HONEYWELL!? IN THE QUANTUM COMPUTER MARKET

I just came across this article on HackaDay. Little on detail though if there were any it over my head but I do know that if you look at it, it may not be there.
I do hope it's not some hoax for Pi Day. That stuff is for April the 1th.

@greybeard said in HONEYWELL!? IN THE QUANTUM COMPUTER MARKET:
I do hope it's not some hoax for Pi Day. That stuff is for April the 1th.
April 1 can go the way of February 29 as far as im concerned.


@greybeard , the worst, not only Honeywell https://www.livescience.com/googlehitsquantumsupremacy.html
Soon it will be irrelevant to use a password or not

@BlackDaug Thanks for the article... Invest thought I'd ever see one working in my lifetime but chances are I will be around longer than I figured.

More on the subject of Quantum Tech.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientistsmanagequantumentanglementonasatelliteorbitingearth Nice read. Adds a little bit more to our understanding.Only one satellite was used this time. But how would you entangle a photon in one satellite and his twin brother in another? I can see that by manipulating one the other would follow.

Another nice article
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/biggestflippingchallengequantumcomputing

QUANTUM COMPUTER MARKET needs to "stop the shakes" if it hopes to succeed. Also applies to other fields.
If your interested, have a nice read:
https://scitechdaily.com/mitlightsqueezerreducesquantumnoiseinlasersenhancesquantumcomputingandgravitationalwavedetection/

@BlackDaug A cantilevered mirror smaller than a human hair... Wow

@greybeard Here is another gem I came across.
We are used to dealing with probabilities that range from 0% (never happens) to 100% (always happens). To explain results from the quantum world however, the concept of probability needs to be expanded to include a socalled quasiprobability, which can be negative. This quasiprobability allows quantum concepts such as Einsteinâ€™s â€˜spooky action at a distanceâ€™ and waveparticle duality to be explained in an intuitive mathematical language. For example, the probability of an atom being at a certain position and traveling with a specific speed might be a negative number, such as 5%.

@BlackDaug I am the first to admit this topic is way over my head but your atom example brings me to thoughts of "Chaos" or "The butterfly Effect" that we cope with with today's binary computing and what we will have to cope with with quantum computing?
WeI rely on experimental results within your 0% to 100% range. A result of 5% would indicate to me something wrong with the premise or the experiment. If the 5% result was correct I would have to believe the atom 1) was not moving, strange for an atom or 2) was moving in two different directions.
They say that the quantum era will eliminate chaos errors but I wonder.
Although I've always had an interest, all of my studies and readings with to regards quantum has been "out of the range of this text (paper or course)" so it remained an elusive interest I could never get a handle on. In fact everything I read about quantum seem counterintuitive and contradictory (depending on who I read).
Simple mathematical systems exhibit chaos and lead to unpredictability. Science, physics in particular, seems to have simply defaulted into the state that 'chaos was plausibly a natural state'. We seem to be dealing more and more with the "Laws of Unintended Consequences" were errors are just to be expected.
Quantum computing machines must be impressive beasts. How will they be built? By humans, robots, AI? These have all to be designed by the human, the weakest link in the chain. Who will calibrate such computers?
Previously many physicists believed quantum that physics most profoundly showed the uncertainty of scientific truth. Perhaps in some way(?). But perhaps it is chaos in quantum mechanics that may limit potential to predict how things will behave. We've always had measuring inaccuracies and probably always will. Some will become magnified and produce dramatic differences in the answers that we expect.
To me, chaos suggests there may be limits on our potential to predict the behaviour of even simple mathematical systems.
As much as I like the idea and would love to see it come to fruition, trying to understand the quantum computer (or quantum physics) is to me like trying to understand the future.
There seems to be some progress with entanglement as long as both specimens remain in their entanglement bath (so to speak) and keeping them in that state for a time also seems a problem. Positive but limiting so far.Please pardon me, I can tell I am rambling on and diverging somewhat. I know we are moving forward, I just don't know where 'forward' is.
Perhaps I should go back to school... I have the time (more or less).

What worries me the most is that the most intrusive companies have this technology first.

@greybeard I joined Kanopy.com which offers free "Great Courses. " One of which is Quantum Mechanics, a 24 lecture course.
EDIT: Additional Quantum Computing Companies

@BlackDaug Thanksfor the tip. I'll check it out. Cheers