Live data from Hacker News

What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

arxiv.org

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#81
post #58
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? What are you saying is an exponential function? x^3 is not an exponential function, in the sense relevant here.

You aren't thinking about the exponential decay of emissivity near absolute zero. It isn't linear like we get to assume to make the math easier. Thus why IBMs largest refrigerator can only dissipate tiny amounts when cold. > enabling close to ~10 mW at 100 mK cooling power, and over 24 W of cooling power at 4 K temperatures. Finally, the weight of the entire system — 6.7 metric tons They aren't building single huge q…

> RAND estimated 890 MWh per key to be broken

Can you give a reference? Also, how is heat generated within the quantum processor as operations are unitary?

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#82
post #7

> Researchers like Jaime Sevilla and Jess Riedel support this timeline, publishing a report in late 2020 that claimed a 90% confidence of RSA-2048 being factored before 2060. I am skeptical. 36 years is a long time, but in the past 10 years there hasn't been much progress: year 2001: factorization of 15 (IBM) year 2012: factorization of 21 (University of Bristol) year 2019: factorization of 35 attempt, failed (IBM) h…

According to Locklin, even factoring 15 requires precompilation where you have to calculate the factors in advance before sending to the QC in order to minimize the number of required gates.

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are extant non-general purpose quantum computers that solve super esoteric useless math problems specially designed to be easy on these primitive quantum computers but infeasible on any classical computer. (This is “quantum supremacy” aka “quantum advantage”.) Furthermore, we expect to develop slightly less primitive quantum computers in the medium-term that can solve maybe-interesting quantum simulation questi…

Is there any reason to believe a computer that can do Shor's algorithm is actually possible? There's a lot of freaking out trying to build QC-resistent assymetric encryption, but we don't actually know whether or not it's physically possible to build the requisite error corrections to make it feasible in the first place, right? Is there reason to believe that the physical reality of QM doesn't require exponentially m…

The coordinated failures implied by a failure of QEC to scale would be new physics; the existing principles don't predict that anything like that should occur.

Which isn't to say that it's impossible, but it would be quite exciting if it were the case.

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#84
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to believe a computer that can do Shor's algorithm is actually possible? There's a lot of freaking out trying to build QC-resistent assymetric encryption, but we don't actually know whether or not it's physically possible to build the requisite error corrections to make it feasible in the first place, right? Is there reason to believe that the physical reality of QM doesn't require exponentially m…

The coordinated failures implied by a failure of QEC to scale would be new physics; the existing principles don't predict that anything like that should occur. Which isn't to say that it's impossible, but it would be quite exciting if it were the case.

May not require new physics but may be arbitrarily expensive / impractical to build in reality, no?

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#85
post #58
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? What are you saying is an exponential function? x^3 is not an exponential function, in the sense relevant here.

You aren't thinking about the exponential decay of emissivity near absolute zero. It isn't linear like we get to assume to make the math easier. Thus why IBMs largest refrigerator can only dissipate tiny amounts when cold. > enabling close to ~10 mW at 100 mK cooling power, and over 24 W of cooling power at 4 K temperatures. Finally, the weight of the entire system — 6.7 metric tons They aren't building single huge q…

If the heat produced and the volume are each proportional to the number of qubits (R proportional to cube root of n), and the surface area bounding the qubits is as small as it could be while bounding that much volume (as a pessimistic assumption) (and therefore a sphere) ... hm, the rate that heat passes through a surface by conductance is proportional to the surface area multiplied by the gradient of temperature across the surface, right? If the heat production is uniform within the ball, then... well, the core of the ball would be the hottest... supposing that the surface of the ball is held at a constant temperature (with the system in a steady state, as far as temperature goes)

Let u(x) the temperature at location x. Let \alpha be the thermal diffusivity (assume to be constant throughout the material and over time). Assume that within the ball of radius R, \alpha \nabla^2 u = k for k the heat production density divided by the specific heat capacity (assumed to be constant over the range of temperatures involved) . For spherically symmetric u(x), a function of just distance from the center..

ok, so, need solutions of Laplace's equation, \nabla^2 u = f , where f is some constant times the indicator function of the ball of radius r? Uh, I was thinking to have a boundary condition at the surface of the ball, fixing a particular temperature there, and seeing what temperature enforced there is enough to produce a small enough temperature at the center of the ball... (In that case I guess f can just be a constant, rather than the indicator function of the ball)

uhh.. does this have an analytic solution? This is ending up as a more difficult computation than I anticipated...

edit: oh, for it to be steady state, the rate of heat going through any sphere centered at the origin, must be equal to the rate of heat produced within the ball that it bounds, so for r so, g'(r) ~ r ,

so g(r) - g(0) ~ r^2 .

So... if I haven't messed up too badly, I would think that, the difference in temperature of the center, and the temperature of the surface, should be proportional to (heat production per qubit) * ((radius of ball)^2) ~ (heat production per qubit) * ((number of qubits)^{2/3})

which... given a particular upper bound on working temperatures for the core of the ball, would put an upper bound on the number of qubits if packed in a ball like that. Though, I would imagine that if you instead have the inner (some number) fraction of the ball not have qubits, and not produce heat, then that wouldn't apply. Though this would require the surface area grow faster than (number of qubits)^{2/3} .

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to believe a computer that can do Shor's algorithm is actually possible? There's a lot of freaking out trying to build QC-resistent assymetric encryption, but we don't actually know whether or not it's physically possible to build the requisite error corrections to make it feasible in the first place, right? Is there reason to believe that the physical reality of QM doesn't require exponentially m…

The strong expert consensus is that fault-tolerant quantum computation is physically possible and it’s just a challenging engineering problem. One key insight is the threshold theorems, which show that if you can build individual physical gates with error rate below a finite threshold (typically 0.1-1%), you can just stack these gates together and they simulate logical operations with logical error rates that can be…

The strong expert consensus has been reached between a lot of people who would be out of a job if their consensus was the opposite.

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#87
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The coordinated failures implied by a failure of QEC to scale would be new physics; the existing principles don't predict that anything like that should occur. Which isn't to say that it's impossible, but it would be quite exciting if it were the case.

May not require new physics but may be arbitrarily expensive / impractical to build in reality, no?

Not really, no. If the breakpoint for fault tolerance is reached, then in the absence of new physics causing the noise that needs to be corrected to be adversarially coordinated, quantum computers are scaleable.

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strong expert consensus is that fault-tolerant quantum computation is physically possible and it’s just a challenging engineering problem. One key insight is the threshold theorems, which show that if you can build individual physical gates with error rate below a finite threshold (typically 0.1-1%), you can just stack these gates together and they simulate logical operations with logical error rates that can be…

The strong expert consensus has been reached between a lot of people who would be out of a job if their consensus was the opposite.

Not really accurate. There are tons of tenured profs who are well-positioned to reveal reasons why QCs are fundamentally infeasible (and those kind of stories play well in the media). You can read about Gil Kalai's arguments here:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-argument-against-quantum-...

In any case, I'm happy to bet on this.

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Co-author of the paper here. The “largest integer factored” metric is terrible for several reasons, which is well recognized by researchers and is why people rarely publish those sorts of claims any more. Without net-positive error correction, it’s basically a function of how low your error rate is and how many bits that allows you to compute on with low chance of error, but as soon as the error rate crosses the faul…

I thought the error rate has stayed pretty exponential in terms of the number of physical qubits needed to express a logical qubit and it’s not actually known if we’re any closer on that metric vs other more easily achieved metrics. Additionally, I was under the impression that not all QCs being built are able of executing Shor’s algorithm which added additional challenges that aren’t solved. My final impression is t…

> I thought the error rate has stayed pretty exponential in terms of the number of physical qubits needed to express a logical qubit

There is finite a threshold error rate (roughly 0.1-1%) at which you can produce a single logical qubit with an unbounded number of physical qubits (infinite overhead). For error rates below the threshold, the overhead becomes much less. People expect overheads in the thousands. See Fig. 1 in our paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.05045

> and it’s not actually known if we’re any closer on that metric vs other more easily achieved metrics.

We are getting lower error rates. But until we cross the error threshold, the overhead for a logical qubit is infinity.

> I was under the impression that not all QCs being built are able of executing Shor’s algorithm

Correct.

> which added additional challenges that aren’t solved.

Logical qubits enable general purpose quantum computing, which includes Shor's algorithm. As mentioned, we don't have logical qubits yet, and some people are trying to build less general devices to solve certain math problems in the meantime. But the overall goal for the field is still logical qubits, and there's steady progress on that.

> My final impression is that having the QC algorithm run faster than a classical computer doing the same operation has also not necessarily gotten better

I can't really parse the claim, but I think your impression is wrong. Supremacy has always been a fuzzy bound, since it's defined in terms of the best known classical algorithms. But the supremacy results have gotten more unambiguous over time.

Re: What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strong expert consensus has been reached between a lot of people who would be out of a job if their consensus was the opposite.

Not really accurate. There are tons of tenured profs who are well-positioned to reveal reasons why QCs are fundamentally infeasible (and those kind of stories play well in the media). You can read about Gil Kalai's arguments here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-argument-against-quantum-... In any case, I'm happy to bet on this.

What would be a statement that you would put, say, $100k on, that would be determined within 2040.

And which odds would you need on that?

Post reply on HN