Quantum computing

Robert

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,263
I've always found this topic a bit brain-melty but there's an OK article or Ars today:
Putting light into crystal holding pattern makes robust qubit memory
Photons store themselves in ions that bob up and down in a sea of light.
161710main_crystal_hr-800x999.jpg

Quantum computing and quantum communication require a different way of thinking about handling information. Not only are quantum states extremely delicate, but you can't copy a quantum state. To put it in perspective. If I want to send a qubit from a lab in Europe to somewhere in New York, that qubit has to make it all the way by itself—you can't read and replace it along the way. To get around this limitation, you have to make use of quantum mechanics: teleporting quantum states from one place to another.

To do that in a flexible way that allows computation, you need to store quantum states as they arrive. That means you need some sort of register that stacks qubits on top of each other. This is quite challenging. But, it seems that ions embedded in a crystal might be able to do the job. Before we journey into the heart of ions, crystals, and qubits, let's see why we can't just take ideas from classical computing and bolt them onto quantum computing.

Which is nice and all but it still has gems like:
you should think of them as having absorbed and not absorbed a photon at the same time.

So, still a bit brain-melty.
 

IBM pushes qubit count over 400 with new processor

Milestone is important for the company's road map, less critical for performance.​

IBM pushes qubit count over 400 with new processor


Today, IBM announced the latest generation of its family of avian-themed quantum processors, the Osprey. With more than three times the qubit count of its previous-generation Eagle processor, Osprey is the first to offer more than 400 qubits, which indicates the company remains on track to release the first 1,000-qubit processor next year.
Despite the high qubit count, there's no need to rush out and re-encrypt all your sensitive data just yet. While the error rates of IBM's qubits have steadily improved, they've still not reached the point where all 433 qubits in Osprey can be used in a single algorithm without a very high probability of error. For now, IBM is emphasizing that Osprey is an indication that the company can stick to its aggressive road map for quantum computing and that the work needed to make it useful is in progress.
 

IBM pushes qubit count over 400 with new processor

Milestone is important for the company's road map, less critical for performance.​

IBM pushes qubit count over 400 with new processor


Today, IBM announced the latest generation of its family of avian-themed quantum processors, the Osprey. With more than three times the qubit count of its previous-generation Eagle processor, Osprey is the first to offer more than 400 qubits, which indicates the company remains on track to release the first 1,000-qubit processor next year.
Despite the high qubit count, there's no need to rush out and re-encrypt all your sensitive data just yet. While the error rates of IBM's qubits have steadily improved, they've still not reached the point where all 433 qubits in Osprey can be used in a single algorithm without a very high probability of error. For now, IBM is emphasizing that Osprey is an indication that the company can stick to its aggressive road map for quantum computing and that the work needed to make it useful is in progress.
I like this sort of investment in edge of the envelope tech, not because I think that quantum are going to be all that they are claimed but I'm kind of hoping that they fail because they discover that reality diverges from quantum mechanical theory at some point.
 
I like this sort of investment in edge of the envelope tech, not because I think that quantum are going to be all that they are claimed but I'm kind of hoping that they fail because they discover that reality diverges from quantum mechanical theory at some point.
Yeah, I'm not too concerned either way, and I still struggle to understand most of the details of theory behind it, but I agree about liking this type of investment in R&D.
 
Back
Top