Slashdot Mirror


Google Unveils 72-Qubit Quantum Computer With Low Error Rates (tomshardware.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Tom's Hardware: Google announced a 72-qubit universal quantum computer that promises the same low error rates the company saw in its first 9-qubit quantum computer. Google believes that this quantum computer, called Bristlecone, will be able to bring us to an age of quantum supremacy. In a recent announcement, Google said: "If a quantum processor can be operated with low enough error, it would be able to outperform a classical supercomputer on a well-defined computer science problem, an achievement known as quantum supremacy. These random circuits must be large in both number of qubits as well as computational length (depth). Although no one has achieved this goal yet, we calculate quantum supremacy can be comfortably demonstrated with 49 qubits, a circuit depth exceeding 40, and a two-qubit error below 0.5%. We believe the experimental demonstration of a quantum processor outperforming a supercomputer would be a watershed moment for our field, and remains one of our key objectives."

According to Google, a minimum error rate for quantum computers needs to be in the range of less than 1%, coupled with close to 100 qubits. Google seems to have achieved this so far with 72-qubit Bristlecone and its 1% error rate for readout, 0.1% for single-qubit gates, and 0.6% for two-qubit gates. Quantum computers will begin to become highly useful in solving real-world problems when we can achieve error rates of 0.1-1% coupled with hundreds of thousand to millions of qubits. According to Google, an ideal quantum computer would have at least hundreds of millions of qubits and an error rate lower than 0.01%. That may take several decades to achieve, even if we assume a "Moore's Law" of some kind for quantum computers (which so far seems to exist, seeing the progress of both Google and IBM in the past few years, as well as D-Wave).

76 comments

  1. HOld on while I unveil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My DAMN balls, for u to suck

    1. Re:HOld on while I unveil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sit on you.

  2. Several decades? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Why several decades? I thought this was right around the corner, along with AI and trips to Mars. You mean someone will need to put in decades of hard engineering work?

    1. Re: Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the theoretical models all predict that in order for any implementation to be practical it must be powered by nuclear fusion

    2. Re:Several decades? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No, first we need the improved battery tech that allows for higher capacities and almost instant recharging. Last I checked, it was 3-5 years away from being on store shelves.

    3. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why several decades? I thought this was right around the corner, along with AI and trips to Mars. You mean someone will need to put in decades of hard engineering work?

      No. Past a certain point the process will bootstrap itself and go super-exponential. A quantum computer will really advance the design of quantum computers.

    4. Re:Several decades? by fizzer06 · · Score: 1
      2 + 2 = 4.04

      Are they saying that is allowable?

    5. Re:Several decades? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The real question is "What are the important use cases?".

      If I thought the only use case was breaking net security, I'd say why bother, there are other, cheaper, ways. But it also seems to be good at modeling molecule interactions. What else?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re: Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah plus the quantum computer will get a trophy for participating and be told everyone is a winner and great, there is no objective measure for success

      then it will get a sex change

    7. Re:Several decades? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Actually no. 4cents tips is an insult, it should be at least 40, and that should be rounded to 50 cents. :-P

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Several decades? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2 + 2 = 4.04

      Are they saying that is allowable?

      Yes. There are plenty of problems that are extremely hard to solve, but very easy to verify. An obvious example from cryptanalysis is factoring a 256 bit composite number into two 128 bit primes. Who cares if it is wrong 1% of the time? It is trivial to detect and toss out those errors just by multiplying the factors.

    9. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.... That's an exaggeration a bit. It get 4 most of the time. 1% of the time you get some ridiculous answer, like 42.

    10. Re:Several decades? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      It requires nuclear fusion reactors to operate and as we all know, they're 'only' a few decades away at most.

      Also see: Optical disks that store 15TB, I'm pretty sure those have been a few years away for 25 years.

    11. Re:Several decades? by EETech1 · · Score: 2

      Apparently they're up to 360 terabytes on a 3.75 inch disk.

      Ol Musky put one in the glovebox of his roadster!

      https://techcrunch.com/2018/02...

    12. Re: Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude if cubits arenâ(TM)t binary neither is gender

    13. Re: Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually a cubit can only have 2 states if you probe it.

    14. Re:Several decades? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I suspect there's a difference between "can eventually" and "actually does today"

      --
      Nullius in verba
    15. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use the free quantum design information that the quantum computer generates to make the next generation quantum design, and then repeat! It's like turtles all the way down! Free turtles!

    16. Re: Several decades? by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      that isnâ(TM)t how it works afaik.
      these processors are probabilistic, âoe1% errorâ means they have a 1% standard deviation around the correct answer. They never give you the correct answer, but generate enough answers and you can imply the correct one.

      Depending on who you ask, you also have to multiply that error by the number of qubits being used to get the actual sd of your result.

      They are basically really expensive hardware random number generators with programable bias.

    17. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphics processing comes to mind. If you're painting 4K pixels at 240 Hz refresh rates, 1% error in pixel accuracy isn't going to make a huge difference.

    18. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. It gets very hard to differentiate the marketing and the facts sometimes. For example "google unveils a 72-qubit quantum computer with low error rates" is what you call marketing, and "google unveils plans to implement a 72-qubit quantum computer with low error rates" is what we have here. Certainly commendable, and "bring it on" I say, but lets keep the headlines real.

    19. Re: Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't necessarily follow some normal distribution around the answer. Depending on the algorithm, errors can be all over the parameter space, with no guarantee that the actual answer is near a wrong answer. Practical algorithms are built around using a classical computer to verify the solution, and to redo the whole quantum part upon failure. If there error rate is low enough, you will find the answer after a couple tries the vast majority of times. Even pseudoprobalistic algorithms like this are used and work fine on classical computers (e.g. generate a random number in a unit circle without trig by generating two random numbers and retrying if they are outside the circle, which is faster than using trig on many systems even with a couple tries).

    20. Re:Several decades? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Is your comment replying to the topic of quantum computers? Or are you talking about something else like flying cars?

      Why would quantum computers need batteries? Wouldn't they be plugged in into the grid?

    21. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron Bill.

    22. Re:Several decades? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      You've also got to understand what "quantum supremacy" means, in effect it means that a quantum computer will outperform a supercomputer emulating a quantum computer solving an artificial problem of no use to anyone that quantum computers are good at but normal computers aren't. Go, quantum computers!

      A bit like saying I can beat Mike Tyson any day of the week, provided he's been heavily sedated, clocked with a lead pipe, handcuffed, and tied down. Yeah, look at what a great boxer I am, it's me supremacy now.

      (If Mike is reading this, I didn't mean that).

    23. Re:Several decades? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Only if it works at all. In actual reality, Physics has always come up with inaccuracies and limits when you go to the extremes. The same will happen here.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is it can have low error rates and high error rates at the same time.

    25. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even for those you can't verify you can reduce the errors by performing the calculation multiple times and averaging the results. The errors will be different each time and cancel out.

      There's also a huge number of tasks where an approximate answer with a known error margin is sufficient. Almost all scientific experimental data has to be quoted with an error margin. If you know the data is accurate to +/1 1% and only require the answer accurate to +/- 0.1% then the data is good enough.

    26. Re: Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking bitcoin block chain code security
      Worth stealing 600 billion $! Nice award!

    27. Re: Several decades? by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      qubit errors are normally distributed afaik.
      obviously the distribution of the result is how those distributions combine.
      Still just expensive random number generators, which, imho is gibberish to even call âcomputersâ(TM), they are so far from turing complete they wouldnâ(TM)t even count as a co processor from the 90s.
      very high bandwidth HWRNG is useful tho, just not for anything they are claiming.

    28. Re:Several decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They're saying that if you check 2+2 100 times, you'll get 4 99 times.

    29. Re:Several decades? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Quantum computers have absolutely nothing to do with graphics processing and never will. They don't work well for processes like that at ALL. GPUs are vastly superior to CPUs which would be vastly superior to QPUs for this purpose. Quantum Computers aren't magic. They can do a few specific things better than CPUs, but ONLY those specific things!

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    30. Re:Several decades? by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      It depends on how the error occurs in the output. If all the pixels are off by ~1% in their RGB values, it will be barely noticeable. If 1% of the pixels have a random wrong color, it could look very bad. For instance, assume a 4k monitor (3840x2160), which has ~8.3 million pixels. If only 1% are bad, that's 82,944 bad pixels.

      Imagine something like this picture, but with ~83,000 of them:
      http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/at...

      Given people are very frustrated by even a single stuck pixel, 83,000 would be horribly annoying, especially if there's very little noise or busyness in the image.

      Note: I have no idea how the error occurs in the output, or what future algorithms may be developed to deal with such error.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    31. Re:Several decades? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Nah. Fusion reactors are a decade away, and have been since the 1950s.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  3. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they going to use this to spy on people?

    1. Re:Great by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Yup

  4. Spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they still spy on you?

  5. More and faster ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sweet

  6. But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can it run Crysis?

    1. Re:But.. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Yes. But only on Medium settings

  7. Crypto! Most feared subject. by NuclearCat · · Score: 1

    Again, such news should mention, when this quantum computer will crack typical asymmetric cryptos and all that long-term stored encrypted https dumps with embarrassing photos (yours too!), can be decrypted by Google or NSA.

    1. Re:Crypto! Most feared subject. by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Again, such news should mention, when this quantum computer will crack typical asymmetric cryptos and all that long-term stored encrypted https dumps with embarrassing photos (yours too!), can be decrypted by Google or NSA.

      Is it still the case with Forward Secrecy ciphers?

    2. Re:Crypto! Most feared subject. by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Is it still the case with Forward Secrecy ciphers?

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

    3. Re:Crypto! Most feared subject. by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      I will readily admit that this is not my wheelhouse, but I was under the impression that Shor's Algorithm would effectively halve the key size. And that it meant the brute force time dropped orders of magnitude, but if FS was used that the key for each message would still need to be brute forced independently. Is this correct?

      If there is an underlying flaw in AES, only accessible with quantum computing, I have not heard of it. I would be interested to know if I am mistaken.

  8. Supremacy by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Self, calm down already.
    The supremacy remark is just supremacy over a classical computer. What a laugh.
    We're not in Penrose territory yet.

    1. Re:Supremacy by gtall · · Score: 1

      Well, if you are laughing, you are in Penrose territory.

  9. ^ Injected into your traffic stream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While using the trove of stored incriminating evidence will be fun, they could use it online for parallel construction of evidence... IE in parallel to your actual usage of a digital device, and inject it into the datastream so it actually looks like you sent it.

    Destroying people socially is sufficient, being able to fabricate difficult or impossible to refute evidence proving a crime they didn't commit is priceless.

  10. Use cases by crow · · Score: 1

    You mentioned molecular interactions, and that's no small category when you think biochemistry. Quantum computers may usher in a new age in finding drugs and vaccines, as we will be able to model the chemical processes involved and search for complex molecules that can cause a desired behavior.

    1. Re:Use cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Quantum computers may usher in a new age in finding drugs and vaccines

      Think about this for a minute. The compute is producing results you couldn't get with a classical computer in any reasonable time. Given information theory says you have to pay for each bit of information generated, it would follow that the energy requirements for this compute should be exponentially high, particularly since this information is highly valuable and hard to obtain. It begins to sound a lot like zero point free energy or cold fusion - free information without paying the energy cost.

      Where is this information magically appearing from? How much energy was expended to get the "work" done? And please don't tell me the cost is magically shared across a billion parallel worlds. If you say the information was basically free, then you're selling zero point energy as a legitimate source of infinite work to produce infinite useful information.

      https://www.inverse.com/article/35077-wtf-is-zero-point-energy

      Something has to give in these systems. So far every free energy system we have seen is a hoax. Why is quantum computing immune from scrutiny?

    2. Re: Use cases by CyberRacer · · Score: 1

      Where did the information come from that allows you to use a computer to type your thoughts out to the world? What price? Our ancestors certainly never even concieved the possibility. Just sayn'

    3. Re: Use cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum computers don't let you solve any difficulty class of problems with constant effort. Problems solvable by quantum computers is a very specific difficulty class. Even then there is a scaling of memory and operations needed, so more difficult problems need a larger computer taking more steps. It is very much like a classical computer in terms of scaling, information and thermodynamics, just works efficiently on a different class of problems.

    4. Re: Use cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your brain uses calories proportional to the amount of information it exchanges (glucose is the fuel, if I remember right). When you write things down, you expend calories to move your hand and physically alter the writing surface. It's all measurable energy expenditure.

    5. Re: Use cases by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Our current computers, including our quantum computers, work VERY far from the theoretical minimum computational energy.

  11. What does 72-qubit really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a real honest to god 72-qubit quantum computer or some misleading "topological" machination like D-Wave?

    1. Re:What does 72-qubit really mean? by ezdiy · · Score: 1

      Yes, "qubits" is a bit akin to "MHz race" when it comes quantum computing.

      You can tell because d-wave now has 2000 "quibits" machines. In particular, quantum supremacy means you can run an actual algorithm with super-positioned program states (quantum logic, tiffoli gates), not just a fixed equation with superpositioned quibit registers.

      What d-wave does is quantum annealing - it has one "hardcoded", specific algorithm it can run.

      Only certain linear matrix algebra benefits from fast annealing (of note, gradient descent in neural networks).

      But other than that, vast majority of number theoretic problems can't be translated to a single formula for which we can solve the global minima on d-wave and call it a day.

    2. Re:What does 72-qubit really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's still quantum simulation.

      There is work done by Ken Wheeler that indicate that Quantium mechanics is actually a bunch of nonsense, along with Einstein.

      For more information download the free book "Uncovering the Secrets of Magnetism" (3rd Edition) by Ken Wheeler.

    3. Re:What does 72-qubit really mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There actually was a bit race in the console hardware, I remember the N64 wooah... 64bits. While sony's playstation was lagging behind at 32bits even though clearly neither had close to 4GB ram.

      then the dreamcast came out with a "128bit" processor... probably just had some sort of 128bit registry somewhere (like the pentium mmx) and called it that.

  12. Quantum supremacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QS is defined as if a quantum computer can solve a well defined problem computer science faster than a classic computer.

    factoring the product of two large primes seems well defined.

    Wiki says for a classic computer, this is is O(2**(n/3)) and with Shore it is O(n**3)

    Quantum should be O(1), then they will have something really interesting.

    1. Re:Quantum supremacy by gweihir · · Score: 1

      In actual reality, when the inputs scale, the largest thing you can tolerate is O(n log n) or the algorithm is basically irrelevant. Pretty much means that out-scaling Shor's algorithm is not a problem, the numbers just need to get a bit larger.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. Good comment. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Interesting point.

  14. What can it factor? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    271?

    1. Re:What can it factor? by jouassou · · Score: 1

      Well, it has been shown that a 5-digit number can be factored using 4 qubits, so 72 qubits should get you somewhere.

    2. Re:What can it factor? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      72

      That reminds me of Multics

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:What can it factor? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is not a general result. It just says there is one 5 digit number that can be factored this way.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  15. Welcome our new overlords by rzgp33 · · Score: 1

    Great! I,for one, welcome our new quantum overlords. With all that power they will be able to calculate how much raising tariffs will make for the US economy. Of course it will be in bitcoins... oh wait....

  16. So they basically can connect a few transistors by gweihir · · Score: 1

    This is so far from a demonstration of actual usefulness as a computing device, it is pathetic. An no, there is no "Moore's Law" for QC. About 30 years ago, they were at 4 Qbits. Now they are at 72? Sounds more like a linear scaling or worse to me.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  17. Never mind quantum supremacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this puny "computer" is no match for the Bourne Supremacy!

  18. Sounds like those D-wave guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....are real D-bags...

  19. 72 qubits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    72 qubits of processing should be enough for anybody.

  20. WTF are you taking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were no quantum rigs 30 years ago. Go to sleep, you are drunk.

    1. Re:WTF are you taking about? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The madness and the experiments in practical entanglement started back then.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  21. No such thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as a quantum computer. There is only quantum simulation.

  22. Random Circuits? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    "Random circuits" ?? Who wrote this drivel?

    Man I am so sick of hearing people who don't know anything about QM talk about QM.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  23. Awesome bitcoin miner ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And once they get to 256 qubits, they can pay for their machine by stealing all of the existing bitcoins :)