Reality Check - Is Quantum Computing the Future of Gaming?

Does quantum computing hold to keys to the future of gaming? Find out what it is, and why you should care, in this week's Reality Check.

Show Info

Reality Check

Reality Check

Airs Thursdays at 12pm PT

Flex those mental muscles and join Lucy James on a journey of discovery in Reality Check, the show that investigates the science behind your favourite games, and spawns a few wild theories of its own.

229 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for Diablo-B
Diablo-B

4063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

My only concern is that if our goal is always to max out the graphical output of a game on the PC then we will forever be increasing the hardware requirements for PC gaming. The price point for building a gaming rig will stay very high and PC gaming will remain somewhat of a niche platform. Currently the cost of entry into PC gaming remains rather high and discourages the average gamer from making the switch.


At some point we have to reach a point were we are getting diminishing returns on trying to invest a a lot in boosting the graphics of a game. This will cause the price point of gaming PCs and plummet and consoles really would be pointless. But that day is still very far off. We got lots of ground to cover in the graphical department especially with 4K gaming around the corner.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kinthalis
Kinthalis

5503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

I don't think quantum computers have bee shown to be faster at solving most problems as classical computers. But they might be orders of magnitude faster at solving certain kinds of problems.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Vexov
Vexov

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

Seems like something that will be expensive for so little and unreliable. Next-gen consoles in 9 years will be about as powerful as current high end pc's are. if you ever want a peek at gaming in the future just look at what PC has now.


I think what it comes down to is when we make things as small as possible, and are waiting on something new, we will just have bigger hardware to hold all the double+ chips for cpu's and gpu's. If we get to that point I wonder how big consoles will get pushed to, will it be big enough that they might as well just be called pc's?. How far away are we from this?. As a PC gamer I couldn't care, a full tower can hold a lot as is; the future isn't scary for us even when looking into 30 years.


Lol, imagine putting in a video card that takes up 4-5 slots and 20 inches long. Motherboards with 6-10 cpu slots. With how slow gaming really seems to be going i don't think we will need to worry about that for a 100 years.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for AlexNSN
AlexNSN

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

Edited By AlexNSN

You talked aobut Quantum Computing, check this video about a new type of computer call "Optical Computing" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2yQ9xFshuc#t=13]. The future of computing may not be Black or White.

Greetings

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zpluffy
zpluffy

281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Reminds me of a video by VSAUCE called What is random, you guys should check it out

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Zarkhaine
Zarkhaine

117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Ok, that Super Position example with the colours made absolutely no sense to me...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

@Zarkhaine its simple due to our linear nature (we precisve time in a linear fashion) we can only know one of 2 things at the same time


1- we can tell where the atom is

2- we can tell what its doing


we cant do both ... for now

Upvote • 
Avatar image for suppaphly42
SuppaPHly42

1223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 5

Edited By SuppaPHly42

@Zarkhaine read Stephen hawken's book the grand design and then you will be just as lost but will have at least read the book

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zpluffy
zpluffy

281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@Zarkhaine


google

Double slit experiment


Upvote • 
Avatar image for suppaphly42
SuppaPHly42

1223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 5

@zpluffy @Zarkhaine *kicks bucky ball at you*

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sebbysebbseb
sebbysebbseb

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@zpluffy @Zarkhaine "double slit experiment" - sounds like a death metal band


Upvote • 
Avatar image for zpluffy
zpluffy

281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By zpluffy

@Zarkhaine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zpluffy
zpluffy

281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By zpluffy

This reminds me of a video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rIy0xY99a0

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58270bc086e0d
deactivated-58270bc086e0d

2317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 113

User Lists: 0

Quantum mechanics is only weird because it is almost entirely mathematically based. Some physicists literally sit down and scribble maths down on a piece of paper or in a computer until the numbers work and then call it finished. Maths doesn't give understanding it is merely a way we quantify.

You can quantify simple quantum mechanical systems using a moderate amount of calculus but what no one has been able to do is properly understand it for this reason.

Something can be made easily if it is understood, when we understand quantum mechanics not just bashing away at the maths associated with it, we will have our quantum computers.

Perhaps the on / off associated with transistors and quantum bits is the problem. Right now it seems sooner or later the limit will be reached at which point computers will start getting bigger again. Larger system, more transistors (qbits), more switches. Seems to me an alternative that doesn't use switches at all is when computing will leap again. Otherwise we will be using computers the size of a king size bed to play the newest games.


Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kinthalis
Kinthalis

5503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@Dannystaples14 I'm not sure, but it sounds like you are insinuating that quantum mechanics is not an empirically based model. Quantum mechanics is probably the most thoroughly tested theory of anything we have.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58270bc086e0d
deactivated-58270bc086e0d

2317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 113

User Lists: 0

@Kinthalis Not experimentally it isn't. It is tested mathematically but mathematics doesn't make every day applications work. Mathematics is nothing more than a product of our need to count. No one understands why mathematical things work they are just numbers. Like why is calculus calculus? Why when I multiply 2 by 2 does it make 4? If you do that with any other system in life you can break it down into smaller parts. Why is my laptop black but this book on my desk red?

Quantum mechanics is not the end as far as I can see. Saying otherwise is a mistake and one physicists have made before. No one UNDERSTANDS quantum mechanics. Einstein even hated quantum mechanics.

It is like I do Chemistry at University and we do basic quantum mechanics to try to derive harmonic oscillators, molecular rotation and electronic energy levels. What they don't tell you very often is that they have SO many assumptions on these derivations so that the maths works and you actually have something that can be solved, that for any reasonable sized chemical application quantum mechanics cannot be used.

Either because it would take too long to calculate or because the theory itself is so inaccurate because of the assumptions used to solve it, that it breaks down. An example is the particle in a box. It is a reasonable way of modelling the electron in a Pi-orbital of a double bond. ONE double bond. Apply it to TWO double bonds and the numbers deviate significantly from experimental, THREE even more. MANY chemical systems can have five or more double bonds conjugated together. Meaning we go back to the 1920s empirical method of working out the energy levels instead of QM in most cases.

If we understood QM that wouldn't be the case but we don't. As far as I am concerned personally if something can't be derived and understood without mathematics it isn't worth the time. Mathematics should be applied after a theory is devised it shouldn't underpin the subject. It is why over 100 years after QM was born we have only just seen the first basic quantum device and even that D-Wave machine is causing some debate.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DanGleeSack
DanGleeSack

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Dannystaples14 @Kinthalis I somewhat agree with what you are saying. Math is a system we use to convey the theories we find. It doesn't create the theories, but they integrate the theories into our logical framework. Math is the language of science, what good is a theory if you can't communicate or substantiate it. Science looks for both the why and how, one is almost useless without the other. I'm pursuing a degree in both engineering and physics, so I have experience with both the practical and theoretical side of science along with the math to communicate it. There shouldn't be a fight between physicists, mathematicians, or engineers; we all play a part in discovering and creating.


Yes there are many times in physics/engineering/chem where you use watered down theories because the math gets very complicated/impossible or you use very specific conditions/limits. I would take this in that our theories need to be tweaked, because they don't apply to every situation possible in that framework and the math helps us discover these caveats when it doesn't work. These caveats let us find new natural laws (or at least what we can figure at the time). It is part of our learning process, we do the best we can with what is at our disposal. You need to go through theories and math to find what works and what doesn't; you can't expect to find definite universal answers. At the very least you need math to set limits and create tolerances.




Upvote • 
Avatar image for DanGleeSack
DanGleeSack

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Dannystaples14 Heh that is the difference between engineering and physics. Engineers will slap something together that works but may not know why; but it is the physicists that devise proofs and new theory.

Qubits would operate completely separate from our normal transistor based chips. A decoder would have to be used to give a definite stage at a point in time, I'm assuming, and give back a 1 or a 0 that our binary systems can understand. I'm not sure that we would ever use full qubit systems. Again, this is my guess I have to read into it more. DNA computing and neural networks are also very good methods coming up for new computational methods.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58270bc086e0d
deactivated-58270bc086e0d

2317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 113

User Lists: 0

@DanGleeSack There is no proof. Mathematical "proof" is about as useful as sending someone into space with a paper bag for their air supply. Nothing in the world has ever been CREATED using mathematical proof.

What actually happens is someone comes up with a theory, tests the theory using experiment and then applies some maths to it to quantify what they are seeing. Without the initial theory or the experimentation you have nothing.

Steven Hawking does a load of stuff with maths. I'm sure he knows a lot about black holes sure, but as long as his theories are based in maths alone they mean nothing to anyone other than a mathematician. I hate maths, I think it bogs down true theories and makes development of real life applications longer because the people using the maths have to decipher all of the garbage before they can start applying it. Theoretical physicists, chemists are nothing but glorified mathematicians, and mathematicians are not scientists. What every day application came of the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? Not a damn thing.

Because Steven Hawking's theories are purely maths based we are about as close to understanding a black hole as I am to running into a wall and diffracting straight through it.

Science is all about the WHY. Something mathematicians couldn't give a crap about. As far as I'm concerned maths is a way to quantify and nothing more.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dannydopamine8
DannyDopamine8

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By DannyDopamine8

I know hardware gets more powerful every year.. but itts still not good enough. Tired of all games being limited by one thing or another


I want to be able to build an entire house literally board by board, nail by nail. And dig a 1000ft hole in terrain.. No game engines can handle that very well

Upvote • 
Avatar image for noah364
noah364

208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Great episode, as always.

2 • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

haha to think 20 years ago if you said touch screen phone u would be laughed out into therapy : /

7 • 
Avatar image for lindallison
lindallison

1429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By lindallison

@vadagar1

Its true, if you told me then that my telephone would be several times more powerful than my new psx ....

Upvote • 
Avatar image for GarGx1
GarGx1

10934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By GarGx1

What's an atom made from?


What are the things that make an atom made from?


What are the things that make the things that make an atom made from?


.......

Upvote • 
Avatar image for suppaphly42
SuppaPHly42

1223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 5

@GarGx1 1)protons neutrons and electrons

2) proton:two up quarks and one down quarks (leptons). neutron: two down quarks and one up quark then there are gluon s that bind then together this is called the strong nuclear force. However,electrons may have 3 combinations:
Electron: 3 Down or 3 Strange or 3 Bottom (there are many other partials and if i list them all i will go nuts)

3) ?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

Edited By vadagar1

@suppaphly42 @GarGx1 if they find cookies I wont even be mad or surprised :P

Upvote • 
Avatar image for suppaphly42
SuppaPHly42

1223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 5

@vadagar1 @suppaphly42 @GarGx1 lol stupid spell check particles i meant particles

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

Edited By vadagar1

@GarGx1 Dr. Kaku called them strings


if you take a hydrogen atom then inflate it to the size of the UNIVERSE strings would be the size of trees on earth


good luck seeing them :D

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

Edited By vadagar1

also some day some one will find something smaller than that even

Upvote • 
Avatar image for septicad
SepticAD

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Quantum Computing is fascinating but discussing its effect on gaming is mental masturbation at best.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

@septicad u have no idea ...how right u will be some day

2 • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

Edited By vadagar1

ok ok before i go


I would love to say nice show :D and Cam ur muscles look nice (not as big as mine)


what I would love to see with this tech


1-AI's.... imagine skyrim ...only with real people and life size world ....

2-no more graphic/sound/speed limits

3-unlimited storage space

4-Transporters

5-Replicators

6-0 lag/ping communications even if im here and the other person is in another universe



Upvote • 
Avatar image for chibi-acer
chibi-acer

1890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

@vadagar1 1) If we're talking true, sentient AI's, wouldn't you feel bad about killing them?

2-5) Not achievable through strictly quantum mechanics. Other science/tech would be required.

6) Did you mean another galaxy (not universe)? So far our knowledge of quantum mechanics shows that the properties of an atom are confined to this dimension.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

@chibi-acer @vadagar1 yes it is ur thinking with 90 mentality again :P

unlimited computing power due to unlimited memory = PC that run faster than light .. they would use INSTANT speed (atoms think time is funny)


transports using quantum leaps (theory but who knows)


replicators easy pizzy due to super PC ... even 3D printers will be awesome with that tech


and quantum entanglement works in all dimensions since sub atomic particles seem to think space and time are just for lolz

Upvote • 
Avatar image for chibi-acer
chibi-acer

1890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

Edited By chibi-acer

@vadagar1 @chibi-acer Except atoms do not move faster than the speed of light. Also, even with near infinite processing you still need a visual system capable of rendering said visuals. TVs still use pixel tech. Need something besides just quantum computing.


Replicators/transporters involve the manipulation of atoms, but there's more at play than JUST quantum mechanics.


Space and time are still 4 dimensional. Alternate universes would be the 5th dimension.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

@chibi-acer no sub atoms just phase in and out of our dimension and teleport instantly "sometimes"


dude that's as fast as u will get

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

Edited By vadagar1

soon quantum tech will make the best PC money can buy a calculator


people have no idea how much "power" atoms actually have every atom every particle is a mini universe on its own... not to mention on the quantum level time and space don't exist


we cant understand this cause we think time is a river and space has "volume" ... well sorry to make everyone sad pandas but time is an illusion and space is not as big as we think

Upvote • 
Avatar image for GarGx1
GarGx1

10934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@vadagar1 Unfortunately we still live under the laws of physics as we perceive them. To a mere human being time is real and space is infinitely huge and infinitely small.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

@GarGx1 @vadagar1 its just what our mind "see"


so to improve our "view" of the universe we have to improve our "perspective"

Upvote • 
Avatar image for septicad
SepticAD

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@vadagar1 @GarGx1 Done.... now what?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

Edited By vadagar1

@septicad @vadagar1 @GarGx1 now we have to convince 99.99% of the earth's population that money does not matter, its just as valuable as we make it and we should spend our time on more idealistic things like science space medicine new ways to make energy and to become god like creatures that live thousands of years and care for the universe like if it was our garden



Upvote • 
Avatar image for GarGx1
GarGx1

10934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By GarGx1

@vadagar1 @septicad We'd likely just create a fusion bomb and destroy this and every parallel universe we stumble into!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DanGleeSack
DanGleeSack

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@GarGx1 @vadagar1 @septicad Just wondering if you have any schooling in this field? I don't mean that as an attack or anything, just curious. I'm studying for a duel degree in engineering (concentrated in EE) and physics. I wouldn't say that time is an illusion, but that it is the best way we can perceive and explain our surroundings. 'Time' may not exist according to who you ask, but it is how we describe the phenomenon of the cyclical nature of everything, and how things change. We need a standard to formulate changes, which time allows us to do fairly nice. Is math nothing more than an illusion by that standard? It is a method that we use to formulate our surrounds and communicate them to others. There is an argument over whether we create the system or it innately exists and we are discovering it; similar to time. If you want to say time is nothing more than the random probability of energy/position or something, that definition might work as well.

Using quantum theory, 'space' could theoretically be infinitely small. If everything is entangled, thereby not having a definite state except one sort of smudged universal identity, then you could argue space doesn't exist or that all data that is or will be is contained inside one infinitely small particle. Volume again, is the best way we can perceive and communicate our surroundings though, at least for general usage throughout our lives. We can do 3D calculus because we assume that things have both space and time.


You'll get different answers depending on who you talk to. These are just my guesses at the subject.
5 • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

@DanGleeSack @GarGx1 @vadagar1 @septicad the universe is what we "see" with our minds


for all we know the universe could be a huge block of cheese with evil turtles floating on mushroom clouds shooting coffee from their third nipples


I think.. no I KNOW that time is an illusion, their is no such thing ... I mean their is SOMETHING that does what we call "time" but that thing is not what we think it is


hmmm ok example: its like when a fish sees ultra violet spectrum, can the fish explain to you what this "light/color" is like!!!!


it cant even if it could you wont be able to imagine it, u can "see" it as something else that makes sense to u but in reality it could be a beam of angry birds


in fact everything in all existence is everything


creation started with a point and ended with a point it already happened we are all one thing

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DanGleeSack
DanGleeSack

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@vadagar1 @DanGleeSack @GarGx1 @septicad On a basic basic level sure it is very plausible that everything is the same. Reality is subjective yes, but when you seem to have the same experiences as most of the people around you, you can formulate what normality is. When you look at higher level systems, we are clearly not one thing though.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for SoulScribe
SoulScribe

302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@vadagar1 Wibbly wobbly... Timey Whimey.

2 • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

Edited By vadagar1

@SoulScribe @vadagar1 her is ur club back ... now go live ur life in peace with ur tribe


*beams off planet earth *


:P

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Snowx1
Snowx1

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

This was hands down the best episode:). Good job.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for vadagar1
vadagar1

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

switches are not gonna take us to the stars or gives us AIs WEIRDNESS will


soon the laws of relativity will become "part" of science and not THE science

Upvote •