Live data from Hacker News

Google claims to have reached quantum supremacy

ft.com

1–10 of 22 posts

Re: Google claims to have reached quantum supremacy

#4
The paper was called "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor" and was available at [1] but is now removed.

I also found a partial abstract [2]: "The tantalizing promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor. A fundamental challenge is to build a high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an exponentially large computational space. Here, we report using a processor with programmable superconducting qubits to create quantum states on 53 qubits, occupying a state space 2^53 ~ 10^16. Measurements fro…"

Original plan was to have 72 qubits (as noted in the FT article) but was downsized to 53 for some reason. Original reporting on the 72-qubit plan here [3].

[1] (dead link) https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190030475

[2] https://agenparl.eu/quantum-supremacy-using-a-programmable-s...

[3] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610274/google-thinks-its-...

Re: Google claims to have reached quantum supremacy

#6

This website had a paywall... Why do Google claim to have reached quantum supremacy, can't they prove it?

If this is true this is a revolution. If this is false this is usual quantum bullshit to justify funding. Can we agree on the truth value? The calculus tested has not at all been explained on the archive which is ridiculous.

Re: Google claims to have reached quantum supremacy

#7
The article says:

"A paper by Google’s researchers seen by the FT, that was briefly posted earlier this week on a Nasa website before being removed, claimed that their processor was able to perform a calculation in three minutes and 20 seconds that would take today’s most advanced classical computer, known as Summit, approximately 10,000 years."

Why was that paper removed on the Nasa website? Also, I'm curious if supplementary data was provided to support the claims?

Post reply on HN