Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

turnip_burrito t1_j9bzfd6 wrote

Reply to comment by SoylentRox in Whatever happened to quantum computing? by MultiverseOfSanity

I see. How many orders of magnitude more will be needed?

Edit: A quick Google search returns 10^8 over 1 hour for breaking AES 256. Right now we're at 10^2 and I don't know how long it stays coherent (looks like around 10^-4 seconds). I see what you mean now for encryption.

How much do you need for quantum chemistry simulations? Quick Googlr search says the numbers are far lower to be useful there. Maybe 10^2 or 10^3 order of magnitude?

7

SoylentRox t1_j9c5lgd wrote

Also how useful is quantum chemistry.

You can probably just "memorize the rules" with a neural network, the way protein folding was solved, and not actually simulate the quantum chemistry. This is drastically faster and almost as accurate.

This means you just do a bunch of chemistry experiments, or load in the data from already performed experiments, and figure out the rules so you can predict the experiments you didn't perform. Neural networks can already learn most possible functions so they can approximate what a quantum chemistry sim would theoretically be exact for.

And the approximations can be potentially just as accurate : remember your input data has finite resolution. (significant figures)

4

Sigma_Atheist t1_j9c1voq wrote

As far as I'm aware, there is no known quantum algorithm that could break AES-256.

Your quantum chemistry simulation qubit estimate seems about right. But that's also a boring use case. You'll only make money off of chemistry researchers.

3

mr_ludd t1_j9cf4s6 wrote

> there is no known quantum algorithm that could break AES-256.

So far...

0