Qubits are Bits ~ get over it

Computer science rule #1: Code abstracts all things.

For those not familiar with 'quantum computing', it is the expansion of classical computing using quantum theory. Classical computers are the only computers the vast majority of humanity is familiar with. Below quantum's epic complexities is a simple truth: classical computers work with bits (1s and 0s), while quantum computers work with qubits. A qubit can be imagined as a globe, where the north pole is 0 and the south pole is 1 (or vice versa). Its state can be any position on or potentially in that sphere.

As it stands today, modeling qubits with bits is considered mathematically hard. Like any interesting physical phenomenon, quantum systems are explosive. Simulating a system of interacting qubits with a system of interacting bits currently results in impractical slowdown. Computers are logical, conservative machines and don't much fancy infinite possibilities (or so we've assumed). Nonetheless, a classical computer can crunch quantum math, and therefore there is no known physical law withholding off-the-shelf technology from going quantum.

A bit can be '0'. A bit can be '1'. A qubit can be a mixture of that duality so let's represent it with a '2'. With the flexibility offered by a third, superposition bit, can we model quantum systems efficiently? We can already model them inefficiently.

Regardless, the quantum information scientists concerned with these matters firmly hold the near-unanimous position that your phone or laptop are not welcome at the quantum party. Instead, they tell us we have to wait anywhere between a decade and 50 years for scalable quantum computers that 'authentically' model quantum systems at the physical level - with cool things like trapped ions.

Should humans figure out how to get bits to speak qubit, the benefits are... interesting: True shared data privacy that doesn't rely on a pickable lock for protection is one thing we'll get. Or how about improved hardware energy efficiency - literally using fewer electrons to run calculations. "Doing more with less" comes to mind.

Write your local Qscientist to reconsider the lowly classical computer as a candidate for quantum status today!

*Research conducted on behalf of noospheer ~ open source, distributed data integration and collaboration software.

Web v Cloud

There is plenty of buzz about the cloud. Apple's latest to hit the market is the iCloud. This allows users to access 5gb of media from any of their Apple devices. A step in the right direction, surely, but is it the cloud - or is just access to a chunk of data over the web? iCloud would be a little cloudier if it, say, enabled users to share their data with other users in the cloud. This way people would be members of a communal data library, fully accessible to all connected devices... Wouldn’t that be so scary to ‘intellectual property’ owners.

If the cloud is the paradigm superceding the web then it needs to be greater than simply a high-speed + big-storage Internet.

A 'metaweb' is what comes to mind. If the standard unit of the web is the website, then a cloudsite would be one which allows comprehensive access to the entirety of the Internet. Just as the WWW enabled the interlinking of data/services, the cloud could enable the integration of data/services.

As the web has evolved over the last couple decades, the world’s intranets have plugged in. Hidden behind the ‘website layer’ are the world’s databases, on the network, yet difficult to access. These databases contain a wealth of structured data on the entire sphere of knowledge/activity on (and off) the planet.

The New Internet, Web 3.0, The Cloud - whatever you’d like to call it - will be an open and integrated data/service superset. It will make the global nature of the Internet seem as if its locally stored on your little device.