(no subject)

[sen_no_ongaku]

Quantum computers are weird.

"A non-running computer produces fewer errors."

Comments

[ltlbird.livejournal.com]

I so don't understand that. It makes my brain hurt. :)

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

If the photon was able to interact with the program ("allow its quantum nature to flirt with the program's components"), isn't that essentially running the computer? It's a bit like saying "I didn't hit you - you walked into my fist." No doubt I'm applying a naive super-quantum understanding to that article.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I really don't have any understanding of the mechanics of quantum computing, and it may be a matter of semantics, but here's something from the deep, dark waters of straight out of my ass:

Presumably, "running a program" means sending a photon through a series of logic gates (that are similar to but more flexible than those in silicon-based computing) to produce an answer. In this instance, the photon is fired but is prevented from actually passing through the gates -- hence, the program is not actually "run".

One might certainly argue that the conventional definition of "running a program" is not applicable to quantum computing and should be expanded to include indirect interaction with a program's components; and maybe not even the concepts of "on" or "off" are appropriate -- especially after this demonstration.

[archaica.livejournal.com]

Please don't mention "deep dark waters" and "my ass" in the same sentence ever again, please.

[phaedrusdeinus.livejournal.com]

This article includes much more background info, and a brief explanation of what it means for the non-running computer to not run.

Also, it was actually reviewed by the scientists involved before publication, so it has less hand-wavy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0602240107feb24,1,5661316.story

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. My feeble bear-brain failed to understand it any better than the first one, sadly.