Paradigm shift? The quCPU is here.

The first quantum CPU has been demonstrated by UCSB physicists. 

The quantum integrated circuit includes two quantum bits (qubits), a quantum communication bus, two bits of quantum memory, and a resetting register comprising a simple quantum computer. "Computational steps take a few billionths of a second, comparable to a classical computer, but the great power is that a quantum computer can perform a large number of calculations simultaneously," said Matteo Mariantoni, postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Physics. "In our new UCSB architecture we have explored the possibility of writing quantum information to memory, while simultaneously performing other quantum calculations.

"On the quantum von Neumann architecture, we were able to run the quantum Fourier transform and a three-qubit Toffoli gate –– key quantum logic circuits for the further development of quantum computing," said Mariantoni.

Every programmer will have to learn quantum mechanics now.  We are going to need a new programming language. 

Who needs qubits when you have a Q*bert? My @!#?@! mind should go on one of those shows about hoarding.

-Josh

In other amazing news, researchers from Harvard have generalized the laws of reflection and refraction:

"By incorporating a gradient of phase discontinuities across the interface [of a boundary between surfaces, such as the glass of a mirror and the air - RH], the laws of reflection and refraction become designer laws, and a panoply of new phenomena appear," says Zeno Gaburro, a visiting scholar in Capasso's group who was co-principal investigator for this work. "The reflected beam can bounce backward instead of forward. You can create negative refraction. There is a new angle of total internal reflection."

Also, Korean researchers have made 3D OLEDs that have tiny prisms that direct different light to different eyes.  That would be much easier to do with the knowledge gained from the Harvard research above, and could be done at the nanoscale.  Then perhaps we could build a quCPU from those, and not have to cool the quCPU down to superconducting temperatures.

5 minutes ago,JoshRoss wrote

Who needs qubits when you have a Q*bert? My @!#?@! mind should go on one of those shows about hoarding.

-Josh

Q*bert would be a perfect game to include in the first consumer game for a qc.   Except unlike the classic version, you would never be able to tell if he was alive or dead, or moved or didn't move, all your moves and the enemies' moves would happened simultaneously, and you wouldn't know who won or if it was over until you checked the score.  Everything would just be a blurry cloud except the scoreboard. 

That's quite strange. Well, anything with quantum is strange.

BTW, anyone know about the new NeuralCPU?  

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/08/18/ibm.brain.chip/index.html

Not as awesome and magical as yours, but, it is quite good for AI and robot.

@magicalclick:  Yes, I've heard about that.  Sounds promising!

@Ion Todirel: In 500 years we won't have to talk; we'll just directly upload and download thoughts.   

When it rains, it pours:  A digital, universal quantum simulator has been demonstrated that can in principle simulate any physical system http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-digital-quantum-simulator.html.

Really?  It could simulate any physical system, efficiently? That's just unbelievable.  Imagine what this will do for physics.

7 hours ago,Richard.Hein wrote

When it rains, it pours:  A digital, universal quantum simulator has been demonstrated that can in principle simulate any physical system http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-digital-quantum-simulator.html.

Really?  It could simulate any physical system, efficiently? That's just unbelievable.  Imagine what this will do for physics.

Doesn't our universe already do that?

But does it run Crysis?

(Sorry)

58 minutes ago,Bass wrote

But does it run Crysis?

(Sorry)

Grab a weapon and start shooting....

There isn't a save game, however.

@ScanIAm:  Yes.

People don't change how they program to accomodate new computers, they change how the new computer behaves to make it behave like an old computer, or use new programming languages so they can interact with it in the same way as before (people can write Visual Basic in any language, and if we get a quantum computer, they'll write Visual Basic on that too).

Look at the past ten years of computing development - your data no longer goes along bus lines in the north-bridge, it goes along the QPR bridge. You no longer have RAM, you have flash-RAM. You no longer have a single platter disk, you have a multiplatter magnetic RAID disk that uses sector streaking to improve performance and redundancy, and you don't have one CPU you have four, all connected along a hybrid bus along the outside of the CPU - and has any of this changed how we program? Not one jot.

If and when quantum computers come along, they'll be abused for specialist applications like encryption, sure, but if they ever reach the desktop (and that's a long way off) then Microsoft and Linux will write an OS that sits on top that just takes the "quantum" as a speed improvement over other computers and throw the rest of the magic physics away, because programmers don't care about physics, they care about getting their product to the maximum number of users in the minimum amount of effort.

6 hours ago,evildictait​or wrote

People don't change how they program to accomodate new computers, they change how the new computer behaves to make it behave like an old computer, or use new programming languages so they can interact with it in the same way as before (people can write Visual Basic in any language, and if we get a quantum computer, they'll write Visual Basic on that too).

Look at the past ten years of computing development - your data no longer goes along bus lines in the north-bridge, it goes along the QPR bridge. You no longer have RAM, you have flash-RAM. You no longer have a single platter disk, you have a multiplatter magnetic RAID disk that uses sector streaking to improve performance and redundancy, and you don't have one CPU you have four, all connected along a hybrid bus along the outside of the CPU - and has any of this changed how we program? Not one jot.

If and when quantum computers come along, they'll be abused for specialist applications like encryption, sure, but if they ever reach the desktop (and that's a long way off) then Microsoft and Linux will write an OS that sits on top that just takes the "quantum" as a speed improvement over other computers and throw the rest of the magic physics away, because programmers don't care about physics, they care about getting their product to the maximum number of users in the minimum amount of effort.

Although in some respects, abstractions will be made to hide certain kinds of complexity, in the big scheme of things, I don't agree, because of a few reasons.  First of all, weare changing the way we program for multiple CPUs and distributed systems.  I am certainly doing so for the Azure project I am on.  It uses the same languages, but the design is very different.  Parallel programming and asychronous programming idioms like C# Async, TPL and Rx provide an abstraction to make it simpler, but it's still quite different, and results in a different design.  Rx code looks very little like "ordinary" C#. 

Also, the fundamental algorithms for solving problems on a quantum computer are drastically different than classical algorithms.  They are so different, that simply understanding them requires at least a working knowledge of quantum mechanics.  There may be a group of programmers that don't get into that depth - and they may be the majority - but there will still be a lot who must, just as today there are still a lot of programmers that need to program to the machine (C++ is still very much alive).  So, as part of a decent computer science education, students will at least have to learn the basics, just as I had to learn all about memory management, even though I rarely work on code that deals with its own memory management any more.

But, who knows.  We'll see.  It's just the beginning.