In a post from 2015 I noted that the word quantum is often misused (see here). Have things gotten better since then? I think you know the answer. But two uses of the word quantum caught my attention
1) The episode Subspace Rhapsody of Star Trek- Strange New Worlds is described on IMDB as follows:
An accident with an experimental quantum probability field causes everyone on the Enterprise to break uncontrollably into song, but the real danger is that the field is expanding and beginning to impact other ships--- allies and enemies alike.
(I mentioned this episode and pointed to my website of all the songs in it here.)
SO- is this an incorrect use of of the word quantum? Since ST-SNW is fictional, its a silly question. However, it seems like a lazy Sci-Fi convention to just use the word quantum for random technobabble.
2) The Economist is a serious British weekly newspaper. Or so I thought until I read this passage in the June 15-21, 2024 issue, the article featured on the cover The rise of Chinese Science
Thanks to Chinese agronomists, farmers everywhere could reap more bountiful harvests. Its perovskite-based solar panels will work just as well in Gabon as in the Gobi desert. But a more innovative China may also thrive in fields with military uses, such as quantum computing or hypersonic weapons.
So The Economist is saying that Quantum Computing has military uses. I am skeptical of this except for the (in my opinion unlikely) possibility that QC can factor and break RSA which, if it will happen, won't be for a while.
It also makes me wonder if the rest of the paragraph, which is on fields I don't know anything about, is also incorrect or deeply flawed. (See Gell-Man Amnesia which I've also heard called The Gell-Man Affect.)
I am not surprised that ST:SNW uses quantum incorrectly (Or did it? Maybe an experimental quantum probability field would cause people to sing.) but I am surprised that The Economist misused it. I thought they were more reliable. Oh well.
J.S. Bell wrote, "Nor will it involve any use of the words 'quantum mechanical system', which can have an unfortunate effect on the discussion.". This is from his essay, "Bertlmann’s Socks and the Nature of Reality", Section 4, fifth paragraph.
ReplyDeleteThe OP's complaint against "quantum computing" seems to be pairing it with "military uses". Potatoes have military uses. Trombones have military uses. Why not quantum computing?
ReplyDeleteObviously the sentence is a throwaway teaser / filler, for rhetorical or titillating effect, and not meant as a serious proposition.
China has thrown a lot of resources into experiments with secure quantum communication (quantum key distribution), even via satellites. This could have military uses in the future
ReplyDeleteCurrently deployed quantum technologies, such as gravity sensors, are useful for "sensing variations in buried terrain density" and are deployed on moving vehicles. This has a natural military role: locate and identify hidden installations.
ReplyDeleteThis also has a offensive role, if you make the distinction: the first step to an aggressive act is to be prepared for the response; a known installation is a neutered installation.
Gravity sensors are the simplest applications of ions for sensing, with barely any identifiable coherent effects. It would be unwise to expect no improvements from full coherent control.