Posted on 09/02/2017 4:48:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The 4th International Conference on Quantum Technologies held in Moscow last month was supposed to put the spotlight on Google, who were preparing to give a lecture on a 49-qubit quantum computer they have in the works.
A morning talk presented by Harvard University’s Mikhail Lukin, however, upstaged that evening’s event with a small announcement of his own – his team of American and Russian researchers had successfully tested a 51-qubit device, setting a landmark in the race for quantum supremacy.
Quantum computers are considered to be part of the next generation in revolutionary technology; devices that make use of the odd ‘in-between’ states of quantum particles to accelerate the processing power of digital machines.
The truth is both fascinating and disappointing. It’s unlikely we’ll be playing Grand Theft Auto VR8K-3000 on a quantum-souped Playstation 7 any time soon. Sorry, folks.
Quantum computing isn’t all about swapping one kind of chip for a faster one.
What it does do is give us a third kind of bit where typical computers have only two. In quantum computing, we apply quantum superposition – that odd cloud of ‘maybes’ that a particle occupies before we observe its existence cemented as one of two different states – to solving highly complex computational problems.
While those kinds of problems are a long, tedious process that tax even our best supercomputers, a quantum computer’s “qubit” mix of 1s, 0s, and that extra space in between can make exercises such as simulating quantum systems in molecules or factorising prime numbers vastly easier to crunch.
That’s not to say quantum computing could never be a useful addition for your home desktop. But to even begin dreaming of the possibilities, there are a whole number of problems to solve first.
One of them is to ramp up a measly handful of qubits from less than 20 to something that can begin to rival our best classical supercomputers on those trickier tasks.
That number? About 50-odd, a figure that’s often referred to in rather rapturous terms as quantum supremacy.
The Harvard device was based on an array of super-cooled atoms of rubidium held in a trap of magnets and laser ‘tweezers’ that were then excited in a fashion that allowed their quantum states to be used as a single system.
The researchers were able to control 51 of these trapped atoms in such a way that they could model some pretty complex quantum mechanics, something well out of reach of your everyday desktop computer.
While the modelling was mostly used to test the limits of this kind of set-up, the researchers gained useful insights into the quantum dynamics associated with what’s called many-body phenomena.
Fortunately they were still able to test their relatively simpler discoveries using classical computers, finding their technique was right on the money.
The research is currently on the pre-publish website arXiv.com, awaiting peer review. But the announcement certainly has the quantum computing community talking about the possibilities and consequences of achieving such limits.
The magical number of 50 qubits is more like a relative horizon than a true landmark. Not much has changed in the world of quantum computing with the Harvard announcement, and we still have a long way to go before this kind of technology will be useful in making any significant discoveries.
Google’s own plan for a 49-qubit device uses a completely different process to Lukin’s, relying on multiple-qubit quantum chips that employ a solid-state superconducting structure called a Josephson junction.
They’ve proven their technology with a simpler 9-qubit version, and plan to gradually step up to their goal.
Without going into detail, each of the technologies has its pros and cons when it comes to scaling and reliability.
A significant problem with quantum computing will be how to make the system as reliable and error-free as possible. While classical computing can duplicate processes to reduce the risk of mistakes, the probabilistic nature of qubits makes this impossible for quantum calculations.
There’s also the question on how to connect a number of units together to form ever larger processors.
Which methods will address these concerns best in the long run is anybody’s guess.
“There are several platforms that are very promising, and they are all entering the regime where it is getting interesting, you know, system sizes you cannot simulate with classical computers,” Lukin said to Himanshu Goenka from International Business Times.
“But I think it is way premature to pick a winner among them. Moreover, if we are thinking about truly large scales, hundreds of thousands of qubits, systems which will be needed for some algorithms, to be honest, I don’t think anyone knows how to go there.”
It’s a small step on the road to a hundred thousand qubits, but it doesn’t make passing this milestone any less significant.
Happy 51, Harvard!
No offense, but I call BS. 51 atoms does not a computer make.
Does it run DOS?
The program will never take off until it proves it can handle cat pictures.
load hi mem
Common core math hits the grant system mainstream.
Math results that have enough random results that they do not match on repeat iterations of the computation are worthless no matter how fast they run.
Besides, I worked on tri state computers in the 80’s. They were unstable then too. There is a reason that methodology was abandoned then as now.
I’ve puzzled over the significance of “quantum computing,” and the closest I come is to recall analog computers. Analog computers are great for certain kinds of problem solving.
If someone invents a quantum computer then encryption is going to become ineffective overnight.
Actually, it does.
Instead of bits, 1 or 0, a Qubit can have nearly infinite states. This makes it an amazing form of memory.
While you are correct, there is a once-only form of encryption (also based on quantum physics) that is, literally, unbreakable.
Sounds something like a principle of one Werner Heisenberg
I’m trying to understand the fundamental principle involved in quantum computing. After the reading the following 3 paragraphs from the linked article, together with the stuff I found elsewhere (beneath that) I think I’m finally just now beginning to understand. I remain very unclear as to how that fuzzy principle of quantum mechanics, where a quantum entity is in a state of neither here nor there can be used to flip a transistor on or off as the 1s and 0s of standard binary computing do.
Any help would be appreciated.
From the article...
“What it does do is give us a third kind of bit where typical computers have only two [1 and 0].
In quantum computing, we apply quantum superposition – that odd cloud of ‘maybes’ that a particle occupies before we observe its existence cemented as one of two different states – to solving highly complex computational problems.
While those kinds of problems are a long, tedious process that tax even our best supercomputers, a quantum computer’s “qubit” mix of 1s, 0s, and that extra space in between can make exercises such as simulating quantum systems in molecules or factorising prime numbers vastly easier to crunch.”
_____________________________________
From an outside source...
“Binary is a counting system used by computers to do mathematics. Instead of using 0 to 9 as digits, it only uses 1s and 0s. This is because it is easier for a computer to represent numbers with only ones and zeroes (on and off) rather than with 10 different digits.”
“The circuits in a computer’s processor are made up of billions of transistors. A transistor is a tiny switch that is activated by the electronic signals it receives. The digits 1 and 0 used in binary reflect the on and off states of a transistor. Computer programs are sets of instructions.”
If you like it...
Good enough for me.
I’m like a dog looking
at an Empty
Food Bowl.
Thanks. That ties together perfectly the things I previously understood.
The devil (and God) is in the interface.
Qubit logic will allow the simultaneous search of all the possibilities represented by an array of bits. Instead of testing all the possible values of the array one by one like we do now, it allows testing them all simultaneously and immediately indicating the value that meets the criteria. Things like factoring huge integers will become easy, and modern encryption will become a fishbowl.
True enough... the one-time pad will not be beatable. But anything algorithm-based will be beatable. The reason it is not beatable now is because the computational power required is still too much.
I’d believe it wise to start to get an infrastructure based on one-time pad encryption, before it gets forced on us by quantum computers.
Another thing quantum computers will do is to utterly hose the bitcoin economy.
Schroedinger’s cat already has one.
;)
What does this mean for white supremacy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.