'Blind' Quantum Computing Proposed For the Cloud 89
judgecorp writes "Researchers at Vienna's Quantum Science and Technology Center have proposed that 'blind' quantum computing could be carried out securely in the cloud. When (if?) quantum computers are developed, they will be very fast, but not everyone will have them. Blind quantum computing will be useful, because it shows that users can encode 'qubits' and send them to a shared quantum computer to be worked on — without the quantum computer having any knowledge of what the data is (abstract). The data also cannot be decoded form the qubit while it is in transit. It's good to know that quantum computers will be secure when they exist. At the moment, of course, they are even more secure, by virtue of their non-existence."
A real physical cloud (Score:2)
it's most basic component, a quantum of a cloud, if you will, is a water vapor
"vaporware" therefore is indeed the perfect marketing terminology for this combination of quantum and cloud computing hogwash
quantum hype (Score:4, Insightful)
Quantum computing is just a rather basic branch of computer science which seems to be winning all the hype in the world at the moment because there's not much sexy in terms of hard non-biological research with a practical slant.
I'm not quite sure how the output remains unknown to the computer. I know most cloud services either haven't or won't last long enough to give you all the output you were expecting to get for free/absurdly low cost, but I'd be very impressed with a computing system which is able to deliver you something without knowing it's delivered it.
Of course, there are various computations which can be performed partly by a separate processor without the initial input and final output being known by that separate processor, but there's nothing quantum-y about that.
Re:quantum hype (Score:5, Informative)
As a physicist working in the field, let me correct two things:
Quantum computing is not a branch of computer science; it is not logic and mathematics. It is a branch of physics. It is also why you find it hard to believe that both the input and output is unknown to the quantum computer.
@OP: They do exists, just not in stores yet, a natural result of having unsatisfactory shape.. Try paying a visit to a QC laboratory.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As a mathematician not working in the field, let me point out that any AC saying "as a X working in the field" probably deserves to have the rest of his post ignored.
Anyway, the production of quantum algorithms is a routine computer science problem. And the building of a quantum computer is an engineering problem. I'm not really sure what great contribution physics per se is making to quantum computing, i.e. what new science is being discovered and applied to quantum computers, but perhaps you'll enlighten
Re: (Score:1)
This is the same as saying "I won't send you a 5, but I will send you eight 5s, a three and an eight - the result is approximately some sort of average." IOW the cloud is sending the customer the output, however encoded, and anyone listening between the quantum computer and the customer can work out the output. (We ignore classical encryption because that's not a solution relevant to advancing quantum computing.)
Re: (Score:1)
I know that the output is known because otherwise it couldn't be converted to classical form for sending across the 'net to the customer.
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Even in classical computer science, there are algorithms whose output isn't known to be correct, or even known to exist altogether. This is the norm with so called randomized and stochastic algorithms. They'll give you an output all right, but there's a small chance that the output is meaningless. Or they'll give you an output with a terminating symbol (which tells you that the algorithm actually completed and everything that follows is filler/garbage), but there's a small ch
Re: (Score:1)
This is not a matter of the output being correct or not. Quantum computer doesn't yield an output at all. It yields a quantum state. The measurement performed by receiving end is the output, which doesn't exists before the measurement.
> However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now.
Those rules are called physics.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not that simple. You don't understand the subtlety of the measurement in QM.
This is why non-physicist can't make any significant contribution to physics.
Oh now it's tiny? Whatever adjective you choose to use, every single one of those "rules" are a part of physics.
How many quantum algorithms have you made so far? How many papers on QC do you have?
You don't even know QM, yet speaking as if an expert.
Gosh, people talking about stuff they don't understand! Jeez, this is waste of time. I won't ever read comments on any physics-related post on Slashdot ever again.
"Measurement" is a technical term which is not the same as the usual meaning of the word. The input/"state" is "prepared/measured" & the output state is measured yielding a readable bit string. It's true that what's going on is subtle & it's easy in get it completely wrong talking about it. But the basic structure is quite trivial & the lingo surrounding it finite.
The guts, power, & mysteries are in the state, which no one understands/denies it's corporal existence etc. It's not necessary (
Re: (Score:1)
> However, you are right that one doesn't have to know physics to devise quantum algorithms. One just needs to know and apply the rules, which are sufficiently well axiomatized by now.
Those rules are called physics.
Only a tiny, tiny part of physics. The whole point here is that people can invent quantum algorithms even if they are completely illiterate about physics in general.
Agreed. Check out Mermin's book [google.com] (shut up & calculate guy). The algorithms appear to come from insights in number theory more than physics in general. The most compact & handy representations of the algorithms are... that's right--circuits. Open simulators are available for download.
The field is ripe for hackers to lend a hand. There's no reason to be intimidated by self appointed guardians of the turf. Most physicists didn't have a clue about the importance of entanglement--the primary resource maki
Re: (Score:1)
I know that the output is known because otherwise it couldn't be converted to classical form for sending across the 'net to the customer.
I haven't read the article, but I guess it's not classical bits sent over the Internet, but qubits sent to the customer via fiber (just like in quantum cryptography). Standard telecommunication fibers have been shown to be able to transport qubits reliably enough for quantum cryptography, therefore they should also be reliable enough to transport the results of quantum com
Re: (Score:1)
Why the Quantum's physicians didn't name them Quantum Physics, or Quantum Mechanics, or Quantum Chemistry, or Quantum Particle instead of Quantum Computing, or Quantum Logic, or Quantum Math, or Quantum Satisfiability, etc.?
The minimal quantum unit of information is the q-bit. Is the q-bit a particle in the Physics? I don't think so, the q-bit is in the "Ficticious World" of the Computer Scien
Re: (Score:1)
Well, "they do exist" is only true if you already call a system of a few qubits, not capable of anything more complex than factorizing 15, already a computer. I'd say we have a proof of concept, but not yet a real quantum computer. Making qubit implementations which scale up to a larger number of qubits is still an active field of research.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, I suspect this proposal works by sending entangled qbits into the service, keeping the corresponding pairs, and getting back something that can only be turned into your answer by combining it with what you kept. This isn't the same as what you're t
Re:quantum hype (Score:4, Interesting)
There are some keywords at TFA that give a hint. The computer is "measurement based", what I'll understand as "the computer only does measurements", also, "without knowing the original states, nobody can decode the output".
Turns out that are infinite ways (normaly over a finite continuum space) to encode your original bits, and if your computer only does measurements, the answer will be encoded the same way you encoded the data. If the computer operators don't know your encoding, they won't be able to read your data.
The hard thing is getting those phothons already encoded through the world into the computer, and getting the results back. Also, the above assumes that you can't discover the encoding, but it doesn't survive known plaintext attacks.
Re: (Score:1)
Quantum computing is just a rather basic branch of computer science which seems to be winning all the hype in the world at the moment because there's not much sexy in terms of hard non-biological research with a practical slant.
Not even wrong. Quantum computation is a parallel process which scales exponentially with the number of computing elements (wetware appears to have this property BTW, speaking of computational biology). Computers can't compete in this space--not with a zillion cores. Quantum states inherently sort out their threads. In other words, it is the next DSP/FPGA/GPU but entirely different--dreadlocks not deadlocks. Had we pursued this path in the 40's instead of computers, we wouldn't be in the jam we are now.
Fun
Why would we send them (Score:2)
Say what? (Score:3)
I'd run TFA through babelfish if I could work out what language it's supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason, the writing sometimes seems odd to those who aren't living four simultaneous days.
Blah blah (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Blah blah (Score:5, Funny)
What a waste of time this all is.
Yoda ... is that you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A practical quantum computer already exists, as demonstrated in this result. A tiny computer, to be sure, but perfectly adequate for this demonstration. I doubt anyone knows with much certainty in one direction or the other how long it will take to scale up the bit width of these boxen--this being the current major obstacle.
Not really. Quantum computers are only practical in that scientists and engineers have managed, through herculean efforts, have made simple machines that can solve utterly trivial computing problems for which no apparatus whatsoever is necessary or desired.
A practical quantum computer would be a quantum computer suitable for solving practical computing problems on a basis that's competitive with other types of computers.
Maybe engineers will figure out how to make such computers in the next few decades, but
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. Quantum computers are only practical in that scientists and engineers have managed, through herculean efforts, have made simple machines that can solve utterly trivial computing problems for which no apparatus whatsoever is necessary or desired.
A practical quantum computer would be a quantum computer suitable for solving practical computing problems on a basis that's competitive with other types of computers.
Correct--quantum computers are not the next FTP server. Nor are graphics cards much good for Excel.
Maybe engineers will figure out how to make such computers in the next few decades, but maybe not. Meanwhile, the capacity of conventional computers continues to push out ahead.
Such authoritative predictions are littered throughout the commentary on the field. Perhaps produced by those uncomfortable with a technology built upon a mysterious process for which there is no authority. More useful than additional replicas, would be to provide a solid basis for these exuberant predictions. Somehow, despite the best efforts of the critics, the tech is picking up steam in overcoming showsto
Re: (Score:1)
Hold on, I am not saying that quantum computing is poor science. It is actually a very interesting and, dare I say, fun.. Who knows, given lots of time it may even become useful. Even more, work related to this has turned out to be useful: quantum cryptography.
Let's say quantum information science & engineering to avoid the hair splitting. Yup--there are QKD rack mount networking boxes more robust than the power & cooling they depend on. There are applications in astrophysics & metrology right around the corner.
The perspective I see throughout these posts is misplaced. In genomics, e.g. there were no science, tech, or market showstoppers, yet decades went by without fruiting as expected. Why? Bad attitudes & short sightedness. Contrast Burt Rutan
Re: (Score:1)
Whoa..quantum computer + Cloud! (Score:5, Funny)
Must resist...want to invest...
Re: (Score:1)
Investment at this point makes sense if you have money to throw away like DARPA. There are few actual functioning quantum computers and most are experimental concept models only. I don't see the applications of quantum computing getting past the education, institution, research and governmental use any time soon. If you were able to get a functional array of quantum computers you would likely not find a shortage of paying customers at this point, and your price point would be considerably higher than your
We will get quantum computing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you, don't jinx it.
What's a heaven for? (Score:3)
A man's reach must exceed his grasp. Damn it man, we'll not only get it, we'll have a Hurd port of it! And people will abandon their Linux desktops in droves for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget Half-Life 3.
You actually wanted to write "Duke Nukem Forever", but then thought "damn, it's out now, I need to use another game", right? :-)
Re: (Score:1)
And the rise of the Linux quantum desktop and five years later the Hurd.
The quantum joke of the Quantum Windows 666. (Score:1)
Not all is always unbreakable, by example, a quantum virus could break the quantum operating system (ej, enjoyingly the Quantum Windows 666) due to the presence of its quantum bug.
This quantum bug is the quantum decoherence that many quantum researchers suffer from this quantum anomaly.
The quantum patches (aka, the Quantum Service Packs) don't solve all this problem. The bug decoherence may always exist, it's a defined property of the Quantum Theory, and could be minimized its presence under many certain qu
Re: (Score:1)
What the..I don't even..
Re: (Score:1)
I hate to think what you'd do with quantum markup! You'd probably present us text that's bold and not bold at the same time!
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't people get that a few times around the 60's?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but then we found out that it's kind of risky. Someone might get hurt.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
...the same time we get the following:
Cold Fusion
Check. [wikipedia.org]
Flying Cars
Street cars kill enough people as it is. Flying cars would be like World War II every year.
World Peace
We already have world peace. It's just that some countries don't want to participate.
Re: (Score:1)
And I have little faith in anything using excessive italics and bold text.
Mainframe (Score:3)
Those who do not understand mainframes are bound to reinvent them. Poorly.
Hey guys! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I really think we should come up with a team to figure out how in-home cold fusion reactors can be integrated into the existing power grid. This is a pressing issue, and I know if we work together we can achieve seamless integration.
How's 6pm on Thursday sound?
Sounds great! I'll bring the salsa & chips ( my salsa's a bit spice-wonky though: You have to stir it really well, or you get hot spots).
Re: (Score:2)
You have to stir it really well, or you get hot spots
That's fine, so long as there's no wire in it.
Quantum Computing Security (Score:3)
I like this quote: "It's good to know that quantum computers will be secure when they exist."
Gotta love slashdot, ya know.
First of all, if we ever get a real working quantum computer...and that is a gigantic _IF_ in caps, you can rest assured that someone will break it.
I would be very surprised if it couldn't be cracked.
-Hack
Re: (Score:3)
There are real working quantum computers out there. They are just not powerfull enough to be usefull.
Also, "secure" on the phrase you quote has a completely different meaning from what you use on your comment.
Definitely "if".... (Score:3)
Currently there is no reliable indication that a) quantum computers of sizes that perform better than traditional computers are feasible engineering-wise and b) that the physics holds up.
While Quantum computing certainly has captured hearts and minds, at this time it is merely a dream, and one that quite likely will not come true. Incidentally, many experts in the field admit this, but not publicly as that would jeopardize their funding.
Re: (Score:2)
What about "not publicly" is to hard for you to understand?
It's already here (Score:2)
I'm writing this from my iTab with Retinal Display which has no local storage aside from protein based RAM, since bandwidth is instantaneous and cheap with Data Teleportation so everyone stores their data on Facebook's Quantum Cloud Units, known as FQCU. In fact quantum computing combined with data teleportation is so fast that we found that time travel is indeed possible, for our data communications at least, which is what I'm doing right now.
Who cares? (Score:2)
I think the word "perfect" is too strong. A system is only as good as its weakest link.
Quantum systems are not able to provide any guarantees WRT to *what* the system is entangled with.
You still need "classical" source of trust to bind the quantum system to do anything useful. (See MITM..quantum proxy server..)
Questions:
What prevents the replacement of the quantum cloud service with an attacker who intentionally provides wrong answers?
Or simply ignores a request pretending they did not get it in a bid to
Re: (Score:2)
Your close, it's not a million though, it is probably more like uncountably infinite.
How do you figure? I would have thought given the state of todays useless "quantum" computers a million is more than generous.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually the number of possible states of a single qubit is uncountably infinite (according to quantum mechanics). Of course the number of results of any given complete measurement of that qubit is exactly two, but then, the number of measurements you can do on it is uncountably infinite. In theory, at least. In practice the number may be very high, but certainly finite, because you cannot make your measurement apparatus settings infinitely precise.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the number of possible states of a single qubit is uncountably infinite (according to quantum mechanics). Of course the number of results of any given complete measurement of that qubit is exactly two, but then, the number of measurements you can do on it is uncountably infinite. In theory, at least. In practice the number may be very high, but certainly finite, because you cannot make your measurement apparatus settings infinitely precise.
Thank you, my mistake seems to be the variation in ways the question can be prepared has no bearing on the count of possible output states.
Is this a better analogy?
I want to add 1 + 1 without revealing to the cloud I don't know what 1 + 1 is fearing I will be rained on if it found out.
My question is prepared with two parameters (1 + x) and (1 + y) where x and y are random numbers I want added.
The random numbers are known only to me and can be as large as ones own imagination almost uncountably infinite.
The
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I think that's a good analogy. Apart from the fact that adding and subtracting arbitrary numbers is much harder than adding 1+1, of course. :-)
Quantum computers... (Score:3)
But I guess I'll stick with certainty...
Non-Quantum 'Blind' Computing (Score:1)
For the same effect on classic hardware, you might want to look at https://sharemind.cyber.ee/ [cyber.ee].
Yes, I do have some friends in the project team.