Slashdot Mirror


IBM Raises the Bar with a 50-Qubit Quantum Computer (technologyreview.com)

IBM said on Friday it has created a prototype 50 qubit quantum computer as it further increases the pressure on Google in the battle to commercialize quantum computing technology. The company is also making a 20-qubit system available through its cloud computing platform, it said. From a report: The announcement does not mean quantum computing is ready for common use. The system IBM has developed is still extremely finicky and challenging to use, as are those being built by others. In both the 50- and the 20-qubit systems, the quantum state is preserved for 90 microseconds -- a record for the industry, but still an extremely short period of time. Nonetheless, 50 qubits is a significant landmark in progress toward practical quantum computers. Other systems built so far have had limited capabilities and could perform only calculations that could also be done on a conventional supercomputer. A 50-qubit machine can do things that are extremely difficult to simulate without quantum technology. Whereas normal computers store information as either a 1 or a 0, quantum computers exploit two phenomena -- entanglement and superposition -- to process information differently.

69 comments

  1. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But can it run Linux?

    1. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wireless. Less space than a Nomad.

      Lame.

    2. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? by billybob2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes.

      And No.

      At the same time.

    3. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a quantum computer, so it both can and can't until you open the box. Then you'll discover there was a third possibility "it can but it's somehow become skynet".

    4. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

      No. Only TempleOS

    5. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? by Mkkby · · Score: 2

      Unless Si Valley can use quantum computing to sell more ads, the technology will simply fade away.

    6. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? by TheOldestGit · · Score: 0

      Ye Gods! (or whatever you imagine) - an actual technology type story on /.

      Who could imagine such a thing?

      < /snark>

      --
      Having Leeched on /. for years I thought Hmmmmm-Subscribe!
  2. encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the reasons the three letter agencies like to store even encrypted communication is that quantum computers will allow breaking encrypted data in ways that classical computers can't do in any practical sense. An example is Shor's Algorithm for factoring numbers, which runs efficiently in a practical amount of time on a quantum computer and could be used to break public key crypto. If they have saved the current encrypted text they can later break that when quantum computing hits.

    Quantum computing is not quite there yet but it is coming up the well.

    1. Re:encryption by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised to see a move to lattice based algorithms or crypto that is resistant to quantum factoring in the next few years, once there is a significant key factored. Or, perhaps when a key handshake is done, part of it is keeping a shared secret for a later time, so if the public/private part of the encryption is broken, the shared secret, even though not as secure, would still protect the data.

    2. Re:encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, it seems likely to cause some shakeup. I don't know how it will fall out exactly. One thing I do not understand - not being a cryptographer - is whether the same Shor-like acceleration will impact other core cryptographic algorithms. (Obviously things like one time pads will remain safe... assuming you had a good enough random source)

    3. Re:encryption by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Quantum is no silver bullet. Basically only public key cryptography is in a need of overhaul, as algorithms we currently use, chosen for nice short keys, are vulnerable. Elsewhere, it's not an issue: for example it's proven that a quantum algorithm can break a hash of no more than twice the length than an equivalent non-quantum computer. Yes, double the hash length is an exponential speed-up, but the only effect is hashes being slightly more cumbersome to read for a human.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:encryption by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The practical defenses against the hypothesized quantum cryptopocalypse are:
      Grover Issues:
      A) Double the key size for symmetric algorithms, MACs
      B) Double your hash sizes (you can finesse in which situations, but for practical purposes just double them all)

      Shor Issues:
      C) Use Hash based signatures for certificates.
      D) Replace RSA, DH and ECDH with something else. Lattice crypto is a contender. Some with claim NTRU is fine, but it's not practical.

      You shouldn't have been using DSA in the first place. So that's moot.

      The dilemma is that the fix for asymmetric key crypto is not clear. Various lattice proposals have come along and been broken. RWLE is a PITA to implement (although that might be getting better soon with some stuff I've seen) and generally we don't know what it's going to be.

      On the positive side, it's all BS. They will not build a quantum computer capable of breaking RSA any time soon. TFS makes is sound they they got from 2 bits to 50 bits and so 256 bits are only a short way off. This is grossly misrepresenting the situation. You can make some fragile qbits cohere but you can't do iterative logic on it., You can make a reliable, error corrected qbit, but you can't make reliable error corrected qubits into a memory on which you can perform the quantum logic needed to implement Shor's algorithm. These are the barriers to cross and as far as I can tell, they have remained unsolved for many years. Upping the number of non-ecc qbits doesn't move us towards breaking public key crypto.

      I may or may not be proven wrong, but we will have the symmetric upgrades deployed in most new silicon pretty soon and the conference circuit will remain well attended while the lattice crypto work continues. So there will be lots more travel to nice places.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:encryption by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Citations needed, I think.

    6. Re:encryption by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? Isn't this all textbook stuff, except maybe for my DSA snark? Well DSA is very fragile, so I'll keep on snarking.

      Here's a common one: M.H. Devoret and R.J.Schoelkopf , Science, Vol 339, 2013.

      This has a diagram with a little green arrow from the 3rd stage to the 4th of the 7 stages of development. Saying we're at stage 3 and getting from the 3rd to the 4th stage is the current problem. That was 2013. We're still waiting.We haven't got to stage 4 (logical memory with longer liftime than physical qubits) from stage 3 (QND measurements for error correction and control). Stage 4 through 7 are entirely unsolved.

      For all the supposed major advances in quantum computers, by the metric that matters, we haven't moved in 5 years.
       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:encryption by LeDopore · · Score: 1

      You say "They will not build a quantum computer capable of breaking RSA any time soon." and you're right, for some values of "soon". Unfortunately, the time scale that matters is "how long will it take for us to agree on a replacement for DH, develop it, test it, and have it flush out of all use"? How long has it taken for IPv6 to take over? This is probably worse...

      --
      Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
    8. Re:encryption by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      In the hardware I'm responsible for the answer is by the end of the decade.

      I agree that browser security and PKI are basket cases. They will do as they have always done and will make changes when it's too late.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  3. Awfully large. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Funny

    50 cubits is an awfully large computer, and why do Americans have to use such archaic units?

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Awfully large. by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      The summary is wrong. These must be cubic cubits, as measuring a computer in a single dimension makes no sense at all.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Awfully large. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 cubits is an awfully large computer, and why do Americans have to use such archaic units?

      Cause that how we've always done it! That why.

      As for why we need such a large, 50 cubit, ark, well obesity and climate change. From now on when a major city floods, we're going to send the ark to float all them folks and their animals to safety. To know where to stage the ark, we need a 50-qubit quantum computer running weather simulations.

    3. Re:Awfully large. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's cheaper to just build more arks.

      Eventually, we can lash them together into a flotilla, and it'll be like Waterworld.

      You want to live in Waterworld, right? Right?

    4. Re:Awfully large. by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I think it all comes down to what you base your measurement system from.

      Most of the world's measurements are centered around "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." All of the other basic units require that duration as part of their derivation.

      America has realized that it's a poor basis, as the duration can vary significantly depending on one's relative velocity vs a frame of reference. Time dilation is well known in America, thanks to Hollywood's exceedingly accurate treatment of space travel.

      In contrast, the a pint of beer remains the same whether stationary or at superluminal speeds (as seen in Hollywood's many documentaries).

      Therefore, basing American measurements on a pint of beer is clearly superior.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  4. Coherence by Myria · · Score: 2

    I get the feeling that we're going to find out that maintaining coherence requires energy that's exponential in the number of qubits, which would making quantum computing mostly useless.

    Our universe has always tended to stop those who try to break the rules; try making a perpetual motion machine, for example.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:Coherence by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      We sort of know already that that isn't the case, at least it isn't the case for generic states. We know that because we can construct Bose-Einstein condensates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate which are in a certain sense coherent states of lots of things together. That said, Gil Kalai has made more technical claims and conjectures which seem to follow from a similar intuition https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/why-quantum-computers-cannot-work-the-movie/. Note that this isn't really like the thermodynamic situation of perpetual motion; there's no intrinsic law of physics that appears to be being violated by quantum computers, they just don't match our intuitions well.

    2. Re:Coherence by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Perpetual motion is easy. Extracting energy from said machine is impossible.

      A machine which appears to be perpetual motion and provides extractable energy is also easy. It fails as soon as you leave whatever environmental conditions you're exploiting.

    3. Re:Coherence by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I think that the question is : is that quantum computer able to factor integers into prime numbers faster than a classical computer using the same amount of power.
      If that's the case, even if it proves too impractical to break cryptography right now, it should at least prove that there is something to be gained from quantum computing.

    4. Re:Coherence by Luthair · · Score: 1

      What about Twitter? They developed a perpetual emotion machine.

    5. Re:Coherence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It fails as soon as you leave whatever environmental conditions you're exploiting.

      The universe is expanding. Accelerating in fact. There must be a way to build something to exploit that... in principle, perhaps slowing down the expansion (?).

      So perpetual motion within our expanding universe may actually be possible...

    6. Re:Coherence by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I was expecting some crackpot video, but no, it was a real academic with real work.
      Nice talk.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:Coherence by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      This video is not exactly crystal-clear...

    8. Re:Coherence by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "try making a perpetual motion machine"

      Not all that difficult. we're powering ours with human stupidity which is infinite, filtered thru a mesh of hashed bitcoin which are well known to be imaginary. The math -- which involves dividing stupidity by cellphone user intelligence (zero) shows that perpetual motion is not only possible, but inevitable. We'll be taking our product to market just as soon as we handle a couple of engineering glitches.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    9. Re:Coherence by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      This video is not exactly crystal-clear...

      Noise is correlated between qubits, so it adds up rather than canceling out.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  5. Getting closer to testing quantum supremacy by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're getting closer and closer to testing quantum supremacy- the hypothesis that quantum computers can practically solve problems that classical computers cannot do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy. Note that this is a practical statement; anything a quantum computer can do, a classical computer can do, but with potentially exponential slowdown. This follows from the fact that BQP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP the set of problems that a quantum computer can do in polynomial time is within is contained in PSPACE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSPACE the set of things that a classical computer can do with polynomial space (since polynomial space calculations live in EXPTIME, the set of things requiring exponential time, the result follows).

    It is very likely that before we see genuinely useful quantum computing (e.g. for factoring large numbers or simulating complicated chemical systems) we'll have an answer to the quantum supremacy question. I suspect that it is more likely that we'll have an answer in terms of boson sampling before we have an answer involving a universal quantum computer.

    Essentially, boson sampling works by just looking at the distribution of bosons (well for convenience, photons) as they go through very simple optical objects. Boson sampling has two major advantages: first, we know it is actually *hard* in a technical sense for a classical computer to do unless some conjectures that pretty close to everyone believes are false. In particular, Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkipov proved that if a classical computer can do boson sampling efficiently then the polynomial hierarchy will collapse https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/optics.pdf. For those who aren't theoretical compsci people, the polynomial hierarchy not collapsing is a statement which is only marginally stronger than P!=NP and is very widely believed. This is in contrast for example with factoring large numbers where if it turned out that classical computers could efficiently factor the only major conjecture that would turn out to be false would just be the difficulty of factoring itself. Second, boson sampling is much easier in many respects than what IBM is trying to do which requires much fancier systems, supercooled qubits, careful protection from stray particles, careful preservation of entanglement and all sorts of other stuff. Still, what they are doing is important and very necessary if we're going to actually have practical quantum computers ever.

    1. Re:Getting closer to testing quantum supremacy by Mkkby · · Score: 2

      Can anyone answer in plain english if these things are actually useful for anything, or is it all a theoretical maybe? We shouldn't have to read phd thesis just to get a basic understanding. You guys can do enough of that on your own.

      These constant press articles that basically state 50 > 40 so we win are beyond worthless.

    2. Re:Getting closer to testing quantum supremacy by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      So, everyone agrees that if one can get enough qubits to work together in a universal computer, then they will be useful. The exact number isn't clear but pretty much everyone agrees that by the time you get to around 200 qubits there will be tasks where it will be very likely to be practically useful.

    3. Re:Getting closer to testing quantum supremacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That P != NP is widely believed is like saying that it is widely believed that the aliens two galaxies over also like chocolate. It may be true, but that shouldn't cause you any amount of confidence that P != NP. No one has any idea about this. We have some notion of algorithms and computational complexity, like we have some notion that lots of living, intelligent creatures like chocolate, but we have not the first clue about how to prove or even think about proving or disproving P != NP. All we can say is that if P = NP or if P != NP, then humans haven't been smart enough to figure out how to prove the yet either way. If the aliens two galaxies over do or do not like chocolate, we have not the first clue of how to figure that out, either. Maybe some day we'll figure it out.

      I think the confidence that P != NP is wishful thinking on the part of computer scientists, since an increasingly large area in computer science collapses if it turns out that P = NP, seeing as a greater and greater number of papers start "assume P != NP, then ...". That then builds into social proof - all my friends say that P != NP, and there is no evidence either way, so I'll believe my friends. That's not to say that P = NP, it's to say that we simply don't know.

    4. Re:Getting closer to testing quantum supremacy by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      There are however good reasons to believe P != NP rather than the opposite. Scott Aaronson discusses a whole bunch of them here https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=122.

  6. Notes by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

    Well, if they repeat the same for network speeds, maybe in 10 years we can run Lotus Notes in an usable way.

  7. is it truly 50qb? by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

    Is it truly 50qb, i.e. all 50 are entangled, or is it 'n' times smaller (e.g. 4qb) units?

  8. D-Wave 1000+ Qubit by bheilig · · Score: 1

    Wait, isn't D-Wave already providing a 1000+ Qubit computer? What's the difference?

    1. Re:D-Wave 1000+ Qubit by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      The D-Wave computers are very far from universal computers. Each qubit is only able to talk to a small number of qubits very close to it. The specific method that D-Wave is using is a variant of quantum annealing and it isn't clear that this provides any speedup over classical approaches https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3192. So for multiple reasons, the IBM approach is very different, and frankly, much more likely to pan out in the long term.

    2. Re:D-Wave 1000+ Qubit by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      There's no small amount of controversy as to whether D-Wave is even "quantum". It's definitely not general purpose.

      D-Wave's current offering is "15x" faster than a single-core silicon microprocessor -- and the tasks it's useful for are embarrassingly parallel. Modern laptops are starting to be offered with 18 or more cores - meaning that even laptop CPU can outperform D-Wave's "1000+ Qubits"

      Scientific publications have, by and large, found that a traditional multicore silicon chip can easily outperform whatever D-Wave is making, and there has been no measurable "quantum speedup" in D-Wave's products.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  9. D-Wave by MouseR · · Score: 1

    Canadian-owned and operated D-Wave computer has way more that 50 Q-bits with a 1000Q model available and a 2K in the works.

    1. Re:D-Wave by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      D-Wave makes quantum annealing processors - and is only useful for a sliver of useful computing (adiabatic quantum computing).

      There's no small amount of controversy as to whether D-Wave systems are truly quantum machines. A number of groups found "no quantum speedup" and have shown better performance using traditional silicon, and studies have been published to that effect.

      Having worked in supercomputing for a decade, I've looked hard are D-Wave's "quantum" computing, and give it slightly more credibility than the E-Cat cold fusion reactor, or Quantum vacuum thrusters.

      IBM's effort is a true general purpose quantum computer - the kind that can run Shor's algorithm and render RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and ECC cryptography useless.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:D-Wave by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      D-Wave makes quantum annealing processors - and is only useful for a sliver of useful computing (adiabatic quantum computing).

      Whew, that's lucky! Quantum computing wouldn't get very far at all without obese diabetic programmers participating.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:D-Wave by dissy · · Score: 1

      Canadian-owned and operated D-Wave computer has way more that 50 Q-bits with a 1000Q model available and a 2K in the works.

      D-wave works on a completely different design. Their systems can not manipulate individual qbits, but instead have all their qbits in a big pool functioning together such that they can only manipulate the entire grouping.

      Instead of reading out individual qbits, they read the energy level of the entire pool of qbits summed together.

      This makes it easier to actually setup all of those qbits in the first place, but they are limited to solving "lowest energy state" problems.

      IBM and Google are using designs that can manipulate individual qbits, which makes them more like general purpose computers in that sense, but introduces all sorts of complications in creating, setting up, and manipulating each qbit. This is why they have so few of them.

      There isn't really much in the way of analogies that don't break down in a mess, but in general, imagine the differences between a general purpose CPU, and a very specialized IC to handle one particular problem set but do it very well.

      Perhaps a CPU vs GPU comparison is the closest. A GPU like the nvidia gtx 1080 contains over 3500 cuda processing cores. But those cores can only do certain types of math, typically the type needed for 3d graphics processing, but there are other uses.

      If you happen to have a type of problem that the GPU can do, the GPU can do it orders of magnitude faster than a general purpose CPU. But for any other type of problem a GPU is completely worthless.
      A CPU can solve both types of problems, but generally slower. But if that problem is one a GPU can't address, the "slow" CPU is your only option.

      D-wave is very specific purpose to solving lowest energy state problems, and that's really it.
      If that is your problem set, a D-wave may very well provide you a massive speed increase over another type of system, but if it isn't that type of problem a D-wave is completely useless.

      General quantum computers should be capable of any quantum type problem, but in this case it isn't speed that is your trade-off but memory space (qbits)

  10. So What? by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    I don't know how many times I've read the now rote description of quantum computing in some sciencey magazine or blog:

    "Our regular computers have bits that can be only 1 and 0. A quantum computer has bits that use Superposition, the bits can be both 1 and 0 at the same time"

    Every time I read it, I ask my self, so what? So a bit can be both 1 and 0 at the same time. That didn't explain anything at all.

    1. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same thought.
      QC is difficult enough to understand for classical programmers as is, I am certain that the tech journalists don't have a fucking clue about how quantum computing works.
      But if you are interested in learning, you have to get your hands dirty with QC simulation software, QC lectures, books, and so on.

    2. Re:So What? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Every time I read it, I ask my self, so what? So a bit can be both 1 and 0 at the same time. That didn't explain anything at all.

      Right, they forget to mention the hoped-for consequence, which only becomes apparent when you consider a system containing more than one qubit at once.

      i.e.

      1 qubit = 2 simultaneous states (== 2x potential speedup vs classicalp)
      2 qubits = 4 simultaneous states (== 4x potential speedup vs classical)
      3 qubits = 8 simultaneous states (== 8x potential speedup vs classical)
      [...]
      64 qubits = 18446744073709551616 simultaneous states (== 18446744073709551616x potential speedup vs classical)

      It's the old rice-on-the-chess-board exponential behavior, except applied to parallel-processing speed rather than to material.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:So What? by greythax · · Score: 1

      It's very weird. Much like everything in the quantum world. Imagine you had 2 classical bits. They could be in the configuration of :
      1,1
      1,0
      0,1
      0,0
      but only one of those 4 states. With qubits, they are all of those at the same time. As such, where we would just read the bits in a classical computer, referencing the bits is not enough, we have to provide a coefficient as well, to tell which quantum state we are checking. That means essentially we can derive 4 bits (2 coefficients + 2 bits) worth of information. What is more, for every qbit you add, you have to use a new coefficient, such that for N qubits, you get as much information as 2 to the power of N classical bits worth of storage.

      Put in perspective, a 50 qubit computer would be like having a 1,125,899,906,842,624 bit classical computer.

      But there are some catches. Firstly, they aren't universally faster. They would work really well for algorithms that can take advantage of these states by applying logical operations to the the cubits before reading them and collapsing them into plain old classical bits. I would love to explain one of them, but they melt my brain, so you are on your own. The take away here is that 50 qubits will not give you a killer graphics card, but would make it super fast to guess big numbers.

      Also, you have to entangle the particles, and those entanglements don't last long. So whatever you do, you better do it fast. Since you aren't using quantum transistors to do it, there is a practical challenge.

      And finally, unlike classical computers, there is a known quantity of instability, so you had better run the same solution set a few times to make sure quantum fluctuation didn't garble your data.

      Anyway, I hope that helps. Caveat emptor, I have never written any q programs, and had as much trouble getting my head around this as anyone. So part or all of what I posted here might be apocryphal. If so, I apologize.

    4. Re:So What? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      That didn't explain anything at all.

      Unfortunately, only Cubots can understand the theory, and they can also not understand it at the same time.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    5. Re:So What? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      That didn't explain anything at all.

      Well. It does and it doesn't.

    6. Re: So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes everyone always explains that.

      But they never explain how that is in anyway useful.

      Hope do you give an input (like a cipher text) and have it spit out an encryption key. Yes 128qbits could take the state of any 128bit encryption key, but how do you collapse it to the correct key?

    7. Re: So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is that no one ever explains operations on Qbits

      Yes it can take the state of all the binary possibilities, but so what? Useless you can perform operations between one state of qbits and another, you are not achieving anything?

    8. Re: So What? by greythax · · Score: 1

      There is a library you can download for free that will simulate a number of qubits. But yes, you can use Not and And operations on them. In fact, that is the whole challenge of building an algorithm that takes advantage of them. Because once you apply those rules, and measure the outcome, you collapse the quantum state and they all become a single value, not a superposition. So, think of it this way, it's not that it exists in all states, it is that you don't have to calculate it in all states, you merely need to know some kind of algorithm that tells you which set of states to read. Like I say, it melts my brain, but better people than me are working on the problem.

    9. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they prove Quantum P = Quantum NP?

  11. That's not very long by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    90 microseconds before the qubits get destroyed, I assume rendering the "CPU" unusable? That's still longer than most iPhones last according to the last reliability survey.

  12. Couldn't be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the same IBM which assisted in exterminating Geooos with their Haul.er.ith technology???

    (had to spell it like that or it gets scrubbed from the forums because IBM buys advertising here)

  13. Riiiight. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    What's a qubit?

    1. Re:Riiiight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who got that?

      "You and me Lord..."

    2. Re:Riiiight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's weird how he's just not funny anymore based on recent events. OJ in the same way.

    3. Re:Riiiight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's just that Cosby is no longer funny...just sad.

  14. Post Quantum Computing Algorithms by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    Google released "A New Hope", a lattice based key exchange for securing communication. It would be immune to Shor's Algrithm, so safe in a post quantum world. Unfortunately, there are other issues with it. Someone might find a classical computing way to break it, it might leak information, it can sometimes fail etc. There are other possible quantum resistant algorithms. XMSS can be used to sign documents but the signatures and keys are huge compared to what we have now. There is also Supersingular isogeny key exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... but the math for it makes lattices seem easy.

  15. Runs DB2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet the licensing costs far exceed the cost of the machine.

    Oh, and maintenance too.

    Then when everybody moves off it, they'll sell it to Lenovo and focus on consulting, installing crap software on it.

  16. lol @ ibm pretending to be innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a shitty outsourcing consultancy floating articles about inventing new things, hehe that is funny.

  17. Lo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Lord saw what Cryptographers had done and was displeased. And the Lord said to Babbage, "Build me an Ark!"

    And Babbage built an Ark, and the size was 50 cubits breadth, and 150 cubits length, and the Ark was Good. And the Ark was loaded with the Binary States, Two by Two. And then the encryption algorithms began to fall and the sins of the False Random Seeds were washed away!

    And when the waters receded the land was Empty and Fruitful, and the Superpositions were plentiful. "Never again fear the cleansing of the land," sayeth the Lord.

  18. I like and I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...dislike your comment. But only if someone reads it.

  19. But it is any match... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for the Bourne Supremacy?