So here's this person who basically says we can call of the whole postquantum thing https://www.quantamagazine.org/gil-kalais-argument-against-quantum-computers-20180207/ … this is far outside my area of expertise, but he doesn't sound like a crank.
-
-
Replying to @hanno
And if you poke around, the debate is a couple of years old. It's easy to find discussion from 2012 and earlier.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lambdafu
yeah, it seems to intuitively make some sense and I'm sure a lot of people had thoughts along those lines. Question is: Can this be rigorously proven?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
His claims were my mathematical/physical intuition since the day I heard about QC. I don't have any rigorous proof of course but I've always called QC a scam for investment $$$ and churning out degrees.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @lambdafu
well, the counterargument would be that intuition is not necessarily a good guide when it comes to quantum physics. and I've seen enough smart people saying it's basically just an engineering problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hanno @RichFelker
It took 50 years to find the Higgs boson after predicting it. It took 50 years to develop the first theory of superconductivity after observing it. Even if real QCs are up to a coin flip: the stakes are high enough to pursue it and prepare for it being possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
None of these are as far-fetched as QC or go against basic principles. Believing in QC is akin to believing QM lets you build Maxwell's Demon.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.