Live data from Hacker News

Large-scale quantum chip validated

news.usc.edu

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#31
post #8

Anyone know how they program these?.. something like QCL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_programming

It doesn't run "programs" like a Turing or von Neumann machine does; it's not even a universal quantum computer. It solves certain specific instances of an optimization problem which, in the general case, is NP-hard.

Just to clarify, it's like a quantum ASIC?

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#32
post #30

There's something i don't get with this debate around "is this quantum or classical" : i thought quantum computing meant breaking NP complexity. So, in order to determine if it "is" quantum computing, one would suppose that any big dataset would easily show the difference in computing time... Now, if i understood correctly, the problem is that the algorithms compared (aka annealing) are of statistical nature, so we'r…

As I understand, the problem is comparing a relatively advanced technology (classical computing) to a relatively immature technology (quantum computing). So, classical computing is fast enough to simulate quantum annealing at the speed that the quantum chip itself is able to process (because the technology is so new). This has lead people to doubt whether the chip is actually doing the quantum process or simply simulating it. Or at least that is my grasp of the situation.

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#33
post #20
post #11

I've been thinking this for a while and have really come to believe it recently, but I'd be amazed if the NSA didn't have quantum computing down, either at scale or about to get there. Historically they've been, and similar organizations are perceived to be, 5-10 years ahead of public technology, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that all PKE is broken as far as the USG is concerned. I've heard from someone who'd k…

You know, it's not impossible, but as someone who works in a field peripheral to quantum computing I would be surprised. There are two types of problems in science, the attrition kind where if you throw enough people and enough money at it you'll get it to work and the breakthrough kind where nothing will happen until some a-ha moment. I suspect quantum computing is more of the latter right now; there are just too ma…

> There are two types of problems in science, the attrition kind where if you throw enough people and enough money at it you'll get it to work and the breakthrough kind where nothing will happen until some a-ha moment.

Thats interesting. What camp would you say flight fell under?

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#34
post #30

There's something i don't get with this debate around "is this quantum or classical" : i thought quantum computing meant breaking NP complexity. So, in order to determine if it "is" quantum computing, one would suppose that any big dataset would easily show the difference in computing time... Now, if i understood correctly, the problem is that the algorithms compared (aka annealing) are of statistical nature, so we'r…

Quantum computing means breaking Bounded Quantum Polynomial, not NP. Integer factorization is in NP, and also in BQP; but some problems can just as well be in NP and not in BQP. And NP-complete is not a subset of BQP, as far as anyone knows.

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#36
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, it's not impossible, but as someone who works in a field peripheral to quantum computing I would be surprised. There are two types of problems in science, the attrition kind where if you throw enough people and enough money at it you'll get it to work and the breakthrough kind where nothing will happen until some a-ha moment. I suspect quantum computing is more of the latter right now; there are just too ma…

> There are two types of problems in science, the attrition kind where if you throw enough people and enough money at it you'll get it to work and the breakthrough kind where nothing will happen until some a-ha moment. Thats interesting. What camp would you say flight fell under?

Considering that it only took two guys to research,design, and build it I would say the latter with a lot of grunt work.

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#37
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if this really takes off we'll have a "quantum card" like a video card for a PC

And for what use? (sincerely interested).

Same use as a graphics card... to show off and play games.

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#38
post #30

There's something i don't get with this debate around "is this quantum or classical" : i thought quantum computing meant breaking NP complexity. So, in order to determine if it "is" quantum computing, one would suppose that any big dataset would easily show the difference in computing time... Now, if i understood correctly, the problem is that the algorithms compared (aka annealing) are of statistical nature, so we'r…

Quantum computing means breaking Bounded Quantum Polynomial, not NP. Integer factorization is in NP, and also in BQP; but some problems can just as well be in NP and not in BQP. And NP-complete is not a subset of BQP, as far as anyone knows.

Strictly, we don't actually know BQP is more powerful than P, right?

Re: Large-scale quantum chip validated

#39
post #20
post #11

I've been thinking this for a while and have really come to believe it recently, but I'd be amazed if the NSA didn't have quantum computing down, either at scale or about to get there. Historically they've been, and similar organizations are perceived to be, 5-10 years ahead of public technology, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that all PKE is broken as far as the USG is concerned. I've heard from someone who'd k…

You know, it's not impossible, but as someone who works in a field peripheral to quantum computing I would be surprised. There are two types of problems in science, the attrition kind where if you throw enough people and enough money at it you'll get it to work and the breakthrough kind where nothing will happen until some a-ha moment. I suspect quantum computing is more of the latter right now; there are just too ma…

I'm not particularly well read on quantum computing, but it seems like we have reduced it to an engineering challenge at this point. We have already constructed and tested quantom computers with several quibits and (I am aware) of no theoretical limit to how many quibits we can have, so the problem is simply in engineering a device that can operate on all of them succesfully.

This is in contrast to most of the second type of breakthrough, where you typically have a theoretical revelation that opens previously closed doors.

Post reply on HN