Comment on [deleted]

• Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The artificial computer wasn’t so much a scientific breakthrough as a conceptual one. It didn’t require anything that didn’t already exist.

  Neither does this. You just don’t know about it yet. And the link I provided you with shows this.

  The quantum computer does exist. And it’s functional principles are built on physics not engineering. It’s a fundamentally different situation.

  Not true. Electrical currents are physics too. And quantum computers have hardware too.

  in 10 human generations quantum computers still won’t be portable personal devices.

  What are your arguments for this? I’ve shown you that your central argument is already being addressed.

  source

  • Steve@communick.news ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Neither does this. You just don’t know about it yet.

    What exactly is this, that I don’t know about? And how does Moore’s Law apply?

    source

    • Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      “This” as in a quantum computer, the thing we were discussing. And the physics and engineering is something you don’t know about. For example, you didn’t know about nitrogen vacancy centers that are already theorised to make room-temperature quantum computing possible. On top of that there are many breakthroughs yet to be made that even current experts may not yet know about.

      Moore’s law applies to predictions, which is the other thing we were discussing. Moore’s law was indeed an accurate prediction up until recently, but only after the breakthrough was made, like I also mentioned in my previous comment. I never said it applied to quantum computers.

      But it seems to me that you’re just going on a hunch. I’ve tried to apply logic, reasoning and sources to no avail, so I think I will just leave it at that.

      source