Are We Entering a "Golden Age of Quantum Computing Research"?

Lashdots writes: Last month, an elite team at IBM Research announced an advance in quantum computing: it had built a four-qubit square lattice of superconducting qubits, roughly one-quarter-inch square, that was capable of detecting and measuring the two types of quantum computing errors (bit-flip and phase-flip). Previously, it was only possible to address one type of quantum error or the other. The next step is to correct quantum errors.

In a blog post, Mark Ritter, who oversees scientists and engineers at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Laboratory, wrote: "I believe we're entering what will come to be seen as the golden age of quantum computing research." His team, he said, is "on the forefront of efforts to create the first true quantum computer." But what would that mean, and what other big next steps are there?

Comments

golden age? with them trying to create the first?

[gl4ss]

how does that even compute into being a golden age?

is it settled now even if that one companys "quantum computer" can actually solve anything faster than a simulation about what it does for cheaper?

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Betteridge's law of headlines

IMHO, QC is a dirty money-grab / scam. Don't waste our time until you've got at least 64 entangled qbits.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the headlines sensationalist? Yes. Is QC a scam? I don't think so. It's not there yet, that part is true, but we're almost at the point where it's no longer a physics problem, just an engineering problem.
It's not going to break all encryption or anything like that, but in 30 years when we do get the 64 (or idealistically, 1024) qubit computer it will be similar to early computers in the 50s. You will buy a machine the size of a room to do specialized computation on your specific problem. For now though, it's still in the research stage.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

8 entangled qbits should be enough for anyone.

Ah...

[Guy From V]

No?

Past Decade

[Anonymous Coward]

We've been discussing this the past ten years. Please let us know if there are really any breakthroughs and stop with the sensationalism.

Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we finally accept that quantum entanglement is just a scam?

Consider the Quantum Eraser, that claims to show entanglement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

A photon is split into two lower frequency "entangled" photons.
One of those goes to Youngs Slits, which shows an interference pattern.
The other to a detector
When you put a circular polarising filter in front of the youngs slit ones, the interference pattern disappears.
To cause intererence the photon would have to be at 45 degrees so that noise/error means it comes out of the filter clockwise and anticlockwise.
When you put a 45 degree filter in front of the OTHER detector, the interference pattern in the YOUNGS detector reappears.
Hey presto, photons must be communicating somehow.

But what's really happening is that the detectors are connected together via a coincidence detector.
And only when a photon is detected at one is the corresponding photon counted at the other detector.

So actually, all it does is filter the photons for the subset with the correct angle.

e.g. {time, phase angle},

If you had Photons: {t=0,30}, {t=1,50},{t=2,45},{t=3,20},{t=4,45},{t=5,65},

So the only photons that can interfere at at phase angle 45, the coincidence detector filters for those, i.e. {t=2,45} and {t=4,45}
And the experiment uses *time* as the variable to separate out those photons.

Quantum Mechanic believers claim a hidden variable is not possible, but time is the variable used, and its easy to understand.

So why is this nonsense still science?

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[poizan42]

Oh since you have refuted QM why don't you just publish your findings an claim your Nobel Prize instead of spewing rants on Slashdot?

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't need to refute anything. Make QM based computing work. Ever.

Good fucking luck with that. It's all a scam.

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh since you have refuted QM why don't you just publish your findings an claim your Nobel Prize instead of spewing rants on Slashdot?"
Thank you for your contribution to science.

Understand, we could measure the photons at the youngs fringes, and measure the photons detected at the other detector, take both datasets, and calculate BOTH the filtered and non-FILTERED set after the fact. Using this simple thought experiment, you can show the falseness of the experiment.

The claim that 'detection' causes the photons phase to be set (and the corresponding other photon by entanglement), is then shown to be false, because we calculated BOTH results, as if the phase had been set and had not been set. The co-incidence detector is a man made thing, we can perfectly simulate its action in the experiment by processing the results after the fact in a computer.

It's easy enough for Slashdot readers to understand how that experiment REALLY works, its not a complex thought experiment, its very simple one.

Can I also point out, that this experiment uses electronic detectors, which detect by promoting electrons through their DISCRETE energy states. So your detector imposes a quantum effect that is not isolated from the result. The effect you measure is just the quantum effect from the detector. Einstein was right.

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Semiconductor design relies heavily on quantum mechanics, you idiot.

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, you are -very- confused.

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Semiconductors do not use entanglement, and they are not proof of QM.

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I'm as interested in alternative explanations for quantum phenomenon as the next guy, but your poorly explained hypotheses are not helped by the hubristic bullshit you seem compelled to add. Frankly, it makes you sound like a nut.

Can you write this up more calmly, so we can evaluate your claims? Maybe you already have a blog explaining this hypothesis with diagrams and relaxed prose? You need to explain what you think is happening during all the phases of the experiment.

Of course, having the discipline to write it up properly will probably result in you realizing your mistake, but that's why nobody else has "disproven" QM either.

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, give up this religion and come back to science.

Do you still maintain that quantum eraser works by *setting* the photon angle by the act of detecting it at detector #1, that by "entanglement" aka spooky effect at a distance, then sets the other photons angle?

I notice you insult but you do not try to defend the experiment.

Understand that the same applies to *delayed quantum eraser* and there are no time-travelling photons. Its nothing more than a filtering effect. You would sound insane trying to defend that experiment to a crowd of the non-faithful as proof of time travel, when a simple filtering effect explains it using classical physics.

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh. Right. So since my lightbulb also relies heavily on quantum mechanics, I guess I have a "quantum lightbulb" you dolt?

Re:Quantum entanglement is just a scam

[Your.Master]

There seems to be confusion as to what Quantum Mechanics is.

Quantum Mechanics is accurate enough that it is necessary to modern semiconductor design. There is no other model humankind has invented that works. Therefore it is a good answer to the GGGP's question, "So why is this nonsense still science?".

Your misgivings about entanglement are not actually relevant to whether Quantum Mechanics is a real thing. Consider: Classical mechanics makes predictions about how GPS satellites should work that are empirically incorrect, which is why General Relativity is involved in GPS systems. Thus, even though Classical Mechanics makes a prediction that we are uncomfortable with, it's still not nonsense.

The retort "Make QM based computing work. Ever." is also irrelevant. Doesn't matter whether QM based computing is practical. The existence of entanglement doesn't mean that quantum computers are a good idea, any more than the explanation for how sunlight reaches the Earth means that classical computers are real. They happen to be real, and they both operate on electromagnetism, but there is a huge disconnect between those two things.

As for entanglement itself, it's a confusing subject but the GGGP didn't do a great job refuting it.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

+1. Stupid headline and sensationalism.
I suppose we are entering the golden age of flying cars as well.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[poizan42]

You mean the D-Wave computer? It seems to be a common misconception that it's a quantum computer in the sense of using coherent superpositions to perform computations - it is not. It's another kind of quantum computer - it performs quantum annealing, which is a way to use quantum effects to accelerate certain cases of simulated annealing. Whether or not the D-Wave computer can actually do anything faster than more traditional methods is up for discussion, but the only one who ever claimed it was a quantum computer in the sense discussed here has been clueless journalists.

Analogue computer

[Anonymous Coward]

They're analogue computers they can solve the thing they're setup to solve faster than a digital computer.

So for example, if you set up a system that follows an elliptical curve as a voltage (as opposed to calculating the values of the curve in the floating point unit of a digital computer), then it can crack elliptical curve cryptography a lot faster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

The buzzword these days seems to be to call these 'quantum' if the analogue aspect is the phase of a photon, but that's just marketing nonsense.

Re:Analogue computer

[sound vision]

What then is a true quantum computer?

Re:Analogue computer

[gweihir]

Only for low precisions. For example, you can get 24 bit A/D converters, but you cannot get fast and accurate ones due to fundamental limits. For example, the ones typically used in electronic scales only to 10 conversions or so per second. And 24 bit is about the useful limit. While you can get A/D converters up to 32 bit, accuracy is not 32 bit in them. That about limits what you can do. For comparison, an IEEE754 Doubke has 56 bit accuracy and scales via exponent and hence can use that accuracy over almost the full exponent range. Incidentally, D/A converters are similarly limited and even more so.

Why is that relevant? If you digital computations in an analog computer, you need to get the data in there (D/A) and get it out again (A/D). And for calculation with 32 bit or less, analog computers are rarely faster than digital ones these days when accuracy and noise levels are comparable.

Re:Analogue computer

[Whiteox]

The bit is either there, or it's not. And if you look at it, then it may not be there or it might, but you don't know because 50% of the time it may be entangled with another bit yet you can't observe it because if you do you know that the other bit is the opposite of the bit you would be looking at if it existed on this side of a wormhole. Simple really.

Re:Analogue computer

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, the ones typically used in electronic scales only to 10 conversions or so per second.

That seems like a horrible comparison, since most electronic scales have no need to go faster. You might as well complain computer chips can't do math quickly because a lot of four function calculators can only do a couple calculations a second.

If there is a need for it and money to back it up, things go a lot faster. 24-bit A/D converts exist off the shelf going up to 10 MSample/second easily, and we have a digitizer that will do 24-bit measurements at up to a GS/s, although that is a lot more expensive.

Re:Analogue computer

[gweihir]

I was merely pointing out two things:

1. The practical limit is at around 24 bits, and speed and actually getting these 24 bit are at odds
2. Getting fast conversion with good results is _expensive_ at that resolution

The first point is important because it limits what you can do with analog computation for digital problems. The second one is important, because it defines what the digital hardware can cost that the analog version must beat in order to be better.

You are quite right that faster 24 bit A/D converters exist. Things do get very tricky when doing analog at higher speeds though and that makes them again more expensive. I would also be interested where you found that 10Msps 24 bit ADC "off the shelf" ADC. Best I found was a TI one that does 4Msps (ADS1675) that has an INL of up to 251 and hence really behaves more like a 16 bit converter with pre-scaler. Maxim has nothing in that class, and AD seems to end at 2.5Msps with the AD7760, which loses about 7 bits to INL. (Not a real market-survey, I know.) The problem is when doing analog computing, all sources of error matter, and the INL stats are just part of the problem. And, of course, when you attach any if these converters to an actual circuit, you get more error. At the same time, a current CPU does > 500 cycles in the time these things need to do just one conversion.

Just to put that into perspective, even a crappy IEEE754 "single" has 23 bit of resolution, a dynamic range of another 2^7, a sign and error and noise limited to the last bit.

Analog computers are fascinating, but they are only suitable when the whole signal chain is analog (not what we are talking about here) and even then only in special circumstances. Their time is mostly over.

Re:Analogue computer

[TechyImmigrant]

They're analogue computers they can solve the thing they're setup to solve faster than a digital computer.

So for example, if you set up a system that follows an elliptical curve as a voltage (as opposed to calculating the values of the curve in the floating point unit of a digital computer), then it can crack elliptical curve cryptography a lot faster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

The buzzword these days seems to be to call these 'quantum' if the analogue aspect is the phase of a photon, but that's just marketing nonsense.

You do know that elliptic curve crypto isn't done on a real plane that can be approximated with floats or volts? It's done (or should be done) within a prime field. There is not a continuous analog representation that does that.

http://arstechnica.com/securit...

Re:Analogue computer

[TechyImmigrant]

What then is a true quantum computer?

All computers, all things, you, me, /., twinkies. They are all quantum.

Re:Analogue computer

[Agripa]

I think the poster (gweihir) may be confusing delta-sigma modulator sample rate with output data rate.

Besides INL which you can often correct for with calibration, there are other things significantly limit resolution:

1 - Noise is significant and many of these converters support higher output data rates at the expense of noise which is how the same converter can support 24 bits of resolution at low data rates and 16 bits or lower at high output data rates just through configuration. Some of them may support a high data rate with low noise but the integration time to achieve that low noise makes the output data rate misleading. It is not the same as the input sample rate which is what matters for aliasing.

2 - At the high sensitivity needed for high resolution, 50/60 Hz rejection (and their harmonics) is often needed and the easy way to do that is to use a sample rate which causes an integration time which is a multiple of the 50/60 Hz cycle. That leads to a fastest sample rate of 50 or 60 samples per second or the common denominator of 10 samples per second to cover both simultaneously. 24 bit resolution often requires sample rates which are an order of magnitude slower than even this.

3 - Zero and gain drift are a problem as well. With cleverness they can be calibrated out (along with INL) but calibration at the 24 bit level is not easy. Thermocouple effects are a major problem affecting zero and temperature coefficient of resistance is a major problem affecting gain. It is worth noting that non-chopper stabilized amplifiers have limited open loop gain at this level because of *thermal* effects which cause feedback from their output stage to their input stage.

I have always wanted to design a hobby grade 6.5 to 8.5 digit multimeter but have never gotten around to it if only because of low demand. The design intricacy to get to that level is fascinating. 6.5 digits is 21 bits, 7.5 digits is 24.25 bits, and 8.5 digits is 27.5 bits.

Re:Analogue computer

[gweihir]

I am aware of all this, and you are right. Even getting real 16 bit is tricky and forget about doing it really fast.

As to mistaking sample frequency and output data rate, while I did not read the data-sheets, if you look at the first page of the one for the ADS1675, you find "4Msps", which should be 4 million measurements per second. You will also see that it has actually up to 32Mbps I/O data rate for its digital interface. If I read this right, they already do 8x oversampling (hence you can _read_ in fact only 500k measurements/second) and are at roughly 16 bit resolution due to noise. And no, I do not know how they manage to get this number of measurements from the signal the sigma-delta modulator gives them at these "low" clock rates, but some advanced trickery is clearly involved.

Now, I might have misunderstood something here completely, if so, please enlighten me.

Re:Analogue computer

[Agripa]

The ADS1675 is a little weird because of all of its operating modes. The maximum data rate is 278 ksamples/second in single-cycle mode which is consistent with its settling time but in fast-response mode, the data rate of 4 Msamples/second is 10 times faster than the settling time. In wide-band mode, the data rate of 4 Msamples/second is 55 times faster than the settling time. So in its fastest modes, adjacent samples are not independent and 4 Msamples/second does not have the same meaning as it would with other converters. This is common with delta-sigma converters and why "single-cycle" or no-latency mode is a feature.

Table 2 on page 16 shows the AC noise performance which is consistent with other converters and other converter technologies; its useful AC resolution is 16 to 20 bits. The DC precision of the ADS1675 is pretty horrid compared to other "24 bit" delta-sigma converters and 20 bit converters designed for instrumentation applications but it is consistent with its AC performance.

Note that the integral nonlinearity given in the ADS1675 datasheet is measured using an optimum fit (as far as I can tell) and not end-to-end so it looks better than it really is compared to converters which specify it end-to-end. Texas Instruments sneakily leaves this fact out of the datasheet.

I remember looking at this part when it first came out. I wonder what kind of applications this thing gets used in. Ultrasound? Low IF signal processing?

How do you program a quantum computer?

[Viol8]

What will the programming languages be like?

perhaps i = 1 to something
          maybe print i
next i

?

Re:How do you program a quantum computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you do that more intelligently, to utilise massive parallelism given to you by quantum mechanics: the fact that a computation can go through every possible way at once.

Re:How do you program a quantum computer?

[smallfries]

There is a small typo in there, you can't close that kind of loop with "next i", although you'll find that "another i" may work in some way.

Re:How do you program a quantum computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're up against some pretty stiff competition though. 10 mutually-entangled qubits - way in advance of what anyone's ever prepared - gives you 1,024 ways at once. My GPU gives me more than that already.

Re:How do you program a quantum computer?

[binarylarry]

actually it depends on if you have it in the debugger or not!

Schrodingers breakpoints are a bitch.

Re:How do you program a quantum computer?

[Voyager529]

What will the programming languages be like

Perl. It was simply ahead of its time.

Re:How do you program a quantum computer?

[Megol]

That isn't how quantum computation work.

The Ark of Langley is 400 qubits long.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Mark Ritter, who oversees scientists and engineers at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Laboratory, said his team is "on the forefront of efforts to create the first true quantum computer."

Corrected for you:
NSA leadership remarks Mark Ritter and his team at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Laboratory are on the forefront of efforts to create the first true quantum computer in the civilian sector.

Re:The Ark of Langley is 400 qubits long.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ark of Langley is 400 qubits long

Please tell me where to search for more info

Thanks!

That means that the NSA can again read everything

[Anonymous Coward]

because with quantum computing crypography has as much value as the promise of an average American president.
Yes we can!
Those ba$tards at IBM should have kept this pandora's box closed.
Or does anyone want to argue that we can put this technology to good use for creating cheap medical cures?

A new target for blobs

[FithisUX]

" But what would that mean, and what other big next steps are there?" Step 1. Quantum blobs for drivers. Step 2. Quantum NDA for quantum driver development. Step 3. Quantum blobby firmware that you can use from their quantum app center only. Step 4. Quantum secure boot. You cannot install quantum linux on this quantum computer, quantum corporates are quantum mechanically holding you from your quantum .... Step 5. Stallman dies accidentally in a Schroedinger quantum experiment because he tried to persuade people that FOSS has the same power to liberate people in both classical and quantum reality.

Re: A new target for blobs

[Samantha Wright]

...But it's okay, because he actually died years ago; no one has bothered to check because he continues to emit information.

Obvious answer

[bargainsale]

Yes and no

Re:Obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put samzenpus in a box with a poison vial, and find out!

Re:Obvious answer

[Guy From V]

Confucius say undead multicat entangled with string theory risks quantum suicide by unexpected hanging.

Re:Obvious answer

[blind biker]

That was brilliant.

I take it the researchers were Africans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wait... that would be ridiculous... too much to expect... even though "We're all the same", according to the media...

Who cares if your country is flooded with millions of sub-70 IQ Africans though? We can't tell the truth about it, and we can't talk about it in less than glowing terms, can we... What could possibly go wrong?

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

D-Wave repeatedly described their system as "the world's first commercially available quantum computer" for ages, they only grudgingly backed away from that idiotic claim after too much negative press.

Re:That means that the NSA can again read everythi

[Anonymous Coward]

You're exaggerating. Only asymmetric encryption will be breakable. Symmetric encryption can still be used, as long as the number of rounds and the overall security margin of the ciphers are increased drastically.

I'm looking forward in having my first small quantum computer at home.

"Golden Age of Quantum Computing Research"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me when we're in the golden age of quantum computing...

Re:"Golden Age of Quantum Computing Research"?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Wake me when we're in the golden age of quantum computing...

Wake me when we're in the Golden Age of anything.

Re: "Golden Age of Quantum Computing Research"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait, this is the year of Linux on desktop.

Re:"Golden Age of Quantum Computing Research"?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're in the Golden Age of slashdot right now!

Or is that the Golden Years?

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[garyisabusyguy]

Uh, yeah...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

They made them for the military when you weren't paying attention. The plan is to use them as a drone ambulance that can carry 800lbs of cargo

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Entering" is the word you're ignoring.

It may be true.

[Anonymous Coward]

But Most people are interested in "application," not "research."

Ironically, I left quantum computing 6 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

because I convinced myself there is nothing more to discover in the field.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[JaredOfEuropa]

Well, "square lattice of superconducting qubits" just rolls of the tongue, doesn't it. It sounds like something you'd find on the menu of an avant-garde restaurant.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[gweihir]

No, nothing is settled. It may still well turn out that computations do not scale to a relevant number of q-bits and it may be that doing computations takes extremely long and has an increase for more complex computations that eliminates all advantages. In fact, looking at alternative computing mechanisms, such as Josephson gates, it seems quite likely that the hype will keep for another 10 years or so before the community finally admits defeat. One reason could be that complexity of doing computations or number of repetitions needed increase the effort exponentially in the number of bits employs. And unlike classical computers, you cannot divide problems for QCs into smaller ones, you always need enough q-bits to get the whole problem in in one go.

Also, for many problems, QCs are simply unsuitable or do not help much. For example for breaking ciphers in a known plaintext scenario, a working QC reduced the number of bits to half. With that AES-256 is still completely secure and AES-128 may be secure if each of the O(2^64) non-elementary computation steps needed takes long. Even Shor's algorithm for factorization needs O(n^3) quantum gates for n bits and as it is probabilistic, and hence a number of repetitions in addition that also grows in n. It is quite possible to increase n into regions where no known QC can solve the problem. (Currently, that border is n = 5 or so and has been for a long, long time).

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[gweihir]

They are after money, not science. Hence they will do anything that makes clueless people buy their magic box. Sop far they seem to be selling enough to stay in business, as idiots with money are not that rare.

One thing I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

is the cat included or not or both?

Re:That means that the NSA can again read everythi

[gweihir]

Nonsense. Symmetric crypto is not affected much, and even asymmetric crypto may still stand, but maybe with longer numbers.

Re:Ironically, I left quantum computing 6 years ag

[gweihir]

I don't think there actually is. This is a high-effort scientific stunt that only very few people can do. I doubt it has any practical relevance.

Ask me again...

[tlambert]

Ask me again after you've opened the box and agreed to the shrink wrap license on the D-Wave you just bought...

Re:Ask me again...

[Outtascope]

Schrodinger's EULA?

Re:Ask me again...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Schrodinger's EULA?

At least we can accept and not accept it. ;-)

Golden age == max $$, worthless results

[swb]

The Golden Age of research on any cutting edge technology is that point at which deep pockets take it seriously enough to spend serious money and give researches comfortable timelines while at the same time have limited expectations of tangible and useful results.

Re:Golden age == max $$, worthless results

[slashmydots]

So in other words it's the golden age of bitcoins.
By the way, we're allegedly past the golden age if you believe D-Wave. Unfortunately D-Wave is a load of crap.

It's false only if true

[DrTJ]

Betterige's law (aka Hinchliffe's Rule) is neither true, nor false.

Since 1995, it cannot be evaluated, see https://newtonexcelbach.wordpr...

Gödel and Heisenberg would have been proud!

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[gl4ss]

they certainly marketed it as a quantum computer.

anyways, what I was indeed after was does their thing perform faster than a simulation ran on similarly costing hardware of the supposed process?

anyways, saying that we're entering the golden age of quantum computers is like saying that we were entering the golden age of hollywood began in 1800's. it's just stupid. maybe it's the golden age for funding for these guys though.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[binarylarry]

In the pipe, five by five.

Re: golden age? with them trying to create the fir

[Anonymous Coward]

And "Research" seems to not have been read either. We're starting to make breakthroughs in the REASEARCH of quantum computing. That research hopes to lead to the development of them. Then we will improve them.

I'll wait for

[Anonymous Coward]

the quantum sneakers, so I can take a quantum leap.

Computers Are Wonderful

[JimSadler]

There is no doubt that whether it is for education, socialization, entertainment or even life saving medical research computers are a blessing. But the other shoe must also drop. Disruption took place as well as all of the good that was done. That disruption is increasing rapidly and elimination of jobs and trades is now a pressing problem. The next leap with a quantum computer breakthrough may well cause even greater levels of disruption as well as bring fourth new blessings. But the horror is that despite the critical need to do so there has been no social or economic policy adjustment to help with the disruptions. We will need and entirely new economic model for society or we will have chaos. Yet we lag behind in very basic ways. For example we can not afford for urban neighborhoods to have second rate schools. We can not afford for any ethnic group to be locked out or disadvantaged. We need all the educated minds that we can create to have any hope of sustaining ourselves in international trade. We need large numbers of engineers, scientists and top drawer artisans to have any hope of competing with other nations. China, Japan, Taiwan and others are turning out very potent scholars and we must turn out scholars who are even more deeply educated in large numbers. this is very challenging as we are essentially low in population compared to China and India.

Re:Computers Are Wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop making sense, that has no place on the Internet...

Start an Org and get people to join, make change happen.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Megol]

Josephson junctions are used daily all over the world so I don't understand your point. There's nothing called a Josephson gate - however one can use Josephson junctions to form gates of different forms - RSFQ and RQL are the most common at the moment.

The reason we don't use computers based on JJ are many - semiconductor logic is well known and very cheap, I'll include III - V semiconductors here even though they are much more expensive than silicon based logic they are still cheaper than superconductive wafers. There still isn't a good type of memory working at the temperatures required. The processes available aren't as good either, 1m and 6 metal layer (4 effective - 2 are used as superconductive ground planes) is the state of the art AFAIK.

Just for Shor's Algorithm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The -only- reason quantum computing is getting funding is because of Shor's Algorithm and similar attacks on crypto. Were it not for that, this would be defunded and left on the rocks like the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas.

In the 1990s, sure, I can see something funded, but these days, if it can't be weaponized, used for defense, used for profit, or used for torturing people, it just won't get funding.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[gweihir]

The predictions at that time was that computers would be entirely built of Josephson-circuitry and be super-fast as a consequence. They just needed to solve a few problems, like the supercooling and integration and the like. Turns out these were prohibitive for the question of basing computers mostly on JJs. That is not to say these things are not useful or do not have applications. They are just not suitable to revolutionize computing, as they are special-purpose devices.

Quantum technology is in quite a few things as well these days, such as in SQUIDs and quantum-dot LEDs and even FLASH memory (erasing is by tunnel effect). That is fine. But when we are talking about Quantum Computing, that means replacing CPU and memory with all-quantum tech that is all entangled together (well, enough memory to do to actual computations, so maybe more like a very large register-set CPU or the like) and that is a whole different kind of thing.

There are a lot more of these "UFOs" in Computer Science, that turn up from time to time but never deliver on their grand claims: holographic memory, alternate gates, alternate logics (MLC and TLC in FLASH being the only viable example), optical on-chip interconnect, AI in many forms, many of the promises of public clouds, mem-resistors, etc. I am merely pointing out the pattern that can be observed here to put the credibility-level of the claims made into perspective.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah idiots such as Google and Lockeed Martin. /s
GTFO

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

The D-Wave is a quantum computer, it is just an analog one rather than a digital one.
They have made it clear the distinction in every discussion I have seen.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

True.

There was also a point where solving a math problem on paper was faster than using a computer to solve the same problem. Once the technology is established they can work on pushing the needle forward in regards to efficiency. I am sure a horse was much better than the first automobile as well. You just looked a lot cooler riding in the automobile no one else had yet.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

What is very impressive with the D-Wave is not that it unable to pass a GPU cluster. Its that a single D-Wave chip can keep pace with 1000s of Nvidia GPUs.
This will only get better. D-Wave has 1000+ core chips in the works if they aren't already out.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[rubycodez]

it is indeed a golden age, for grandiose claims about quantum computing made for the purpose of scamming investors

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[Anonymous Coward]

Golden age of RESEARCH, not product, fool.

Re:golden age? with them trying to create the firs

[RespekMyAthorati]

"Flying" yes.
"Car" no.

mod parent up

[Press2ToContinue]

but don't look directly at parent or it will collapse