Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Dubious of Quantum Computing Claims
Dollaz wrote with a link to the International Business Times, which questions the authenticity of D-Wave's Quantum computing. We discussed the 'Sudoku playing' computer yesterday, but scientists in the field have expressed a lot of distrust of the company's findings. The machine was not available for inspection during or after the demo, and even if the technology was working as intended there is some doubt that it can be scaled. The article points out that "notwithstanding lofty claims in the company's press release about creating the world's first commercial quantum computer, D-Wave Chief Executive Herb Martin emphasized that the machine is not a true quantum computer and is instead a kind of special-purpose machine that uses some quantum mechanics to solve problems." Good to see people in the field questioning 'breakthroughs'.
I knew something was up when it got stuck on a level four Sudoku.
And then when it coughed and 'had to take a smoke break.' I knew there was a reason no one could look at it.
They won't be able to tell until they try.
The machine was not available for inspection during or after the demo, ...
... that's how a quantum mechanical system works -- you look at it, you change it. I can imagine these guys in peer review, "Look, this double-slit experiment of yours is really interesting and all, but we can't publish your results unless you record the photons going through EACH slot, on EACH time, otherwise, how do we know you're faking it?"
Yes
I kid, I kid. I think...
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
"instead a kind of special-purpose machine that uses some quantum mechanics to solve problems."
Well, _any_ mosfet based transitor uses quantum mechanics to solve problems (you get real problems explaining band-formation and the influence of substrate doting classically). That statement is trimmed down to be as slippery as possible.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
How would you?
I'm legitimately curious. Such a device has never been built, how do these guys prove they have one? They say themselves they aren't certain if it's quantum-ing up the sudoku.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Time to check the cat.
He kind of has a point in that, even if it isn't a "true" quantum computer and it simply uses some quantum processes, it doesn't matter a whole lot to the people interested in buying it. They're more interested in the power to do stuff they can't right now. That being said, the fact that they aren't willing to show the machine to scientists makes me question whether this machine actually uses quantum processes.
"Until we see more actual measurements, it's hard to know whether they succeeded or not," said Phil Kuekes, a computer architect in the Quantum Science Research Group at Hewlett-Packard Co.'s HP Labs.
Well duh! Measuring it actually changes whether it succeeded or not.
They're more interested in the power to do stuff they can't right now.
They should get the Sudoku books with the easier puzzles!
Quantum computing researcher Scott Aaronson wrote some good anti-hype pieces about the D-Wave PR here and here, focusing on their incorrect marketing claims to be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. The first link also has an update with comments from Lawrence Ip of Google, who clarifies what the D-Wave people are really claiming.
Oh Zonk. You with your 'scare quotes' and 'peer review' and 'skepticism.'
Let me guess: It is a regular computer that solves a regular problem the regular way. One function needed is a number generator.
You could pick any device that returns different numbers at different times. It could be a microphone, a geiger counter, a clock og a quantum device
Now pick the quantum device, and call the whole device a "Quantum computer"
This is normal in marketing departments. The only unusual thing here is that they got the engineering department to go with them.
"Fix it"
Maybe it's not a true quantum "computer", but is that bad? The first electronic "problem solving machines" weren't true computers, either. That doesn't mean that this "custom" quantum machine isn't a useful step in the right direction...
It's like I always say: "science" is the enemy of capitalism. It's the same way with this global warming hysteria.
I heard Pamela Jones was last seen with the Quantum Computer.
God spoke to me.
Hey, if you're not anal retentive, you have no business being a programmer.
will the quantum computer be able to smell it?
So the first part of the scam is this: even if this device wasn't a quantum device at all it would still work to some extent because when you allow systems to cool they fall into lower energy states. If the 'quantum' aspect of things works then it might find that state faster, but without careful monitoring there's no way of telling if the 'quantumness' had anything to do with what it did. In fact, for large systems we know that it won't be very 'quantum' at all because it will interact with its environment and decohere. But it's a perfect strategy for designing a machine that you can claim is quantum, when it isn't. It stinks of scam.
Secondly: suppose you want to solve a challenging problem with this device. For example you want to search some space for a miniumum of some sort. For this machine to be effective the state space must be pretty large or else you could use a regular classical computer. Consider a billion state problem (quite small really for combinatorial problems). You have to be able to get a system to settle into the minimum energy state despite the fact that there are a billion states nearby all of which have almost the same energy. Just the tiniest input of energy and it'll jump up from that minimum. There is absolutely no way that they can search a large enough state space and still have the minimum energy state sufficiently far from other states.
BTW This device is quite different from what is conventionally meant by a 'quantum computer', it's more like a quantum, analog computer.
Real and useful 'digital' quantum computers are a long way off. I expect that the size of quantum computers will grow by a bit or so per year at the most. (When I say 'bit' I mean total memory, not the size of the bus.)
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I thought they already had a conventional algorithm that could solve Sudoku without utilizing quantum effects?
I'm very skeptical about the whole concept of utilizing quantum effects to solve problems. It's an interesting idea, utilizing the structure of the universe to tell us what we want to know, but it may not be at all practical. Nature doesn't seem to have utilized the method, and since it evolves molecule-sized structures it ought to be in the position to do so.
I think that, when we're done playing with the concepts, we'll discover that qubits tend to interfere with each other, and that there's a horrible limit to how much can be achieved in quantum computing.
I, for one, really hope quantum computing works out. If we can harness the powers of quantum physics into a microchip maybe someday I'll be able to run aero glass.
Scientists are skeptical because it hasn't been submitted for peer review. Yes, but that's true for any new scientific discovery. It's not entirely fair to spin that into "this quantum computer might not really work".
Also, while the article claims it might not be a "true quantum computer", it never really says how that's different from a "computer that uses quantum mechanics to solve certain problems", and given its audience, can't possibly expect its readers to know. To me, this just sounds like journalists looking for something to hype about.
Hey, if the scientists are dubious about this, do what other have done. Just start calling them holocaust deniers, that'll keep people from speaking up and cut off the debate. It worked for Global Warming, it'll work for this.
:)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
The media is always trying to spice things up. Statements like "we are attempting to build a quantum computer" and "we ran 100 tests and had 1 good result, which could've been chance" get warped into "quamtum computer built" and "quantum computer shows promise, produces results". The media as a whole isn't biased left or right, but they are biased towards sensationalism. There doesn't seem to be any easy way to introduce a little more restraint and fact checking into their reporting that doesn't just make things worse. Just live with it like we've been doing. Helps if honest scientists do better at handling the media, but there's so much reward for sensational results it's hard to resist the temptations. The media could help with more scepticism, but they too have temptations. As for the dishonest scientists, well, that's just more sensational news when they're found out. File it away with Cold Fusion, miraculous Stem Cell research, and Perpetual Motion.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
That is one of the most classic posts I've seen. You got some help from the post before in getting to the idea. But still...it's brilliant!
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
what hasn't been decided by consensus eh?
There are several things to note about the announcement. First, the emphasis was on selling that this computer can solve NP-Complete problems, something that it is, to say the least, not right. An adiabatic quantum computer, such as the one they claim they had, cannot "solve" NP-complete problems. It can at most give a quadratic improvement, at most. They didn't even showed that the did this. Solving a particular instance of an NP-complete problem (such as the 9x9 sudoku) does NOT mean that you can solve an NP-comp problem. Either they lied, or there were intenionally using language that was not very precise to give the wrong impression. So the things that they said they can do cannot be done.
What did they do? Nobody knows. They were very careful to evade the important question: what did they actually accomplish? They never mentioned qubit decoherence times, fidelity, nothing. These are things they can claim without compromising the trade secrets. They gave a lot of emphasis to saying that the computer is part a classical computer, and part a quantum computer, something that nobody really cares about. What is important is to spell out exactly what was the part of the problem the quantum computer solved.
The CTO has a blog, and he sounds very competent in it. I'm guessing that he just had a lot or pressure from the investors to show *something*. It was just a big show to get some Venture Capitals. Pretty graphics and tech demos are cool for getting fans for videogame consoles and getting VC only, not so much as to make scientific claims.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Quantum Love
Are you certain?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
This is an odd statement, because that's generally what people "in the field" do. The author says this as though it's unusual to see anybody questioning lofty claims. In fact, it's very common. The first slashdot article about this was met mostly with skepticism.
Note: Replying to this post, because I am not getting a "reply" button for the story itself. Anybody else experiencing this bug?
... and then they built the supercollider.
...but looking once collapses it, but you can look again and it'll collapse a different way, right? For instance, electrons -- look once and it's in one place, look again and it's somewhere else.
So, can't they just put together "just marketing hype", then turn their backs, close their eyes, and shoot the marketers who actually understand the hype, so it'll uncollapse into a probability field again, then turn around and have a chance of it being finished?
You know, kind of like how the finite probability drive was used to construct the infinite improbability drive...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
They aren't sure if the computer is really utilizing quantum mechanics. Whenever they study the computer, they end up changing it. *bada bum!* Thanks, I'll be here all week.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
Depending on what you mean by "solve," I think you are a little mistaken on what it means for a problem to be NP-Complete. NP-Complete problems are actually relatively easy to solve. For example, take 3SAT, were you have a bunch of boolean variables, x[1] through x[n], and then a bunch of string of clauses ANDed together, as in (x[1] OR x[2] OR NOT x[3]) AND (x[24] OR NOT x[37] OR x[42]) ... To solve 3SAT you just have to tell me whether there exists some combination of variables such that the expression is true. You can just enumerate all 2^n possible combinations of variable assignments and see if any of them work out to be true. The problem is, it doesn't take very large values of n before it will take you longer than the time civilization has been around to try all the combinations. 3SAT is easy to solve, if you just want an answer. What's still an open question is whether we can come up with an algorithm that can solve it efficiently, where efficiently means in O(n^k) time for some k, rather than O(2^n).
For a problem that actually can't be solved, try the Halting Problem.
Now, the cool thing about NP-Complete problems is that any other problem that's known to be in NP (meaning we can solve them, just some instances will take a ridiculous amount of time to do so) can be efficiently transormed, meaning transformed in polynomial time, into an NP-Complete problem. This means if you can really solve general instances of Sudoku in polynomial time, you can take an instance of the 3SAT problem, efficiently transform it into an instance of Sudoku, then efficiently solve the Sudoku problem and then transform the answer into a solution to the 3SAT problem. If they have really built such a machine, this is a big deal.
It said right in the Wired "news" article that video was given from a remote site with the lame excuse that it too fragile to move on. Anyone with half a clue knows what that means. Wired should have never reported it as news and Slashdot should never have linked it as an article. It's not news when someone doesn't not present the machine, it's just bullshit. Have some editorial discretion, please.
I actually interviewed with these guys a few months back. I can tell you I was quite impressed with the facility and they came off as very bright. I also got a tour of the facility so I'll share what I know. The chip core is stored in a large tank roughly 2m tall and cooled to very very near absolute zero. That is then held inside what is in essence a very large faraday cage. All the refrigeration and electronic equipment is kept outside with only passive sensors allowed in the room wherever possible. Apparently electrical noise and stray heat has been a huge hurdle. From what I understood they saw themselves as building chips that would be housed on site and used remotely so it doesn't surprise me that they didn't have a setup that was available for public viewing. The company culture was essentially work till you drop and hope the stock options make you rich.
The link to the blog is great. Also look to http://superconducting.blogspot.com/
A lofty goal would be that I intend to climb a 20,000 foot peak. An idiotic assertion would be that I am a new kind of being able to climb such peaks at my leisure.
A quantum computer is a new sort of being.
...is that those "people in the field" are obviously shills for Big Energy trying to deny the truth. I wonder how many pieces of silver they were paid to bury the fact that- [BANG!]
"if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
that God DOES play dice, and she prefers 7 or 11 combos, with hard 8's approximately 1.618% of the time. Solid state physics is just her way of gaming us.
Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
That post is totally and completely wrong. Quantum computers as commonly discussed have nothing to do with np-complete problems. But worse, solving a SAT problem does not prove anything about the efficiency of the solver, most SAT problems are solvable extremely quickly using dynamic programming. Proving that a particular SAT problem is 'hard' to solve would require a proof that P=NP, which has never been done. All that can be done by demonstration alone is solving a large set of previously unsolved SAT problems which would indicate that the device has utility, proving it can solve np-complete efficiently would require..a proof! And, since this device has only 16 qubits, it can never actually demonstrate anything deep about np-complete problems.
See also the Quantum Pontiff