Posted on 08/06/2021 11:13:13 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Totally inaccurate, given the article content, but I like it.
I see our problem now.
You just don't know how to communicate, given that in post #13 you claimed there is no accepted theory of gravity.
Okay then, out of that score of theories I pointed to, tell all of us which one of them is the accepted theory of gravity.
Gravity is, scientifically speaking, a theory.
***There are dozens of theories of gravity. There is ONE law of gravity.
Heck that very first link in you hasty search indicates no alternative has been found for it.
It would help if you knew what you were talking about rather than just throwing up google searches for key words you make up.
That is a theory of RELATIVITY.
Go ahead and post the accepted theory of gravity, the one that says why objects are attracted to each other. We already have the LAW describing how fast they move in that attraction, but we do not have an accepted theory that tells us why.
I was pretty sure 3nm was going to be the end of the road.
Turns out its not.
Agree that perfected quantum computers are a decade away or more. Disagree that less than perfect versions of quantum computers will not be able to do useful and important work in the interem.
See the quotes from articles in the last year below to get a feel for the state of the play.
How long until that future arrives? Most current quantum computers have around a hundred qubits at most. That might increase to a thousand or so over the next few years, but quantum computers that are actually useful are probably at least a decade away. For now our classical world is safe.
https://medium.com/one-pale-blue-dot/how-close-are-we-to-a-quantum-future-6abb38f551f7
For 20 years scientists and engineers have been saying that “someday” they’ll build a full-fledged quantum computer able to perform useful calculations that would overwhelm any conventional supercomputer. But current machines contain just a few dozen quantum bits, or qubits, too few to do anything dazzling. Today, IBM made its aspirations more concrete by publicly announcing a “road map” for the development of its quantum computers, including the ambitious goal of building one containing 1000 qubits by 2023. IBM’s current largest quantum computer, revealed this month, contains 65 qubits.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/ibm-promises-1000-qubit-quantum-computer-milestone-2023
Can less than perfect quantum computer do work on improvements made in the next five years?
Yes.
For most scientists, a quantum computer that can solve large-scale business problems is still a prospect that belongs to the distant future, and one that won’t be realized for at least another decade.
But now researchers from US banking giant Goldman Sachs and quantum computing company QC Ware have designed new quantum algorithms that they say could significantly boost the efficiency of some critical financial operations – on hardware that might be available in only five years’ time.
Rather than waiting for a fully-fledged quantum computer, bankers could start running the new algorithms on near-term quantum hardware and reap the benefits of the technology even while quantum devices remain immature.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/quantum-computers-could-be-doing-useful-work-more-quickly-than-everyone-thought/
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology has already said that quantum computers will be able to crack the existing public-key infrastructure like 128-bit AES encryption by 2029. https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-technology-why-the-future-is-already-on-its-way/
At Intel we don’t believe moores law is over... just saying the company that created the law still believes in it. Can you say angstrom?
Moore never called it a “law.” And it isn’t a “law.”
It’s a new world. We have switched to a mini microprocessor world of cell phones and iPads. The old rules no longer apply.
> Only on Earth.
Not necessarily. Try, on any planet with a mass equivalent to earth’s, and only approximately, for several reasons, including accuracy, regional variation to factors such as density and opposing centrifugal force presuming the affected object is rotating in sync with the earth’s rotation.
1.A law is an observation; a theory is the explanation of that observation.
2.A theory requires experimentation under various conditions. A law has no such requirements.
3.A theory may become obsolete with time. This is not the case with a law.
4.A theory can be replaced by another better theory; however, this never happens with a law.
5.A theory may be strong or weak according to the amount of evidence available. A law is a universally observable fact.
Read more: Difference between Theory and Law | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-theory-and-law/#ixzz72ndiaQy2
Yeah—I think you know what I meant.
Feelfree to post your opposing google searches rather than generating NOTHING as an argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.