Scott Aaronson, a scientist at MIT who works mostly with theoretical quantum computers, issued a challenge to all of those deniers out there: prove that "scalable quantum computing is impossible in the physical world," and Aaronson will personally pony up $100,000 to the winner.
Aaronson works with quantum computing theory all day; sounds like he's sick of the constant chatter that quantum computing is not scalable, that the theory is purely theoretical. (Check out our interview with Seth Lloyd for a great beginner's guide to quantum computing.) There are as many skeptics as believers out there, so Aaronson is asking them to step up and prove that quantum computers will never be able to do useful work.
"Useful work" is a key phrase in the contest; so-called "toy" quantum computers, using only a few electrons, are already proven to exist, so the challenge is more about larger, scalable quantum computers. Here's Aaronson addressing the problem of disproving a theory, and responding to the accusation that his challenge is the equivalent of proving Bigfoot doesn't exist:
It's pretty unlikely it'll ever happen; like Aaronson notes, if anybody actually managed to prove this, the world would hear about it and his $100,000 would end up supplementing some Nobel money or something. Still though, we like the gumption of offering cash money to your harshest critics.
It's impossible because no one on earth is smart enough to make it work.
So therefore I have proved it's impossible so pay up!
nothing is IMPOSSIBLE just improbable... I win....?
like the article already states, we already have forms of quantum computers. this seems like a safe bet.
Trivia question who said nothing is impossible only improbable
I think its possible!
Isnt that from the movie Ferris Buler's Day Off?
-Live life to the fullest, or don't live at all-
But isn't the human brain it's self the work of quantum computing?
Quantum computing you say.
Let’s say if we prove that the world we live in is not real and is a simulation, Won't it prove that there does not exists a thing Quantum as such and hence no Quantum Computing.
Pls pay me 10% of who ever uses my idea...:)
It is possible -- quantum computers already exist -- soon enough everyone will forget about binary/bits. Science has not set a standard for anthropometry nor a capacity of the mind. The issue is controlling logic to allow these developments to work for us.
No, the brain is not composed of cubits or anything explained with mathematics. Quantum theory is based on particles in superposition. The brain is organic and sends information in a much more complex manner.
Disproving something is a thousand times harder than proving it. With something like quantum computing, which is still just largely theoretical, it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to truly disprove it.
i don't mean to really start a flame or anything raynre but in science it is easier to disprove something than it is to prove it. say you wanted to prove something; you have a gigantic base of people who are accredited scientists in the same field that you are in who you need to convince that your right when it comes to whatever your trying to prove. in this community more that half are analytical thinkers so if you don't have some kind of math to back up what you are claiming then half of them are going to straight up say no your wrong just because of that.
then you get into the deep maths where we get perfect world situations and such usually your university or museum or lab won't let you test said experiment unless you can convince them it's going to lead to a few papers. now say you somehow get okay'd for an experiment and everything goes alright and now the scientific community says "alright your idea is now a theory because we can't technically prove on one experiment that this is true and well a law."
so months pass and depending on how volatile your claim is it can take months or years to get other scientists to test and redo your experiment during which time if any of a number of scientists do your same experiment and get a different result your idea is either dead in the water or you have to go back to the drawing board and think up a different experiment that hints at proving what you know to be true.
after maybe 15 long years you can maybe gather enough scientists and enough math to get them all to agree that yes, what your suggesting is an actual law of the universe.
and in order to even start this process you need to get accredited which can take years in and of itself. before you do that your just another moogle trying to make a name for him/her self.
to mars or bust!
oh also I'm not even going to try to disprove quantum computing because i want it to work. if you know anything about quantum mechanics then that throws quite a loop in some people's plans.
to mars or bust!
Quantium computing is BOTH possible and impossible.
Lets see how many people get that one...
Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978
"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC
good one code man, cheers
Scalable Quantum Computing relies on Quantum Mechanics. Here is my experiment that defies QM: Use Cd-109 that emits one gamma at a time. Put two NaI scintillator detectors in tandem and see if the gamma is detected in coincidence, at rates exceeding chance. The detections must be full height. It worked. Chance was greatly exceeded. QM fails in a very fundamental way, therefore QC can't work. The experiment, theory, history, tests eliminating artifact, tests of many form with different detectors and sources etc, control tests revealing the conditions for success and failure, are all on my Unquantum.net website. We should expect a flaw in QM because wave-particle duality has always been a paradox. My theory, the Loading Theory, is an extension of Planck's Second theory: emission is quantized, but absorption is continuous; Planck's constant is a threshold (a maximum). The distinction between QM and the Loading Theory is made in my many experiments. Also: you were misled by a false assumption in your textbooks concerning photoelectric time lag. I can demonstrate the experiment upon appointment.
This is just BS. You can't prove that anything is impossible. Just because we don't know how to do something right now doesn't mean it's impossible all of a sudden, does it?
Scott Aaronson gave an entire lecture on why he doesn't believe in Quantum Computing, I thought it was quite interesting that their is such a repulsed defense upon both sides. -Andrew Magdy Kamal