Extending lower dimensional rules to 4D

[Watters]

Athou the hardware is new it is the ablitiy of the hardware being able to run on new software. Although it does run faster then normal computers it is more in the abiltiy of teh computer to be "on" and "off" at the same time that adds most of teh speed, computers now adays can't run programs with that code (on off)

[RQ]

I really can't see ur programs with a computer that is on and off. But even if you say that such computers could be available, they would take up more space, and yet probably have the same effects, since a computer that size with today's hardware would probably be way faster.

[Watters]

lol....no. I don't know how to explain it but i do know they are crazy faster.

[PWrong]

I'll try to explain it. In an ordinary computer, data is made up of "bits" which can be either 0 or 1. This might represent, for instance, a particle with a "spin" of up or down. Now quantum mechanics allows a fundamental particle to be in two states at once.

A quantum computer uses "qubits" of information, which can be a 0 and a 1 at the same time. So it can perform 2 calculations for the price of 1.

Now a classical computer with two bits of information can perform two calculations. The two bits can be arranged as follows: 00, 01, 10, 11. But a quantum computer can be in all four states at once, so it can make 4 calculations for the price of two. A 3-cubit quantum computer can make 8 calculations, so it is as powerful as an 8-bit computer, 4 qubits is equivalent to 16 bits, 5 is equivalent to 32, and so on.

If this still doesn't seem particularly impressive, a quantum computer with only 100 qubits has the equivalent of 2^100 bits, or about
158456 tera-tera-bytes (a tera-byte is 1000 gigabytes). Apparently that number is larger than the number of atoms in the universe. With a computer that powerful, who cares if a single qubit has to take up a whole room?

[elpenmaster]

if scientists ssomeday got there and built a quantum computer with enourmous powers, would the calculating powers of this computer be limited by the number of attoms in the universe?

[RQ]

That still doesn't answer my question. How would programs run. Since there is no time sequence, it's gonna be one big line of nothing.

[Watters]

expalin what you mean about time sequance...then maby we can answer the question

[PWrong]

if scientists ssomeday got there and built a quantum computer with enourmous powers, would the calculating powers of this computer be limited by the number of attoms in the universe?

No, because every particle has a position and a velocity, so it could be represented by hundreds of bits of information. A more general question would be "can a quantum computer run an exact simulation of the universe, from the big bang to the big crunch?"

I have no idea what the answer to this question is. I did read somewhere how many binary digits are needed to describe the universe, but it might be possible to compress the data. Otherwise, the quantum computer would have to be the same size as the universe. Another problem is that the universe is a quantum environment, so you can't determine an exact location, things can be in two places at once, and so forth. And finally, if a quantum computer can run an exact simulation of our universe, then maybe the quantum computer is the universe.

[Watters]

Wrong....not every partical has a position and a velocity....and that is how it works (don't realy get the statment. you ask a question then put in a statment contraditing your question later on). We have not clue where the partical is, we have a general area and the partical potencialy is in every spot in that area. Including two spots at once, ie the comp can be on and off "1 and 0" at the same time.

[Aale de Winkel]

To be precise, for particles one can NOT know both position and velocity. Both are related by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle Δx Δp >= h. this holds for every particle. I'm not too familiar with the workings of the quantum-computer, to really say something about it

[PWrong]

That's true, and I probably should have mentioned it. There's another way to describe it though. I'm sure you've heard of the multiverse theory, where there are infinitely many different universes. Whenever there is a 50% chance of something happening, the universe splits into two, one where it happens, and one where it doesn't.

So there is a universe exactly the same as ours, except where Hitler won WWII, and there's another one where my socks are a different colour, and so on.

If this theory is true, then Quantum computers are supposed to exploit the other universes. In other words, there are infinitely many quantum computers in infinitely many universes, all working on the same problem, so they can all work together and reach the answer a lot sooner.

The problem with trying to simulate the universe with a quantum computer is that our universe can interact with others universes. So we use all the quantum computers in the multiverse to simulate the entire multiverse. We might as well think of our universe as a big quantum computer, so the power of a quantum computer is indeed limited by the computing power of the universe.

If that doesn't make any sense, don't worry, it's probably wrong anyway. :wink:

[elpenmaster]

these other universes are sideways in time (temporaly lateral?) from our universe
:wink:

[PWrong]

It's something like that. I guess you could say the universes are separated by another dimension, but not a spacial dimension. So now we have time, gravity and the multiverse dimensions, which are not really dimensions.

Apparently most physicists don't like the idea, because it can't really be proven either way. But it's more appealing to the general public, and it's relatively easier to understand.

[RQ]

OK, I don't want to be sceptical or anything, but a computer in multiple universes would be for all the different paths that the computer could have taken.

Now a computer both on and off, if for example the ASCII code for space is 00100000, now if the 0's and 1's are both 1's and 0's, i don't really think this computer has much of a chance.

[PWrong]

I don't actually build these computers. I do know they've worked out a system, so if they had a quantum computer, they could use it.

[Keiji]

I've split out the off-topic posts about probability from this topic, as it was getting away from this topic's subject. This post is merely a bump, as the forum software pushed the topic down to the 2nd page when it was split.

[PWrong]

Good idea Bob, but are we still talking about quantum computers now, or should we go back to some of my original points? :?

For my original points, I think a mention of my topic about 4D magnetism might also belong on the list, since magnets seem so reliant on having three dimensions.