Google says its new quantum chip indicates that multiple universes exist (1 Viewer)

[ericttspikes]

Willow’s performance on this benchmark is astonishing: It performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 1025 or 10 septillion years. If you want to write it out, it’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. This mind-boggling number exceeds known timescales in physics and vastly exceeds the age of the universe. It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch.

Google says its new quantum chip indicates that multiple universes exist | TechCrunch

Google announced its latest quantum chip, Willow. But what really caught the industry's attention was a wild claim tucked into the blog post.

techcrunch.com

 

[Captain Cranks]

Seems like cryptography needs to step up its game pronto.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

 

[El Floppo]

What I read this AM on my commute- sounds like still a ways away from application. The article stressed that Google claims the usual errors- which are profound from Qubits and make their use difficult- have reached some kind of prescribed threshold.

I for one, welcome our new qubit overlords.

 

[El Floppo]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

 

[El Floppo]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I missed the multiverse comment in the op... yeah- I don't get that connection either.

 

[kupcho1]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I think that the speed at which it completed its computation as compared to how long it would take conventional computers to complete it, led them to the conclusion that the quantum computer must have split the work between multiverses.

It could be that they proved time as a limiting factor isn't the case. To be clear, I'm not saying time doesn't exist, but that would be an equally (un)likely alternative.

 

[ChiefD]

Can I still drink beer?

 

[beer 30]

Willow’s performance on this benchmark is astonishing: It performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 1025 or 10 septillion years.

How do we know it's right?

 

[beer 30]

Can I still drink beer?

I think rampant alcoholism will be encouraged in the new terminator dominated world.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I think that the speed at which it completed its computation as compared to how long it would take conventional computers to complete it, led them to the conclusion that the quantum computer must have split the work between multiverses.

It could be that they proved time as a limiting factor isn't the case. To be clear, I'm not saying time doesn't exist, but that would be an equally (un)likely alternative.

I've read enough about relativity to know that I'm just not going to "get" that concept, quantum physics, etc. I've made my peace with the fact that people who have done the math are going to say things like "This computer result suggests the existence of a multiverse" and I'm just going to have to very tentatively accept it, keeping in mind that there's a high probability that that result will be overturned in a few years.

 

[MTskibum]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I missed the multiverse comment in the op... yeah- I don't get that connection either.

I have been reading tech articles on quantum computers for a few years now.

While they are fast they have tons of errors, and when you add the error correction then there are not too many extra qubits available for computations. In addition, quantum computers may never be able to solve classical problems.

While they eventually may be able to simulate big bang, neuron interaction in the brain, etc, they cannot solve a traditional mathematical problem.

In addition, even the most bullish experts do not expect quantum computers to provide useful calculations until about 2030.

 

[MTskibum]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I think that the speed at which it completed its computation as compared to how long it would take conventional computers to complete it, led them to the conclusion that the quantum computer must have split the work between multiverses.

It could be that they proved time as a limiting factor isn't the case. To be clear, I'm not saying time doesn't exist, but that would be an equally (un)likely alternative.

I've read enough about relativity to know that I'm just not going to "get" that concept, quantum physics, etc. I've made my peace with the fact that people who have done the math are going to say things like "This computer result suggests the existence of a multiverse" and I'm just going to have to very tentatively accept it, keeping in mind that there's a high probability that that result will be overturned in a few years.

The multiverse comment was just a "troll" headline grabber. None of the actual science ever suggested a multiverse if you click on the article.

 

[El Floppo]

Can I still drink beer?

Make it snappy, slick.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I think that the speed at which it completed its computation as compared to how long it would take conventional computers to complete it, led them to the conclusion that the quantum computer must have split the work between multiverses.

It could be that they proved time as a limiting factor isn't the case. To be clear, I'm not saying time doesn't exist, but that would be an equally (un)likely alternative.

I've read enough about relativity to know that I'm just not going to "get" that concept, quantum physics, etc. I've made my peace with the fact that people who have done the math are going to say things like "This computer result suggests the existence of a multiverse" and I'm just going to have to very tentatively accept it, keeping in mind that there's a high probability that that result will be overturned in a few years.

It's like the cosmological idea that the farther away you can see the further back in time you can see. I'll never be able to grasp that.

 

[ericttspikes]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I think that the speed at which it completed its computation as compared to how long it would take conventional computers to complete it, led them to the conclusion that the quantum computer must have split the work between multiverses.

It could be that they proved time as a limiting factor isn't the case. To be clear, I'm not saying time doesn't exist, but that would be an equally (un)likely alternative.

I've read enough about relativity to know that I'm just not going to "get" that concept, quantum physics, etc. I've made my peace with the fact that people who have done the math are going to say things like "This computer result suggests the existence of a multiverse" and I'm just going to have to very tentatively accept it, keeping in mind that there's a high probability that that result will be overturned in a few years.

The multiverse comment was just a "troll" headline grabber. None of the actual science ever suggested a multiverse if you click on the article.

The multiverse quote was made by the Google Quantum AI founder on his blog.

“This mind-boggling number exceeds known timescales in physics and vastly exceeds the age of the universe. It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse…’

His blog post has more technical info and is an interesting read.

Meet Willow, our state-of-the-art quantum chip

Our new quantum chip demonstrates error correction and performance that paves the way to a useful, large-scale quantum computer.

blog.google

 

[MTskibum]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I think that the speed at which it completed its computation as compared to how long it would take conventional computers to complete it, led them to the conclusion that the quantum computer must have split the work between multiverses.

It could be that they proved time as a limiting factor isn't the case. To be clear, I'm not saying time doesn't exist, but that would be an equally (un)likely alternative.

I've read enough about relativity to know that I'm just not going to "get" that concept, quantum physics, etc. I've made my peace with the fact that people who have done the math are going to say things like "This computer result suggests the existence of a multiverse" and I'm just going to have to very tentatively accept it, keeping in mind that there's a high probability that that result will be overturned in a few years.

The multiverse comment was just a "troll" headline grabber. None of the actual science ever suggested a multiverse if you click on the article.

The multiverse quote was made by the Google Quantum AI founder on his blog.

“This mind-boggling number exceeds known timescales in physics and vastly exceeds the age of the universe. It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse…’

His blog post has more technical info and is an interesting read.

Meet Willow, our state-of-the-art quantum chip

Our new quantum chip demonstrates error correction and performance that paves the way to a useful, large-scale quantum computer.

blog.google

Yeah, I think it is in his article for clickbait. First off the test that the computer is really fast at is a google benchmark. This is similar to how video card benchmarks used to work 10-20 years ago. The video card manufacturer's would build their hardware to do really good on the benchmark, but their actual improvement in games did not match the percentage that they improved in the benchmark.

I raise red flags anytime a hardware manufacturer does really well on their own internal test without external verification.

Second, all quantum computers are much, much faster than classical when working on equations that are optimized for a quantum computer. This is not new or unique to this test, in this case the google guy just said it for click bait, imo.

 

[Sammy3469]

Can I still drink beer?

Maybe in multiple universes at once. I think the more important question is does beer taste the same in every multiverse.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Can I still drink beer?

Maybe in multiple universes at once. I think the more important question is does beer taste the same in every multiverse.

I could be persuaded to test that out...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yeah, I think it is in his article for clickbait. First off the test that the computer is really fast at is a google benchmark. This is similar to how video card benchmarks used to work 10-20 years ago. The video card manufacturer's would build their hardware to do really good on the benchmark, but their actual improvement in games did not match the percentage that they improved in the benchmark.

I raise red flags anytime a hardware manufacturer does really well on their own internal test without external verification.

Second, all quantum computers are much, much faster than classical when working on equations that are optimized for a quantum computer. This is not new or unique to this test, in this case the google guy just said it for click bait, imo.

Indeed, and nevermind that Google fakes/exaggerates this kind of stuff all the time.

Remember, this is the same company that released an AI demo of Gemini a year ago answering some questions/applications that most AI's struggle with, and it turns out the AI wasn't actually "talking" to the person, but rather was just playing some pre-recorded quotes and they overlayed a human voice asking it questions. They did not disclose this, and when called on it they said "oh yeah that was just an example of how it's going to work one day".

 

[bcat01]

I would guess that the person that said "multiverse" is a Marvel fan.

 

[Zow]

I know nothing about the topic but it just seems "faster".

Do today's computers compared to writing on clay tablets not allow a person to arrive at the same conclusion?

if that conclusion requires a lot of computational analysis, no. if the conclusion requires picking your lineup for the playoffs this weekend- and I assume that's why you're asking the question- then, yes.

No. I'm just trying to grasp why the new machine being able to calculate so much faster than the old one indicates a multiverse. Seems like totally unrelated things. But like I said, I didn't know anything about quantum anything.

I think that the speed at which it completed its computation as compared to how long it would take conventional computers to complete it, led them to the conclusion that the quantum computer must have split the work between multiverses.

It could be that they proved time as a limiting factor isn't the case. To be clear, I'm not saying time doesn't exist, but that would be an equally (un)likely alternative.

I've read enough about relativity to know that I'm just not going to "get" that concept, quantum physics, etc. I've made my peace with the fact that people who have done the math are going to say things like "This computer result suggests the existence of a multiverse" and I'm just going to have to very tentatively accept it, keeping in mind that there's a high probability that that result will be overturned in a few years.

It's like the cosmological idea that the farther away you can see the further back in time you can see. I'll never be able to grasp that.

I'm proud to say I actually "got" this when my dad* broke it down for me in basic terms and did a little experiment for me.

*My dad apparently designed some of the tech for the super impressive camera in space thingy that let's us see back millions of years because of how far the picture can be taken.

 

[arrow1]

 

[tommyGunZ]

I’m not smart enough to know how to contextualize it, but the market thinks that this is a big deal. Google stock up 7-8% since this was announced Monday afternoon.

 

[MTskibum]

I’m not smart enough to know how to contextualize it, but the market thinks that this is a big deal. Google stock up 7-8% since this was announced Monday afternoon.

Mission accomplished. That exec is getting a bigger bonus this year.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

Nothing blew my mind more than the thought of infinity. When I was a kid and could first somewhat conceptualize it, it was quite disturbing. Cessation. Nothingness. Remember the place and moment to this day.

 

[Manster]

Can I still drink beer?

Yes......Preferably while fishing, and not caring about the multiverse. That's what I plan to do anyway.