> All of this sophisticated engineering makes [the 17 qubit processor] at least twice as powerful as the [16 qubit processor].
Isn't an n+1 qubit processor always twice as fast as an n qubit processor?
Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
61–67 of 67 posts
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the service won't be valuable if the computer doesn't work. So the state-of-the-art in quantum computing is still basically "can tell you the 200th prime number, sometimes"? Not very useful.
But this is new territory, and researchers shouldn't give up just because it doesn't work very well now. I recall that the iPhone/iPad were preceded by attempts at tablet computing that were very crude in comparison. Give it a couple of years and see where it leads.
That sounds right, but also like an argument against commercial availability just yet in my ears.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#63Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
A five-qubit processor has been available for a bit over a year now [1]. Last week, they've announced that they'll make freely available a 16-qubit processor, but for now it is invite-only. They've also announced that they'll sell access to a 17-qubit device. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/how-ibms-new-five-qu...
I was listening to a podcast yesterday where Google is basically "guaranteeing a breakthrough" in QC by the end of the year. Something about the 49-qubit threshold or some such proclamation, so maybe that's something that will finally move the needle.
Was it this Podcast? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p052800h
"IBM is giving users worldwide the chance to use a quantum computer; Google is promising "quantum supremacy" by the end of the year; Microsoft's Station Q is working on the hardware and operating system for a machine that will outpace any conventional computer. Roland Pease meets some of the experts, and explores the technology behind the next information revolution."
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#65IBMs Mo seems to be jump onto new technologies with name recognition. Make BOLD claims they can't back up. See Watson. See Q. See IBM Blockchain.
This only serves to build distrust with developers but I bet their investors love it, but only since they don't understand it
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was listening to a podcast yesterday where Google is basically "guaranteeing a breakthrough" in QC by the end of the year. Something about the 49-qubit threshold or some such proclamation, so maybe that's something that will finally move the needle.
Was it this Podcast? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p052800h "IBM is giving users worldwide the chance to use a quantum computer; Google is promising "quantum supremacy" by the end of the year; Microsoft's Station Q is working on the hardware and operating system for a machine that will outpace any conventional computer. Roland Pease meets some of the experts, and explores the technology behind the next information…
Yep...that was the one...further on in the broadcast the researcher from Google explains that for "Quantum Supremacy", that "49-qubits" are enough to "leave the fastest classical computer in the dust" or some such hype.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#67The point where it gets interesting for realistic physics and chemistry applications is around 100 (error-corrected) logical qubits and 10^8 coherent operations, see for example https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03859 . The error correction adds another factor of at least 100 or so in both qubits and gates needed (but possibly much bigger than 100, depending on qubit quality), see for example https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2316…
I dunno. How many qbits one would need to improve DFT chemical calculations?
You don't need too much precision to determine if a chemical reaction will happen or not. You do need many operations, but not many bits.