Lockheed Martin Purchases First Commercial Quantum Computer

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lockheed Martin Purchases First Commercial Quantum Computer

Posted by Unknown on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:40AM from the yes-no-maybe-so dept.

Panaflex writes "D-Wave systems announced general availability for its 128 qubit adiabatic quantum machine just two weeks ago, and reports of its first sale to Lockheed Martin have come out." The D-Wave Systems site has a rather informative collection of quantum computing papers.

23 of 189 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I want one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 08:46 · Score: 3, Funny

...but I'm uncertain if I'll buy one. Maybe I should check with my cat.
1. Re:I want one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...but I'm uncertain if I'll buy one. Maybe I should check with my cat.
  Oh NOW you remember to check the cat. It's been locked in that box for a week now. It's dead.
  or is it?
2. Re:I want one... by rubycodez · 2011-05-28 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  he's in a superposition of happy and sad states within the living state, but in the dead state he doesn't give a shit.
So, how long has the NSA had one? by pestie · 2011-05-27 08:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, can this thing crack all non-quantum encryption, then? I seem to remember reading about how that would only require 32 qubits or so. And whether it can or can't, if commercial offerings have come this far, how long has the NSA had a version that can crack all encryption?
1. Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? by jd · 2011-05-27 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  No, since you can't crack non-quantum one-time pad encryption without the encryption pad.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
2. Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? by stevelinton · 2011-05-27 08:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  An Adiabatic Quantum Computer is quite a different beast from a quantum computer in the usual sense, and even if it can solve the same class of problems in polynomial time (not at all obvious at this stage) it isn't at all clear that 1 qubit in this machine does the same work as 1 traditional qubit.
  They are, to be honest, being a little bit naughty calling this a quantum computer at all, although it does compute and has quanta, but so does my phone.
3. Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:03 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Meh. Quantum computing, even at its *full* potential, is no threat to symmetric encryption. The recommended minimum key size will jump a moderate amount and you'll be all set again. The effect on asymmetric encryption depends on the type. Some could be severely compromised. BUT, seeing as operations are currently exceptionally fast for end users AND that asymmetric encryption is generally only used to *establish* symmetrically-protected channels over insecure networks, they could probably be jumped up by several orders of magnitude themselves without anything really bad happening. And if all else failed on the asymmetric side, an infrastructure for pre-shared keys isn't really all that difficult. It's just that we've never needed on before so it seems strange. But we already trust CA's to play their part in the asymmetric world - why wouldn't we trust them to act as a middle-man for symmetric key distribution?
4. Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? by Guspaz · 2011-05-27 09:04 · Score: 2
  
  That's incorrect. They can magically crack encryption based on integer factorization or discrete logarithms. There are potential speedups for other types of encryption. Symmetric ciphers like AES are believed to be safe.
5. Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 09:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Adiabatic quantum computing != "classic" quantum computing.
  It does NOT runs the Shor algorithm.
  You can use SSL to download your porn safely tonight.
6. Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-27 10:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I really should have specified "all encryption based on multiplying two large primes," since that's the vast majority of commercially-significant encryption
  No it isn't. It's public/private key encryption. Symmetric key ciphers (which are far more significant) rely on a variety of algorithms. The main use of public/private key is for exchanging symmetric keys.
  In short, RSA (and similar) would be useless, but AES (and similar) would remain secure. The real problem would become one of securely exchanging symmetric keys.
7. Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? by drolli · 2011-05-27 17:40 · Score: 2
  
  Disclaimer: i worked on QC, but not for dwave (although one of my former employers had dealing with them):
  dwave does not aim to build a machine to crack codes. They build a machine which can do what can be done using the technology available now.
  The normal ideas about how to make a QC work, even for lets say factoring 128 bit numbers require many more logical qubits than available. The logical qubits should be composed from physical qubits, and for all coding schemes besides some quite new ones the minimum error rate of the phycical qubits needs to 100 times lower than what its normally right now, and even then you need 10s to 1000s of physical qubits PER logical qubit. this means, we need 1000s to 100000s of physical qubits on the chip with error rates of 10^-4 - 10^-3 per operation. Right now most approaches at QC are at 1-10 qubits with .1%-10% error rate.
  What does dwave do? They plainly select the things which their qc should do very clever, and skip everything for which real quantum coherence is required. In some sense they build an analog computer for a certain class of problems. The way in which they construct it uses quantum mechanics to overcome the performance of a comparable purely classical machine.
  However this machine is quite a different QC from the other QCs proposed. It wont provide exponential speedup on breaking codes
Wiki by squidflakes · 2011-05-27 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I attempted to get a basic understand of quantum computing from Wikipedia, and maybe find out how a quibit measured up to a traditional bit, and what adibatic meant.
Whelp...
I will never make fun of another old person who is unable to grasp the concepts of computing and computer interface that I use every day.
1. Re:Wiki by retchdog · 2011-05-27 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  the knowledge will be modularized and commercialized fairly quickly. in the 50s and 60s linear algebra was really hard because it hadn't been parsed out into an easy form - the useful stuff was all tied up with operator theory and the sort of understanding that geniuses have. fast-forward to now, and computing a matrix svd is a fairly standard task (even if you don't really have what a mathematician would call 'understanding').
  similarly, quantum programming will most likely condense into a hierarchy of professional modules and life will go on. the structure of IT and computer engineering is almost totally is socioeconomic phenomenon and not a technical one...
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:Grammar by jd · 2011-05-27 08:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Spellcheckers don't usually help with grammar.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Did some wiki-browsing... by jd · 2011-05-27 08:55 · Score: 2

So it's like fuzzy logic, only they got tired of having muppets run the IT department?

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Bad Translation by sprior · 2011-05-27 08:57 · Score: 4, Funny

I found the D-Wave white papers very hard to understand, but I'm sure it's because of a poor translation from the original Vulcan to (sortof) English.
Re:Did some wiki-browsing... by stevelinton · 2011-05-27 08:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

A traditional digital computer is pretty hellish to program too if you take away all the props -- you have to find a set of bit values for the memory such this immense consrtructrion of hundreds of millions of gates, clocks, latches, etc. will evolve to give your answer in a reasonably ti,me.
Re:Hold the freaking phone by blueg3 · 2011-05-27 09:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Adiabatic quantum computing is somewhat different from "regular" quantum computing. Also, places like Slashdot don't get every minor update to the state of the art. Might have something to do with all the people who say, "wake me up when there's a commercially-available version of this." Well, here's your commercially-available version of this.
Re:My Feelings by wagonlips · 2011-05-27 09:03 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm simultaneously for and against this.
Schrödinger? Is that you?
Re:My Feelings by ThunderBird89 · 2011-05-27 09:08 · Score: 2

meow

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Re:Did some wiki-browsing... by pushing-robot · 2011-05-27 09:11 · Score: 3, Funny

The basic idea is to enter "42" and see what happens.

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Re:Did some wiki-browsing... by retchdog · 2011-05-27 09:35 · Score: 5, Informative

think instead, that solving the hamiltonian is equivalent to (or potentially "harder than") solving the original problem, so that you can translate the original problem into a hamiltonian problem. it doesn't mean that you know the answer of either, but you do know that the solution of the hamiltonian will match up to a solution of the original problem. this is the spirit of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity)
very, very roughly, think of it like rewriting java, for example, as c. you may not know what the particular code actually DOES in an overall sense, or what it will output, but you can nevertheless rewrite it sort of mechanically (like a compiler would) if you know both languages. furthermore, it's feasible that translating the code is easier than devising the algorithm from scratch. this is basically a reduction. if you can "easily" rewrite any java code as c code, that means java is "reducible" to c. the theory of computation essentially deals with reductions, not of code, but of entire problem classes, which is where P, NP and all that come from.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:iQubit by Jeremi · 2011-05-27 10:51 · Score: 4, Funny

I guess I am just have to wait for the Apple Quantum Computer User Experience
Me too -- in particular I'm looking forward to the quantum MWI version of FaceTime, which connects you to various alternate-universe versions of yourself, so you can compare notes and see who made the better decisions.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.