digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Yale scientists make 2 giant steps in advancement of quantum computing!

physorg.com — Two major steps toward putting quantum computers into real practice they report that superconducting qubits, or artificial atoms, have been able to communicate information not only to their nearest neighbor, but also to a distant qubit on the chip.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -23/+541 Diggs, no comments, in 150 minutes as of 3:54PM CST. Can anyone stop Zaibatsu and friends from controlling the Digg frontpage?
    • zaibatsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32I don't think guy likes me very much. Gabriel, what type of content would you like to see on the Frontpage.

      I guess you don't like my science posts about Alzheimer's, Quantum Computing nor the one about Huge Ancient wall found in Iran, are you hatin' on the Chocolate Chip cookie story or maybe the one on file sharing.

      What would you suggest?

      Hey send me a shout with a great story and I would love to Digg it.

      • webcure, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have a story for you Zaibatsu.
        It is actually a story about a rock, but it is a good story!
        Quantum Computing is so passe...
        and where is this place, Yale?
        This is science?
        There is also a great story about this tree...
      • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't have a problem with you Zaibatsu. I have a problem with Digg. You just shovel the best evidence around.

        You are basically a one stop shop for getting a story attention. You are the Matt Drudge of Digg. Just get your story to Zaibatsu, and it's going to make the front page.

        I don't really like this and there is no way to really stop all your friends from digging everything you posted, but when they digg everything you post and not comment on anything, it starts to look like the same problems that Digg has had in the past.
        • webcure, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Zaibatsu has friends that not only read the submissions - they vote on the ones that they like, and they leave comments as well. GabrielS, take a look at it this way. When you purchase the NY Times (or read it online) you have a feeling that the quality of the stories is good. There is a name that you trust. At Digg, there are some diggers that are popular BECAUSE the quality of their content is good. Zaibatsu didn't get to be the Matt Drudge of Digg for no reason. He comes up with the goods bro -- good stories, surprising articles, science stuff ( Quantum Computing at Yale is kinda relevant to science community) tech items and gadgets and software - and he has chocolate chip cookie recipes. Getting the idea? - He is a super friggin digger man/machine - Zaibatsu rocks dude!
    • DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Yeah, how dare your friends digg your submissions, zaibatsu! Shame on you!
      • zaibatsu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15I never Digg stories from my friends, how dare you imply that I do. Why would someone do that on a 'Social Networking' site.

        I just lurk in comments and bitch,
    • canovac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Lame... that's about the last 20 posts I've seen where SOMEONE has to complain about some conspiracy digg hacking. Ghey
      • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not a conspiracy. There is no hacking. Nobody is gaming the system. Zaibatsu is just a much too powerful user in the Digg system.

        Checks and balances are good.
    • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I guess I will bury every story that comes from GabrielS. What the hell is your problem.
    • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What's malicious about getting your friends to digg up a science article?
    • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Now where is my tinfoil hat?
  • fightzero01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20I'm not going to try and understand the jargon, just make sure it gets in my next notebook computer!!
  • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13"a cell phone emits about 1023 (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) photons per second."
    thats a hell of a lot of photons.
    • ripple123, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6If it makes you feel any better, there very very small.
      • Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Curiously, they aren't that small. The wavelength of a photon emitted by a cell phone at 1GHz is actually about 30cm (1 foot), and that's really the only concept of size that you can apply to a photon, since it's position is completely delocalized.
    • subxero37, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Do the newswriters simply not read their stories/articles? It should clearly be 10 ^ 23; it looks like the superscript didn't make it into the final page.
      • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well I think it's pretty obvious to readers.. they put the written value in parenthesis immediately after.
    • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If a cellphone is this sloppy with photons in its circuits I wonder how fast a chip that can control individual photons will be. Probably mind boggling.
      • marlinman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The photons referred to comprise the radio waves with which the cellphone communicates with other devices; they are not "in its circuits".
  • cuoops, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I hate reading Physorg - http://www.eng.yale.edu/rslab/
    Project page - http://www.eng.yale.edu/rslab/projects/cQED.html
    FAQ - http://www.eng.yale.edu/rslab/projects/singlephoto ...
  • romistrub, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Damnit! And here I am learning about Integrated Circuits. ***** off, future!
  • synaesthesia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30In 2057 we'll be digging Schroedinger's LOLcats, the links to which are simultaneously dead and alive.
    • jwbraucht, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dugg for the superposition of LOLcats and quantum mechanics.
  • Dolphinese, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5For those who want to learn about Quantum Entanglement:

    http://www.davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/
    • romistrub, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sweet dude. Thanks!

      "The process of using certain crystals to split incoming photons into pairs of photons is called parametric down-conversion.

      Normally the photons exit the crystal such that one is aligned in a horizontally polarized light cone, the other aligned vertically. By adjusting the experiment, the horizontal and vertical light cones can be made to overlap. Even though the polarization of the individual photons is unknown, the nature of quantum mechanics predicts they differ.

      To illustrate, if an entangled photon meets a vertical polarizing filter (analagous to the fence in Figure 4.4), the photon may or may not pass through. If it does, then its entangled partner will not because the instant that the first photon's polarization is known, the second photon's polarization will be the exact opposite.

      It is this instant communication between the entangled photons to indicate each other's polarization that lies at the heart of quantum entanglement. This is the "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein believed was theoretically implausible."

      Dunno about you guys, but something about the idea of "theoretical implausibility" seems a little sketch...
      • Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What's interesting about this is that Einstein wrote a paper about the implausibility of the situation, whereby you consider an entangled two particle system, and separate them and measure their polarizations (or spin state or whatever). The idea is that you can separate the two particles enough so that after measuring the first particle, there is no way for it to somehow send a sub-lightspeed signal to the other particle telling it to be in the opposite state before you make the second measurement. Einstein considered this proposed "spooky action at a distance" to be implausible because it seemingly violated special relativity. But lo and behold, his intuition was wrong and entangled pairs are now often named after him (still special relativity doesn't get violated because no information can get transmitted). This idea then led John Bell to show that there are measurable differences between quantum states being defined before a measurement versus the measurement causing the wavefunction to "choose" a state. Turns out quantum mechanics behaves in the latter sense, against all of Einstein's objections.
  • Velnich, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It's probably better if you don't read this comment, then it could remain potentially amazing.
  • Rageous, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Quantum foam makes me roam.
  • jamangold, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3To any quantum mechanic buffs out there:
    From what I read in the article, is it safe to assume that any data transmission made by a quantum computer would be hack proof?
    It seems that if you tried to intercept any "packets" (for lack of a better term) it would change the quantum state of the data itself, rendering it useless.
    • KraftDinner101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Pretty much, yes.
    • xmrkkr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2May be not, In quantum computing a legitimate node has to somehow read the information reaching it similar to a network card used to decode electrical signals, a hacker might use a similar quantum technology to sniff quantum data without corrupting it.
      • SeekerDarksteel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually so-called quantum cryptography (somewhat of a misnomer, it should be called quantum key distribution) relies on the fact that you can't measure or "sniff" quantum data without changing the state unless you happen to measure it in a basis in which the state is itself a basis vector of. And given that there are an infinite number of bases you can measure it in, you would have to know the state you were trying to measure to know the state you were trying to measure.
    • hostilefreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, no more ethereal/wireshark. Thanks quantum computing!
  • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I may or may not be a doctor, but I may or may not think this is some interesting *****.
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Coincidentally, another big quantum computing development took place today: http://www.physorg.com/news110032067.html
  • yahoofrom, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1good work. can they get laid?
  • xtrench, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Two? What's the rush?
  • Veridien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Interesting...long way off yet though. But the principle is really fascinating.
  • JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Zaibatsu - you post like 20 stories a day to a website FULL of angry antisocial douchebags. You've been on Digg forever - you should know this by now. I don't even know why you bother reading the comments. Just post the story, and run like hell.
  • scottykempf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So would that be a Quantum Leap then?
    • tooweighmirror, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Oh, where's Scott Bakula when you need him?
  • Sirlolalot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1bah all that talk about Qubits, but they didnt say if hogwarts won or not?
  • tooweighmirror, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's absolutely amazing. The ramifications of such a breakthrough are limitless.
  • trollick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11023 != 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
  • iMarketingGuru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'll def be sending you shout outs on great stories because you really know your stuff when it comes to the best posts.
  • DevlinD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1God I love quantum computing!!
  • perseon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I just hope I'm not too old when quantum computers become commonplace. I feel sorry for computer programmers who'll have to learn Quantum Assembly.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.