{"id":1439,"date":"2007-02-13T09:46:03","date_gmt":"2007-02-13T16:46:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=1439"},"modified":"2007-02-13T09:46:03","modified_gmt":"2007-02-13T16:46:03","slug":"d-wave-in-d-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2007\/02\/13\/d-wave-in-d-news\/","title":{"rendered":"D-wave In D-news"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Lots of blogging and press picking up on D-wave and Orion so I thought I&#8217;d collect a few here.  The offical press release is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dwavesys.com\/en\/dw_homepage.html?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&amp;cntnt01articleid=4&amp;cntnt01origid=15&amp;cntnt01returnid=21\">here<\/a>.  I&#8217;d love to hear from anyone who has attended.<br \/>\nScott Aaronson called me a Chinese restraraunt placemat in his <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scottaaronson.com\/blog\/?p=198\">The Orion Quantum Computer Anti-Hype FAQ<\/a> (<b>Update (3:17pm 2\/13\/07):<\/b> Scott&#8217;s post now contains an update by the great Lawrence Ip, who now works for Google.)  Doug Natelson, who gave an excellent talk here at UW a few weeks ago, poses <a href=\"http:\/\/nanoscale.blogspot.com\/2007\/02\/quantum-computing-are-we-there-yet.html\">three questions<\/a> about the D-wave demo.  Peter Rhode is every bit the skeptic and beats out Doug Natelson with four points.  Ars-technica&#8217;s Chris Lee takes a shot at explaining <a href=\"http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/science\/2007\/02\/7008\/\">adiabatic quantum computation<\/a> and uses the word deathmatch <a href=\"http:\/\/www.intel.com\/content\/www\/us\/en\/research\/intel-research.html\">here<\/a>.  You can find a bad quantum computing joke at the end of this blog post.  I find this post amusing, if for nothing more than bringing politics into quantum computing.  <a href=\"http:\/\/superconducting.blogspot.com\/2007\/02\/wave-throws-down-gauntlet-vancouver.html\">Coherence*<\/a> remains the prettiest quantum computing website and has a choice Seth Lloyd comment &#8220;I&#8217;ll be a bit of a skeptic until I see what they have done. I&#8217;m happy these guys are doing it. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.&#8221;<br \/>\nMore mainstreamish media produces some truely incredible hype.  One of my favorites is at <a href=\"http:\/\/phys.org\/news\/2007-02-supercomputer-unveiled.html\">physorg.com<\/a> where we find the title a &#8220;New supercomputer to be unveiled&#8221; along with the choice gibberish &#8220;A Canadian firm is claiming to have taken a quantum leap in technology by producing a computer that can perform 64,000 calculations at once.&#8221;  I flipped a coin 16 times today, can I get some venture capital? \ud83d\ude42  Personally I like Gizmodo&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/gizmodo.com\/235300\/d+wave-quantum-computer-to-span-multiple-universes-next-tuesday\">title<\/a>: &#8220;D-Wave Quantum Computer to Span Multiple Universes Next Tuesday?&#8221;  They also use the word sugerdaddy.  If you want more reasons to be angry about hype or at bad journalism, go over to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wired.com\/gadgetlab\/2007\/02\/quantum_compute\/\">a wired gadget blog<\/a> where you&#8217;ll find<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nThere are certain classes of problems that can&#8217;t be solved with digital computers,&#8221; said Herb Martin, the firm&#8217;s CEO, over a decidedly-noisy digital cell phone. &#8220;Digital computers are good at running programs; quantum computers are good at handling massive sets of variables.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Turing is certainly turning in his grave over that first sentence and, since Peter Shor is alive and well, I wonder if he is spinning today?<br \/>\nAnd don&#8217;t even get me started on this EETimes article.  Choice:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nNondeterministic polynomial (NP) problems are the most difficult to solve on conventional computers because each variable adds yet another dimension to its possible solutions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>No, no, no!  So many no&#8217;s I can&#8217;t even write it down.  First of all NP problems include problems in P, so they definitely aren&#8217;t the most difficult to solve on a conventional computer.  Second, the essentence of NP-complete problems is NOT just that you have an exponential search space.  You&#8217;d think a Electrical Engineering rag would have taken some computer science courses?  Then, of course EETimes only digs their grave deeper:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nQuantum computers, on the other hand, can evaluate all possible solutions simultaneously and find the optimal solution, often in just a few clock cycles, thereby not only vastly speeding up the time taken to find the solution but also finding the most optimal result.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Okay, at that point I&#8217;ll admit I had to stop reading cus my brain was about to explode.<br \/>\nOh, and whatever you do, don&#8217;t search for &#8220;first quantum computer&#8221; if you&#8217;ve ever performed a quantum computing experiment (that includes a lot of MIT Physics majors?  Ack, is NMR quantum computation really quantum computation?)  You might get a little miffed at all the years you spent in grad school doing what you thought were small quantum computer experiments.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lots of blogging and press picking up on D-wave and Orion so I thought I&#8217;d collect a few here. The offical press release is here. I&#8217;d love to hear from anyone who has attended. Scott Aaronson called me a Chinese restraraunt placemat in his The Orion Quantum Computer Anti-Hype FAQ (Update (3:17pm 2\/13\/07): Scott&#8217;s post &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2007\/02\/13\/d-wave-in-d-news\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;D-wave In D-news&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[20,53,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computer-science","category-physics","category-quantum"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}