> He (Arronson) and other critics say the company must still prove two things: that its qubits really can enter superpositions and become entangled, and that the chip delivers a significant "quantum speed-up" compared to a classical computer working on the same problem.
I'm curious how one goes about "proving superposition"? If one does the
most obvious thing, opening the box containing Schrodinger's cat to
observer and hence prove state, then you've just lost the superposition.
Anyhow, for those wondering about addressing the impacts of successful
quantum computing on cryptography (i.e. security of most things,
including your banking transactions on the web), you should check out
the efforts of Dan J. Bernstein (DBJ) and friends on the "Post-Quantum
Crypto" web site:
Though research is still on-going, at present it seems some algorithms
are resistant to quantum cryptanalysis. It might take a decade or two to
retool all the systems using crypto vulnerable to quantum cryptanalysis
(assuming someone succeeds in building a quantum computer), but at
least it seems like there's hope.
I'm curious how one goes about "proving superposition"? If one does the most obvious thing, opening the box containing Schrodinger's cat to observer and hence prove state, then you've just lost the superposition.
Anyhow, for those wondering about addressing the impacts of successful quantum computing on cryptography (i.e. security of most things, including your banking transactions on the web), you should check out the efforts of Dan J. Bernstein (DBJ) and friends on the "Post-Quantum Crypto" web site:
http://pqcrypto.org/
Though research is still on-going, at present it seems some algorithms are resistant to quantum cryptanalysis. It might take a decade or two to retool all the systems using crypto vulnerable to quantum cryptanalysis (assuming someone succeeds in building a quantum computer), but at least it seems like there's hope.