Arf Arf:)

Nobel prizes usually wait for experimental confirmation, as in the case of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves. The Breakthrough Foundation does not.
Tullio

---

Yes. As I have said before. Alfred Nobel had a will that say the Nobel Prize in physics goes to the person who has done the greatest discovery or invention during last year that benefit mankind.
No mentioning of any theories. And discoveries and inventions are not falsifiable whereas theories could be. The Breakthrough Foundation has not these limitations.

Anyway. Science need people who set up theories so that experimentally scientists have something to research and test.

Now let me view the Breakthrough prizes under a different light. You are a University professor or a research professional with a salary. Then the phone rings and somebody tells you that you have earned a prize of one milion dollars. Alan Guth, one of the proposers of cosmic inflation, said he almost fell from his chair. His bank account had 45 dollars. I think that the Breakthrough Foundatio, started by a millionaire enriched by the Web, should think about the load it is going to put on the shoulders of people mostly elder. Ms Jocelyn Bell, the discoverer of pulsars, said that she would fund some scholarships for girl students. It is unlikely, but what would I do with a million dollars? Maybe give it so some charitable institution.
Tulllo

---

Google has published an article on "Nature" magazine which says that its "Sycamore" quantum computer with 53 qubits has done a calculation in 200 seconds that would take ten thousand years on "Summit", the fastest supercomputer in the Top500 list. IBM replies that the Summit could do it in two days an a half, "Nature" compares the Sycamore result to the first flight of the Wright brothers.
Tullio

---

What was the problem and what was the answer. Was this a useful calculation ? What was the advantage that allowed the putative quantum computer to solve faster?

Could this quantum computer be simulated on a fast super-computer--if not why not? What would the results be then?

Here goes:

Article
Published: 23 October 2019
Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor
Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, […]John M. Martinis
Nature volume 574, pages505–510 (2019) | Download Citation

Article metrics
4457 Altmetric

Metricsdetails

Abstract
The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor1. A fundamental challenge is to build a high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an exponentially large computational space. Here we report the use of a processor with programmable superconducting qubits2,3,4,5,6,7 to create quantum states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of dimension 2^53 (about 10^16). Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations. Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of a quantum circuit a million times—our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an experimental realization of quantum supremacy8,9,10,11,12,13,14 for this specific computational task, heralding a much-anticipated computing paradigm.

HUH ??

This is a new field of research. 'Nature" has published the article but its comments are very cautious. IBM has a similar computer, also with 53 qubits, but so far has not done a similar computation. I would compare this result to a discovery by Cristoforo Colombo, who was searching the East and found America. Time will tell.
Tullio

---

It was not really solving a specific problem but showing that quantum computers are able to handle much more data and make calculations on that much faster even faster then on a fast super-computer.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/23/20928294/google-quantum-supremacy-sycamore-computer-qubit-milestone

Google says that its 54-qubit Sycamore processor was able to perform a calculation in 200 seconds that would have taken the world’s most powerful supercomputer 10,000 years. That would mean the calculation, which involved generated random numbers, is essentially impossible on a traditional, non-quantum computer.
Unsurprisingly, IBM, the company that operates the supercomputer that Google claims to have beaten, and a key quantum computer competitor, is disputing Google’s claims. In a blog post published pre-emptively on Monday, the company said that the same task could be performed on a classical system in just 2.5 days, rather than the 10,000 years that Google is claiming. IBM says that Google “failed to fully account for plentiful disk storage” when estimating how long its traditional supercomputer would take to perform the calculation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZNEzzDcllU

All new Big Science instruments, such as the Square Kilometer Array and the new 100 km accelerator, whether in Europe or China, have such huge computing needs that no existing supercomputer can cope with them. We need something new. And the Feynman argument is right, in my opinion. If you want to investigate quantum phenomena, you need a quantum computer.
Tullio

---

Why is the Universe So Beautiful? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpyeeUhIYzA

Let me propose a challenge. This putative Quantum Computer vs IBM's Big Blue or any other super computer that claims to be the most powerful or whatever they have now. Let them run a 1000 variable Linear Programming problem using the Karmarkar algorithm on the IBM machine and whatever technique the Quantum boys want to try. They would need a figure of merit such as the cost of a telephone network. Comparing costs vs. time to compute.

If the previous claim were in merely generating truly random numbers, then ,perhaps, they were generating a random process by looking at the probabilities associated with electrons and states of an atom that were inherent in the idea of a quantum state and computer ??

Google have been very secret about how the test was done.
I find it very strange and I think also it leads to speculations.
And generating random numbers is quite simple and doesn't need error checking.
A quantum computer has to deal with a of lot error checking since the results are only a probability.

IBM is also making research on quantum computers and I have more trust in them than on Google.
Tullio

---

What is reality?
Well Sean Caroll has a superposition idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6FR08VylO4

According to Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber a gravitational wave can collapse a wave function and reduce it to a particle. The theory is cited by Roger Penrose in his book "Shadows of the Mind".
Tullio

---

According to Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber a gravitational wave can collapse a wave function and reduce it to a particle. The theory is cited by Roger Penrose in his book "Shadows of the Mind".
Tullio

Now i'm lost. The wave function is a mathematical construction. How can such theory "collapse" any physical objects?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_functionHow atomic particles look like according to the wave function.

Every physical object is accompanied by a wave function according to Louis de Broglie and Schroedinger. Some, like David Bohm, call it a pilot wave.
Tullio

---

Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory
But I keep hearing of this so called wave function collapse. Perhaps it's calling it a wave function collapse that make me wonder.
It doesn't make sense to me. But then quantum mechanics doesn't make sense to anyone. Still every observations and results are proven.

They have measured the wave function of a two thousand atoms molecule, a macroscopic object, by the two slits experiment. It interferes with itself.
Tullio

---

That two waves interfere with each other is understandable. But that one wave interfere with itself is not that to me. Like when shooting photons or electrons one by one through a double slit the interference pattern still appears on the screen...
Well, there are many interpretations:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
One interpretation is that the single photon or electron actually pass both slits at the same time...