The author of this paper holds that quantum computers will never be able to go above the limit of a thousand qubits.
Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2,048-bit RSA integer, RaQM (rational quantum mechanics) predicts that a quantum computer will not either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 y.
People here who know about quantum computing, what do you think of this work?
I know more about Quantum Chemistry than Quantum Computers. Both use the same Physics theory, the only difference are the goals and implementation details :)
Usually you have a molecule and the most stable state is a sum of products of orbitals (Slate determinant). You can write it using a base of orbitals, that mathematically is just an ortonormal base. In a Quantum Computer the support of the emplacements of the bases are far away (in atomic scales) to protect them against noise. In Quantum Chemistry, they are all overlapped and it's a mess that is impossible to separate, but that is what real molecules have.
The real physical properties does not depend on the ortonormal base you choose. A usual trick in Quantum Chemistry is to pick a ortonormal base were the solution looks almost like only one product of orbital, so you have a simple representation in a simulation in a Classical Computer and you can do the calculations very fast.
But you can also pick a nasty base, where the most stable state looks like a "maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement". It's stupid because the calculations are slower. But in some calculations you first pick the base and then try to get the most stable state and then perhaps try to get a new ortonormal base that is nice for the calculations.
So, I can't see how is it possible that there are surprising restrictions that appear in the nasty base and don't change the results in the nice base.
Comments
The author of this paper holds that quantum computers will never be able to go above the limit of a thousand qubits.
People here who know about quantum computing, what do you think of this work?
I know more about Quantum Chemistry than Quantum Computers. Both use the same Physics theory, the only difference are the goals and implementation details :)
Usually you have a molecule and the most stable state is a sum of products of orbitals (Slate determinant). You can write it using a base of orbitals, that mathematically is just an ortonormal base. In a Quantum Computer the support of the emplacements of the bases are far away (in atomic scales) to protect them against noise. In Quantum Chemistry, they are all overlapped and it's a mess that is impossible to separate, but that is what real molecules have.
The real physical properties does not depend on the ortonormal base you choose. A usual trick in Quantum Chemistry is to pick a ortonormal base were the solution looks almost like only one product of orbital, so you have a simple representation in a simulation in a Classical Computer and you can do the calculations very fast.
But you can also pick a nasty base, where the most stable state looks like a "maximal N-qubit superposition/entanglement". It's stupid because the calculations are slower. But in some calculations you first pick the base and then try to get the most stable state and then perhaps try to get a new ortonormal base that is nice for the calculations.
So, I can't see how is it possible that there are surprising restrictions that appear in the nasty base and don't change the results in the nice base.