Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

newsroom.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 325 posts

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#211

Post by skohan »

cpuguy83 wrote: post #191
dekhn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly correct. The moment something important happens in quantum computing the community will recognize it as such. In the meantime most of us are just waiting for somebody to do something interesting that couldn't really have been solved (possibly approximately) on classical systems.

In that sense, this is a pretty big step because for the first time there is a quantum computer that cannot be simulated by a classical one. It's also expected they will have a processor with over 400qubits next year and over 1000 in 2 years. This are huge leaps. Still they aren't currently doing anything useful and need to prove themselves.

What are the innovations allowing for these large leaps? It seems like forever that progress was extremely slow.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#212

Post by exdsq »

eb0la wrote: post #149
dhosek wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cray supercomputers were also aesthetically beautiful machines: https://cdn.britannica.com/11/23611-050-81E61C8A/Cray-1-supe... So happy to be able to find a picture of the wirewrap inside: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e2/d2/47/e2d2...

The computer history museum has a CRAY you can see very close ( https://computerhistory.org/ ). Worth the visit.

You’ve just given me my weekend plans, thank you very much! They have a working IBM 1401 that you can see in action too!

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#213

Post by taneq »

mcpherrinm wrote: post #181
function_seven wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To this day, whenever I hear the term "supercomputer", I can only visualize the Cray. I don't want to know what the latest supercomputer looks like, because I suspect it's just another boring bunch of rack aisles. Maybe with a snazzy color end-cap or blue LEDs on the doors. Bring back the impractical, space-eating circular design! I don't care about space efficiency. It's supposed to look cool.

The LEDs are green! https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/6F80/production/... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53147684 And they do have a snazzy coloured endcap... https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/spVSO7_2vryY6neSXK1JfQ--~B... https://www.engadget.com/japan-fugaku-supercomputer-01312169...

Haha so green LEDs are cool again? I made a call back in 2004 that after blue LEDs became commonplace and white LEDs had their turn as the new hot thing, red would make a comeback. And it did. ;)

I imagine there have been multiple cycles through the spectrum since then…

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#215

Post by ThinkBeat »

For those who know how all this works or how it should work.

If it is true that a type of quantum computer might be able factor large number and if it is true that it would allow the users to read lots of encrypted data then quantum computing would be at the very top of the list of every intelligence agency out there in every country. I am thinking high multi billion labs yr/labs.

It would be a direct threat / issue / opportunity to national security.

I am burying myself in assumptions I cannot begin to justify.)

If that is the case, is what we are seeing here from IBM, or Google, state of the art?

What are the chances that some (secret) government lab somewhere ( not necessarily in the US) has a much more advanced model already working?

Is there any chance that a working crypto breaker could be operational?

Of course, if there was such a thing, out there, it would be in the greatest interest of whatever fraction had it to ensure nobody knew about it. Since it would give an enormous advantage to posses and use it, it would be critical to not let anyone know.

I came across some declassified docs covering NSA a long long time ago, from what I learned it seemed like they had access to technology that was not commercially available at the time.

(Sorry,. I like to write fictional stories on my spare time. I may have dipped into that territory too much in this post.)

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#216

Post by a9h74j »

ruuda wrote: post #54
jazzyjackson wrote: post #33

Quantum Computers sitting in their cryogenic chambers are such works of art, stacks of giant brass plates and hundreds of heat pipes (or coolant pipes? liquid helium I suppose) twisted and coiling throughout the structure hanging like some steampunk chandelier (why do they hang from above anyway?) EDIT: changed to a few direct links to pics: [0][1][2] The esoteric design reminds me of the Connection Machine blog post…

They hang from the ceiling because they use evaporative cooling (the high-energy particles escape, and the low-energy particles remain in the bucket), each lower stage a bit cooler than the one above it.

AFAIK, another reason to work downward, historically at least, was to lower an assembly into an open-neck dewar.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#217

Post by cpuguy83 »

skohan wrote: post #211
cpuguy83 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that sense, this is a pretty big step because for the first time there is a quantum computer that cannot be simulated by a classical one. It's also expected they will have a processor with over 400qubits next year and over 1000 in 2 years. This are huge leaps. Still they aren't currently doing anything useful and need to prove themselves.

What are the innovations allowing for these large leaps? It seems like forever that progress was extremely slow.

Note: I'm a total laymen and have a single source of information, which I read just before seeing the article on hacker news:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/ibm-clears-the-100-q...

The Ars article goes into a little more technical detail (a little) than the press announcement.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#218

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #215

For those who know how all this works or how it should work. If it is true that a type of quantum computer might be able factor large number and if it is true that it would allow the users to read lots of encrypted data then quantum computing would be at the very top of the list of every intelligence agency out there in every country. I am thinking high multi billion labs yr/labs. It would be a direct threat / issue…

Intelligence agencies are doing this the other way around. They're recording existing encrypted traffic to decrypt later should a useful quantum computer come into existence.

Cryptographers are working on post-quantum cryptography. This is expected to work in practice but they have to make it efficient and it's going to go through a couple of generations of new attack methods being discovered and then thwarted. At this point the level of deployment is basically zero.

Notably, pre-shared key systems (i.e. systems that use symmetric cryptography) are not as vulnerable to quantum computers, if you need something that works right now.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#219

Post by szundi »

skhr0680 wrote: post #143
danbolt wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very excited to configure DNS blocking for the quantum dust particles trying to serve me advertisements in my home.

At least analytics won’t be able to tell if you looked at the ad or not

But they can tell how probable that was

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#220

Post by bnjemian »

gigel82 wrote: post #171
bnjemian wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you added one word of qualification – practical quantum computer or quantum processor – this would actually be a reasonable position to argue.

No, I mean in the real sense, there is no actual quantum processor anywhere in the world (unless some secret organization actually built something amazing and is hiding it). Not a single quantum logical gate exists that actually behaves as described in the theory, let alone circuits of quantum gates that do even the most basic of computation. Actually, I'll take that one step further and say that no one has produced…

Uncontrolled entropy? If you can repeatedly throw a ball and hit a target but not the bullseye, that doesn't mean you have no control, it just means you need to practice more.

In the spirit of that, there are recent experimental demonstrations of logical qubits:

- NV in diamond qubits (https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.01646)

- Superconducting qubits (https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2...)

True, a universal logical gate set has yet to be practically realized (at least to my knowledge). But, it seems you're looking for perfection and QC will never be that – even with error correction. Fundamentally, QCs are analog and probabilistic; all discrete states we define theoretically will be approximations in practice if and when they can be demonstrated.

But if the approximation is exponentially close to the target state and that is sufficient for the practical purpose at hand...does it matter?

Post reply on HN