Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#2Why is an assembly line needed for a type of computer that has never done a useful calculation?
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#35 years ago I was at MIT’s QC lab and 4 qubits was the max number of entangled qubits their machine could reach, sustainably. All the marketing fluff from IBM and Google about hundreds, or thousands, of entangled qubits is misleading - they don’t maintain those entangled states for long durations. Only when we can get hundreds of qubits to maintain entangled states for sustainable periods of time can we then attempt the theoretical use cases of the technology.
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#4Why is an assembly line needed for a type of computer that has never done a useful calculation?
I believe IBM has shown an actual usage example in chemistry simulation.
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#5Why is an assembly line needed for a type of computer that has never done a useful calculation?
As a quantum physicist myself, this is a very good question. I remember going to a quantum control conference (a topic very relevant to quantum computing) a few years ago and there were a couple of quantum computing startups. I asked their engineers, what exactly are quantum computers useful for? They had no concrete ideas. I don't think the situation is much better today.
Now, I understand building quantum computers in research settings, even if just for the secondary theoretical and technological outcomes of learning how to build them (similar to how creating gravitational wave detectors led to a greater development of seismometers, quantum noise theory and techologies, control systems, etc.) However, I honestly can't wrap my head around the value proposition for companies to make these things. The only cases I can see is making them in order to sell to research groups who want to use them to implement quantum communication strategies and basic quantum simulations. On second thought, that might be enough, but it is a very small market.
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#65 years ago I was at MIT’s QC lab and 4 qubits was the max number of entangled qubits their machine could reach, sustainably. All the marketing fluff from IBM and Google about hundreds, or thousands, of entangled qubits is misleading - they don’t maintain those entangled states for long durations. Only when we can get hundreds of qubits to maintain entangled states for sustainable periods of time can we then attempt…
You’re right! The trapped ion approach (IonQ) is the most promising direction toward scalable quantum computing.
Superconducting qubits — such as those used by IBM and Google — require extreme cooling while ions can be trapped at room temperature.
Superconducting qubits are also plagued by substrate imperfections, while trapped ions — being “nature’s qubits” — are absolutely identical in their quantum mechanical properties. This allows trapped ion quantum computers to realize the best demonstrated gate fidelities.
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#7Why is an assembly line needed for a type of computer that has never done a useful calculation?
As a quantum physicist myself, this is a very good question. I remember going to a quantum control conference (a topic very relevant to quantum computing) a few years ago and there were a couple of quantum computing startups. I asked their engineers, what exactly are quantum computers useful for? They had no concrete ideas. I don't think the situation is much better today. Now, I understand building quantum computers…
I did not understand what real world computing use would quantum computers have over the current generation of compute in terms of architecture/efficiency or a measurable metric. Thanks for explaining.
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#8The recent changes in iMessages and Signal for PQC made me think there may be something imminent going on in this realm
Re: Quantum computers move closer to the assembly line
#9Why is an assembly line needed for a type of computer that has never done a useful calculation?
As a quantum physicist myself, this is a very good question. I remember going to a quantum control conference (a topic very relevant to quantum computing) a few years ago and there were a couple of quantum computing startups. I asked their engineers, what exactly are quantum computers useful for? They had no concrete ideas. I don't think the situation is much better today. Now, I understand building quantum computers…
As I understand from Wikipedia there are four fundamental quantum algorithms that perform better in some way than the best-known classical counterparts, and many more algorithms in total. The four fundamental ones are:
* HHL algorithm for solving (sparse & insensitive) systems of linear equations
* Grover's search algorithm for determining black-box inputs
* Shor's algorithm for factoring primes
* Quantum fourier transforms
The above have various potential applications such as:
* Deep learning [0]
* Finance [1]
* Solving large-dimensional differential equations [2]
* Solving constraint satisfaction problems [3]
I also came across a webpage called Quantum Algorithm Zoo [4] which looks like it answers your question in much more detail.
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.11463
[1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Quantum_Machine_Learnin...
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05903