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).
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).
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?
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.
Self, calm down already.
The supremacy remark is just supremacy over a classical computer. What a laugh.
We're not in Penrose territory yet.
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.
Interesting point.
271?
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....
Yes. But only on Medium settings
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.
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.
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.
"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-
Yup
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.