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

101–110 of 325 posts

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#101

Post by amelius »

rain1 wrote: post #60

It is incredibly dishonest of them to post this without any details about the noise parameters of the system. When reading "127-qubit system" you would expect that you can perform arbitrary quantum computations on these 127 qubits and they would reasonably cohere for at least a few quantum gates. In reality the noise levels are so strong that you can essentially do nothing with them except get random noise results. M…

I guess they should show that they have achieved quantum advantage:

The Chinese did show it some time ago:

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1237312.shtml

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#102

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

RivieraKid wrote: post #86

Tangential question, what are the areas of technology where we can expect to see substantial progress or breakthroughs within 2030, i.e. what are the most exciting areas to follow and look forward to? Here's my list: - Nuclear fusion (Helion, ZAP, TAE, Tokamak Energy, CFS, Wendelstein). - Self-driving cars. - New types of nuclear fission reactors. - Spaceflight (SpaceX Starship). - Supersonic airplanes (Boom). - Soli…

Delivery drones: Wing, Amazon, Zipline, Volansi, etc.

Synthetic fuels.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#104

Post by bnjemian »

tcgv wrote: post #95
7373737373 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "computational power" mean though? Which specific problem can these systems solve that classical computers cannot, or more effectively?

Roughly, computational power = number of operations per cycle. Classical computers can only perform a number of operations per cycle linearly proportional to the amount of hardware architecture available (ex: one core, two cores, quad-core). Quantum computers can take advantage of superposition and entanglement to, given some restrictions, perform multiple operations per cycle, proportional to "two" to the power of t…

That's not quite it. The power of a QC comes from modeling an exponentially large probabilistic state space using entanglement and superposition. The operations performed by a QC are also different, they can be analog (arbitrary rotations), but circuit depths (i.e. the number of operations) are still expected to be polynomial.

The difference is that the probabilistic state space uses probability amplitudes, which are complex valued and can be positive or negative, allowing for constructive and destructive interference over the probabilities tied to each state. Orchestrate the right kind of interference, and for some problems, you have an algorithm that outputs a solution to that problem with (relatively high probability) in time that, depending on the problem, may be exponentially faster. Examples of those problems include prime factorization/discrete logarithms (Shor's algorithm) and ones in quantum simulation (hence the interest in QC by chemists, physicists, etc.)

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#105

Post by teryyy »

RivieraKid wrote: post #86

Tangential question, what are the areas of technology where we can expect to see substantial progress or breakthroughs within 2030, i.e. what are the most exciting areas to follow and look forward to? Here's my list: - Nuclear fusion (Helion, ZAP, TAE, Tokamak Energy, CFS, Wendelstein). - Self-driving cars. - New types of nuclear fission reactors. - Spaceflight (SpaceX Starship). - Supersonic airplanes (Boom). - Soli…

Synthetic meat of all kinds, ARM based processors, deep learning + AI, agtech/vertical farming/etc.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#106

Post by neolefty »

xondono wrote: post #87

I can avoid thinking that as a species, QC is a bad investment. I think we’re trying just too early, like Charles Babbage. Great idea but the world doesn’t have the tech required. I think that if they are honest with themselves, most researchers know they won’t see the day QC are a practical reality, but everyone is trying to become the “father of QC”.

I wonder if, at the same level of technology, quantum and classical computers end up performing similarly — do you need exponentially less noise for more qubits? If so, it seems similar to me to requiring exponentially more classical compute power to equal it, and they kinda end up equivalent?

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#107

Post by paxys »

RivieraKid wrote: post #86

Tangential question, what are the areas of technology where we can expect to see substantial progress or breakthroughs within 2030, i.e. what are the most exciting areas to follow and look forward to? Here's my list: - Nuclear fusion (Helion, ZAP, TAE, Tokamak Energy, CFS, Wendelstein). - Self-driving cars. - New types of nuclear fission reactors. - Spaceflight (SpaceX Starship). - Supersonic airplanes (Boom). - Soli…

Sadly I'd also qualify most of these as things that consumers are overly excited about but will never reach their expected potential (at least in our lifetimes) due to technological limits. Same as flying cars, 3D TVs, 3D printing, household robots, holograms, AR glasses.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#108

Post by [deleted] »

rain1 wrote: post #60

It is incredibly dishonest of them to post this without any details about the noise parameters of the system. When reading "127-qubit system" you would expect that you can perform arbitrary quantum computations on these 127 qubits and they would reasonably cohere for at least a few quantum gates. In reality the noise levels are so strong that you can essentially do nothing with them except get random noise results. M…

[deleted]

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#110

Post by dr_dshiv »

xondono wrote: post #87

I can avoid thinking that as a species, QC is a bad investment. I think we’re trying just too early, like Charles Babbage. Great idea but the world doesn’t have the tech required. I think that if they are honest with themselves, most researchers know they won’t see the day QC are a practical reality, but everyone is trying to become the “father of QC”.

I hear what you are saying, but maybe on the way to the moon, we can invent microwave ovens
Post reply on HN