1 |
Fernando Rodriguez <frodriguez.developer@×××××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Friday, April 03, 2015 5:05:35 AM wabenbau@×××××.com wrote: |
4 |
> > Boricua Siempre <borikua.1978.2@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > > Hello |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > I have reading of quantum computing and I want know what operating |
9 |
> > > systems are use in quantum computers. And I read quantum computers |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > I don't think that (yet) there exists computers that are completely |
12 |
> > based on quantum components. Maybe they have a quantum based |
13 |
> > arithmetic unit but the other components are certainly |
14 |
> > conventional. I don't know what kind of OS is used on such |
15 |
> > machines. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of BSD or |
16 |
> > Linux (maybe Gentum-OS). ;-) |
17 |
> |
18 |
> And there probably never will. An operating system requires |
19 |
> deterministic behaviour and as I understand it (and I'm not an |
20 |
> expert) quantum computing can only deal with probabilities so a |
21 |
> quantum OS would probably crash :) |
22 |
|
23 |
But isn't the stability of Linux and BSD running on a non deterministic |
24 |
hardware not proofed some years ago by the Pentium FDIV bug? ;-) |
25 |
|
26 |
More seriously, I don't think that in the forseeable future computers |
27 |
will be based only on quantum components. They probably will only be |
28 |
used as an additional arithmetic unit for some specific calculations. |
29 |
Therefore I don't think that the stability of an OS will be disturbed |
30 |
by the fact that these components are based on non deterministic quantum |
31 |
physics. |
32 |
|
33 |
We should not forget that the lasers that can be found in CD drives, |
34 |
the magnetic heads in modern hard disks, and also every FET are working |
35 |
with technology that is based on quantum effects. I never heard that |
36 |
any OS has problems with these components. |
37 |
Ok, maybe I'm wrong regarding CD players/writers. Their non deterministic |
38 |
behavior sometimes has driven me crazy. ;-) |
39 |
|
40 |
> What we do have is the quantum equivalent of the circuits you may do |
41 |
> on a high school computer club to add a few bits. The most complex |
42 |
> ones may run simple algorithms but are not much more than that as far |
43 |
> as I know. |
44 |
> > > can use particols moving faster than light but on other book |
45 |
> > > particels faster than light make analog sonar boom that can |
46 |
> > > destroy universe. Is quantum computer dangerus? Sorry if my |
47 |
> > > english not good, still learning. |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> > I'm really not an expert on quantum physics but I don't think that |
50 |
> > a quantum computer could be dangerous. :-) |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > In fact, "a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity |
53 |
> > involved in an interaction" (wikipedia). |
54 |
> > |
55 |
> > I could imagine that a single high energy gamma quantum (that can |
56 |
> > have a energy of some MeV) could maybe destroy a flash memory cell |
57 |
> > or a DNA molecule. But such high energetic photons are not used in |
58 |
> > quantum computers. Quantum does there only means that they are |
59 |
> > using very small entities which can be described by the theories of |
60 |
> > quantum mechanic, like electron spins or quantum entangled photons. |
61 |
> > |
62 |
> > And of course there doesn't exist particles that are moving faster |
63 |
> > than light (at least no such particle is ever be detected and AFAIK |
64 |
> > there are absolutely no indications that such particles exits). You |
65 |
> > probably |
66 |
> |
67 |
> There is a sort of analogue to a sonic boom for light speed. It |
68 |
> happens when a particle travels faster than light in a medium. No |
69 |
> massive particle can travel at the speed of light in vacuum but light |
70 |
> travels much slower through a medium and particles can be accelerated |
71 |
> much faster. It happens in nuclear reactors. Of course it doesn't |
72 |
> destroy the universe, it just emits a blue light known a Cherenkov |
73 |
> radiation. |
74 |
|
75 |
That's right and I'm aware of this phenomenon. But when I spoke about |
76 |
light speed, I meant the light speed in vacuum of course. |
77 |
|
78 |
> > mean "quantum teleportation". But this has nothing to to with the |
79 |
> > movement of particles. It is a phenomenon that results from the |
80 |
> > quantum entanglement of e.g. two electrons and has to do with the |
81 |
> > nonlocality of such phenomenons. When you measure the quantum |
82 |
> > attributes of one of these two electrons you instantaneous |
83 |
> > influence the quantum attributes of the other one, regardless of |
84 |
> > its distance. But if you wanna know the quantum attributes of the |
85 |
> > second electron you need the information about the measurement of |
86 |
> > the first one. And because you cannot transmit this information |
87 |
> > faster than light you also cannot use "quantum teleportation" to |
88 |
> > really transmit information faster than light. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> The best laymen terms explanation I've heard of this is by Murray |
91 |
> Gell-Mann in The Quark and the Jaguar. The state is really determined |
92 |
> when the particles are "entangled". The principle of uncertainty |
93 |
> holds because we cannot know the state until we make the measurement |
94 |
> but there's "no spooky action at a distance." |
95 |
|
96 |
That would maybe be a solution for this problem and Einstein would |
97 |
probably be glad to hear about it. :-) But I think that it is very |
98 |
difficult to proof this theory. |
99 |
|
100 |
Damn language barrier. I can't really express what I'm thinking. But I |
101 |
will try. :-) |
102 |
If our universe is just a part of something "higher dimensional" (like |
103 |
in string theories) then we will have a fundamental problem to understand |
104 |
it. What we are see as particles or waves is maybe in fact some completely |
105 |
different. We see only the "projection" of the real "things" into our |
106 |
"world", not the underlaying "truth". And because our mind is emerging |
107 |
from a "low dimensional" brain it is maybe not able to understand the |
108 |
whole thing as a matter of principle. |
109 |
|
110 |
So, enough for today. My head is spinning now. It is a complex topic |
111 |
and I don't have a really deep understanding of it. I'm no scientist |
112 |
and I'm not be able to understand the complex mathematics that is the |
113 |
base of all these theories. All I can do is to philosophize in a foreign |
114 |
language that I barely can speak on a very low level about facts that I |
115 |
read in some popular scientific articles. |
116 |
|
117 |
But nevertheless it's fun to do this. :-) |
118 |
|
119 |
-- |
120 |
Regards |
121 |
wabe |