The Argument against Quantum Computers · HackerPapers discussions

The Argument against Quantum Computers — mentioned by EvgeniyZh

Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:27:00 GMT

In 2019 you asserted [1] that attempts of creating distance-5 surface code will fail. Do you think you were wrong? If so, what was your mistake and why do you think you made it? If not, what's the problem with the Google's results? Have your estimations of feasibility of quantum computers changed in light of this publication? [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02499

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Argument against Quantum Computers — mentioned by andrewla

Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:06:59 GMT

What does homeopathy need to move forward? What does perpetual motion machinery need to move forward? This is not totally fair; it is possible given certain independence assumptions. But they are likely not physically realizable. It is almost certain that even within our understanding of quantum systems it is simply not possible to have a quantum computer (much less create one). The assumptions necessary to produce a completely uncoupled system are likely invalid; we have yet to produce a compelling experiment to indicate otherwise. [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.02499

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Argument against Quantum Computers — mentioned by klyrs

Fri, 24 Feb 2023 18:39:59 GMT

Here's a well-informed argument to that end: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02499 and a nuanced lay-opinion by the same author: https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2022/05/26/waging-war-on-quan...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Argument against Quantum Computers — mentioned by simiones

Fri, 01 Oct 2021 17:28:21 GMT

jlokier has explained this beautifully and in more detail than I would have known how. I will just add one thing: basically Quantum Supremacy is yet another test of QM. As long as quantum supremacy could not be demonstrated, there remained a possibility that QM was wrong in this prediction - just like until the Higgs boson was detected, there remained a possibility that the Standard Model was wrong/incomplete. If you're curious of some proposed possible barriers to quantum supremacy from the time before this experiment was completed, Gil Kalai is a major advocate of the impossibility of…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Argument against Quantum Computers — mentioned by sjy

Tue, 03 Dec 2019 07:30:26 GMT

Many commenters are comparing this to the time sharing era of classical computing. There is an important difference here: we knew that classical computers were useful at the time, even though many people failed to predict that they would become millions of times cheaper and smaller. I’m not a physicist, but it seems to me that it’s still too early to say things like “when a quantum computer with enough qubits is available, factoring large integers will become instant and trivial.” Some experts still doubt whether quantum computing is possible at all [1]. You could not say that about classical…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Argument against Quantum Computers — mentioned by computerex

Sun, 06 Oct 2019 00:00:14 GMT

I couldn't disagree with you more. The "author" you are referring to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Kalai He is a multi-award winner, internationally recognized researcher with several dozen publications on mathematics and computer science. > The author raises points in contention, but they largely just seem like nitpicks to me. I am not sure if you and I read the same post if you think that his points of contention are merely "nitpicks". https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/08/21/the-argument-again... https://gilkalai.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/main-pr.pdf…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Argument against Quantum Computers — HN submission

Thu, 08 Aug 2019 04:13:22 GMT

The Argument Against Quantum Computers by Gil Kalai [pdf]

12 points; 3 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.