in our observable universe and can even have no clue how big the entire universe in total is due to the fact the speed of light makes it impossible to see them in an expanding universe. This number will progressively diminish over time.

The bottom line is that the idea of "recovering" is meaningless since the multiverse cannot be proved or disproved and will likely always remain merely an interesting exercise. There can't be even speculative odds for or against.

.

Like from 2002 or such.

John 14:2-3 could mean that other planets souls will have a room.??

Only Google is making these extraordinary claims. The stats on the calculations may be valid, I would want to see it replicated by others to be sure. The "proof of multiverses" thing I might consider after some of the worlds better Physicists have investigated and expressed an opinion.


Right now it is one claim, reported in one (non-academic) journal, from a single original source that is one I do not trust. I will wait for better evidence.

Sabine
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aFbbXJvNGY0

That appears to be a link to a YouTube video. If you do not trust Google, you will not click a link to YouTube }(because they OWN it and it is part of their tracking network of servers and services).