Quantum Computers are doomed all over again!

[Joy Christian]

.
One of the often-cited support for Bell's discredited theorem is the fashion of quantum computers and the so-called "quantum advantage", or supremacy.

Well, the game is over for quantum computers, at least for now: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/19.

In the old forum, we had a lot of useful links regarding quantum computers and their vocal supporters: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/ ... =216#p5756.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Quantum Computers are dead all over again: https://www.science.org/content/article ... -after-all
.

[kev01]

.
Quantum Computers are dead all over again: https://www.science.org/content/article ... -after-all
.

Last paragraph in quoted article:
"Still, the Google demonstration was not just hype, researchers say. Sycamore required far fewer operations and less power than a supercomputer, Zhang notes. And if Sycamore had slightly higher fidelity, he says, his team’s simulation couldn’t have kept up. As Hangleiter puts it, “The Google experiment did what it was meant to do, start this race.”"

Joy, if your original boast that QC would never achieve anything beyond conventional computing capabilities were true, Zhang's commentary there should read a lot differently. You picked up elsewhere, much later than my own posting on it, the touted Kish et. al. advantage of NBL (noise based logic) over QC e.g.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03162

The latest article on that points out a roadblock where some fundamental issues still need to be solved.
But all of that aside, every time you have posted an article lampooning the 'Quantum supremacy' hype (true enough), none of those article authors, or the authorities they quoted, claimed there was a theoretical flaw in the basic premise that intrinsically quantum principles of superposition and entanglement were at play.

What say you Joy?

[Joy Christian]

.
Quantum Computers are dead all over again: https://www.science.org/content/article ... -after-all
.

Last paragraph in quoted article:
"Still, the Google demonstration was not just hype, researchers say. Sycamore required far fewer operations and less power than a supercomputer, Zhang notes. And if Sycamore had slightly higher fidelity, he says, his team’s simulation couldn’t have kept up. As Hangleiter puts it, “The Google experiment did what it was meant to do, start this race.”"

Joy, if your original boast that QC would never achieve anything beyond conventional computing capabilities were true, Zhang's commentary there should read a lot differently. You picked up elsewhere, much later than my own posting on it, the touted Kish et. al. advantage of NBL (noise based logic) over QC e.g.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03162

The latest article on that points out a roadblock where some fundamental issues still need to be solved.
But all of that aside, every time you have posted an article lampooning the 'Quantum supremacy' hype (true enough), none of those article authors, or the authorities they quoted, claimed there was a theoretical flaw in the basic premise that intrinsically quantum principles of superposition and entanglement were at play.

What say you Joy?

The "quantum principles of superposition and entanglement" are 20th-century relics. They are not here to stay. Therefore the QC hype is much more fundamentally misguided than the quantum supremacy dogmatists like Scott Aaronson (who is quoted in the article) or Zhang are capable of grasping.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
The Quantum Computing Hype Bubble Is About To Burst, according to Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLVtCYHVO8.

Sabine does not say this, but I will say it: Quantum Computing is mostly a fraud, run by some academic and non-academic thugs and gangs!
.

[gill1109]

https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2022/11/ ... or-mirage/

[kev01]

The principle issue for this site is not whether quantum computers are ever to be real world problems viable.
It's whether already done demonstrations of quantum computing have established that entanglement is essential to explaining the results of such early days demos.
Where has a refutation of that ever been convincingly shown?
Specifically focused on the published 'quantum supremacy/advantage' (PC correction!) demo results?

[Joy Christian]

.
Grover's Algorithm Offers No Quantum Advantage: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11317
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Quantum Computing’s Hard, Cold Reality Check:

Hype is everywhere, and practical applications are nowhere!

https://spectrum-ieee-org.cdn.ampprojec ... 2666638802

Happy New Year!
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Is this the beginning of the end of quantum computing hype?

https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/01/05/baid ... lier-move/
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Researchers show that classical computers can keep up with, and surpass, their quantum counterparts:

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-classical ... parts.html
.