Scientists Break Quantum Entanglement Record At 18 Qubits (zmescience.com)

hackingbear writes: Researchers at the Chinese University of Science and Technology have demonstrated stable quantum entanglement with 18 qubits, surpassing the previous world record of 10, also held by the same team. This represents a step toward realizing large-scale quantum computing, according to a recent study published in the journal Physical Review Letters. Physicist Pan Jianwei and his colleagues achieved the new record by simultaneously exploiting three different degrees of freedom-paths, polarization and orbital angular momentum of six photons, the fundamental particle of light. The outcome combination resulted in a stable 18-qubit state. Full control over the number of entangled particles determines the fundamental ability for quantum information processing, according to the study. There are early-stage quantum computers out there that argue more qubits -- such as IBM's 50-qubit machine and Google's 72-qubit Bristlecone, but in those cases, the individual quantum states of the qubits aren't (fully) controllable. "The team's next step will be to realize a 50-qubit entanglement and manipulation," according to Wang Xilin, a member of the team. The same research team also held the world record on quantum communication distance as well as operating the world's first quantum communication satellite.

Comments

Like Bill Gates of Dimension 56,893 Said

[Anonymous Coward]

640 qubits ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Like Bill Gates of Dimension 56,893 Said

[Anonymous Coward]

640K qubytes!

Re:Like Bill Gates of Dimension 56,893 Said

[arglebargle_xiv]

Actually you need about a million qubits to attack a 1kbit public key, one of the things that quantum computers have been (over)hyped for. So announcing an imminent quantum computer now that you can get to eighteen qubits is like announcing interstellar travel because you can lift a load two inches off the ground.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hello you rotten bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello you rotten bastards. I'm back, fuckers, and I'm here to stay. I hate níggers more than ever, and I'm here to share that hatred in every ducking article. Fuck your political correctness, I'm here to spread my hatred of níggers, kikes, towelheads, dune coons, wetbacks, chinks, other darkies, and all of you motherfuckers. Linux is garbage and so are all of you rotten bastards. If you're reading this post, fuck you!

What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any other particle of light other than photon? What does "the fundamental particle of light" mean

Re:What is going on?

[Joce640k]

It means the writer believes that people who understand the phrase "simultaneous exploit of three different degrees of freedom-paths, polarization and orbital angular momentum" might not know what photons are.

Re:What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, take a field covered in tennis ball launchers, add some random paint mod to them, and random scent mod. Balls now are launched at random with a spin, scent and paint splotch and each property is random and does not correlate with the other. Spin does not correlate with scent, scent does not correlate with paint color etc.

Occasionally two balls will be ejected at the same time by random chance imperfection. They will spin the same, have the same paint splotch color and same scent because they were ejected from the same machine at the same time.

So if you filtered for time with a narrow enough filter, you'd show correlating balls in three axis (spin, scent and color). Likewise if you filtered for scent, spin and color and time would also tend to correlate, if you filtered for same color, time spin and scent would correlate, and so on.

Notice that you don't need to know the color for this, only that the *colors* are the same. And you don't need to know the time for this, only filter for the *same* time. And you don't need to determine Channel number 9 from Axe for men, only that the balls are the same.

So they create a circuit here, that determines if the properties are the *same* without telling them what the value of that property is. And they pretend that doesn't constitute 'detection' in the quantum entanglement sense. This is clearly false. Quantum entanglement is a filtering effect, like that described above.

Re: What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

You donâ(TM)t know what youâ(TM)re talking about.

Entanglement perplexed even Einstein and you think you understand it with a basic analogy to tennis balls?

Re: What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same particle in more than one place at the same "time"... because time is an illusion. The rest of it is quantum nonsense from over-educated morons. I like it better than "virtual" photons popping out of slits and recombining with the nonvirtual ones though. That's just pure science fiction, like how Popular Mechanics claims fire made WTC7 collapse. ae911truth org

Re: What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Reading perplexed even Grog the Village Shaman and you think you understand it by thumbing through some glyphs on a monitor?

Re: What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was the big carved out corner of the building. Or are you not capable of understanding, just conspiricies? Or are you actually just the nitwit Rosie O'Donnell?

Re: What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzt. That process would obey Bell's Inequality. And statistically, no, there would be no correlation. Random coincidence is not the same thing.

Re: What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

> â(TM)

Why do people do this?

Re: What is going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because slashdot can't handle unicode and the owners can't be bothered to fix it.

Re: What is going on?

[Joce640k]

Because they type on Apple keyboards and the artists who create those keyboards think that (some Unicode character) is prettier than a plain old apostrophe.

Re: What is going on?

[Joce640k]

Imagine all the pretty messages we could make if we had access to all of Unicode!

Or maybe Apple could start using apostrophes.

The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that it may hit the financial wall sometime in the next 20 years. If the technology doesn't deliver in the foreseable future there's the danger that investors will pull the plug. Also, classical architecture still delivers and 20 years are eons in the computing field. Classic processors will be so advanced by then that QC may be irrelevant.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not really.

Classic processors will never be able to solve some problems (unless P=NP).

If QC doesn't deliver... it doesn't deliver. It's not going to become irrelevant due to classical computing. It either works (and it really is doing quantum computing), and it provides access to scaling that classical computers never will... or it doesn't.

Re: The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

So your cat may or may not be alive?

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[ledow]

I think you have no idea what QC actually is.

QC is limited only by the size of a stable system that you can build. But the stable systems you can build give you any/all/every answers IMMEDIATELY. That's unprecedented in standard computing. The bigger the system you can stabilise, the bigger the questions you can answer immediately (i.e. factorise this 2048-bit number), and you can answer ALL such questions in that same timeframe (so once you can break one 2048-bit key instantly, you can break them all instantly).

That's getting some SERIOUS funding from military sources, not to mention all the other questions that it can answer. Investors won't go away until the horse has been proven dead and flogged for decades, but we still just keep advancing (sure, it's not super fast, but when computing was brand new, one transistor was the size of an apple and very limited... 40 years later, we had GHz microprocessors on the head of a pin).

However, classical processors have hit size limits (too large and the signals have to be asynchronous to propagate at the speed of light and stay consistent, but we haven't even got those kinds of chips yet), speed limits (same problem with speed-of-light), thermal limits, etc. and haven't significantly advanced in years. There's a reason that every desktop is still only "2Ghz" or so (maybe 3/4 in short bursts but not sustained performance), and the fastest mainframes in the world are still in that order of magnitude. I had a 2GHz machine in 2000-something. 18 years hasn't made that much of a difference to classical processor speeds in consumer kit at room-temperature! Sure, we have multiple cores, but that's just making the processing harder, and the processor hotter, and we KNOW that now everything you want to do scales in parallel.

Classical will never make QC irrelevant, it's an entirely different kettle of fish. If anything QC will render traditional computing entirely insecure overnight. We are already having to make QC-safe algorithms now, we're so worried about what might happen if someone builds a decent-size one.

The first nation to perfect QC is going to be a world leader... it'll be bigger than the space race and the nuclear race combined. Not just from a military point of view, but also from the sheer number of problems that your physicists and mathematicians and engineers can just say "Solve this, I've reworded it in QC language" (which we're already preparing and were before physical QC machines even existed!), and they literally get the answer as soon as they press Go. You will literally advance science overnight just by having a single QC machine large enough (enough qubits) to run a decent-size QC algorithm on... it will answer questions that we currently can't answer with a billion years of traditional computation, overnight. 1000 qubits is all you need to change the world, most likely. Given that the record is beat every year, that's not far off.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

QC does not change the complexity class, NP and NP-hard problems are also hard to solve with quantum computers (assuming P!=NP). Other than that you're right, QCs would be faster and scale up much faster than classical computers.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Joce640k]

Classical will never make QC irrelevant

That's like saying that chisels will never make hammers irrelevant.

"QC" will never make "classical" irrelevant either.

Your use of the words "classical" and "traditional" when referring to existing computers is very loaded and highly questionable. Why not just call them "digital" computers? Do you have a hidden agenda?

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger the system you can stabilise, the bigger the questions you can answer immediately (i.e. factorise this 2048-bit number), and you can answer ALL such questions in that same timeframe (so once you can break one 2048-bit key instantly, you can break them all instantly).

That is simply not true.

http://www.quantumforquants.org/quantum-computing/limits-of-quantum-computing/

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Your use of the words "classical" and "traditional" when referring to existing computers is very loaded and highly questionable. Why not just call them "digital" computers? Do you have a hidden agenda?

Saying "digital" is inaccurate. Both quantum computing and classic computing have digital components.

"classical" is the term used in scientific Quantum Computing literature to refer to the current way we do computing.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Joce640k]

Saying "digital" is inaccurate. Both quantum computing and classic computing have digital components.

"classical" is the term used in scientific Quantum Computing literature to refer to the current way we do computing.

The people who write that literature have a hidden agenda*, yes. It's logical that they'll use language like that.

(*) ie. Getting more funding.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Classical" is the term use by physicists to refer to pre-GR and pre-QM physical theories. That you don't know it it's not his fault.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, but if someone were to prove that P=NP, it would change the entire technology game. Suddenly a lot of problems that QC is being touted for would be within reach of classical computing.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[gweihir]

Probably. With the progress they are making, they will most assuredly not deliver in the next 50 years and without any fundamental breakthrough (not on the horizon and cannot be planned or forced) it may take 1000 years or longer for this to become useful at all. At the moment, they seem to be able to add about 1 Qbit/year for actual computations. And the impression that this may scale sub-linear is not off the table at all.

Time for the hype to die down, there is nothing useful this technology can do.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[gweihir]

QC is limited only by the size of a stable system that you can build. But the stable systems you can build give you any/all/every answers IMMEDIATELY.

Looks like you are the clueless one here. No, it does not give you answers immediately at all. You still have to feed in the data and do computation steps and you have to do this slowly and carefully to avoid decoherence. And if it decoheres, you have to do everything again from scratch. And due to noise, you either have to add a lot of error-correcting steps or run it for a lot of times. There is nothing "immediate" here.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but nobody will prove P=NP because P!=NP.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[ledow]

Sigh.

That's the practicalities of the prototype systems.

The answer is immediate. O(1). Not O(n) or worse as in any classical system.

It might take a day to set up the machine. The answer is immediate. It might take a day to set up for the next calculation. But the answer is immediate.

The practicalities of feeding the data and receiving the answer are irrelevant compared to a billion years of intensive conventional computation to factor a huge prime, for example.

Re: The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe we will find that Pi=MP

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Shor's algorithm doesn't run in O(1) time.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither does Grovers, which is O(\sqrt{N}).

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is immediate. O(1). Not O(n) or worse as in any classical system.

I'm not sure how you could have come to believe this ... but it's incorrect. Quantum computers can use algorithms that scale better than classical ones - say, scaling as O(n^2) rather than O(e^n) - but they don't generate an answer *immediately*.

For example, Shor's algorithm for factorisation runs in O((logN)^2 * loglogN * logloglogN) time, while the classical general field number sieve which does the same thing runs in (roughly) O(e^(1.9 * (logN)^0.33 * (loglogN)^0.66) time. That's a massive improvement - going from subexponential to polynomial time - but it's still not instant.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[thePsychologist]

Not to mention that some problems sped up by quantum computation (like Grover's algorithm) still won't have an instantaneous answer, but instead can be solved a good amount faster.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

QC? Q.

Trump incoherent. Decoherent. Decohere.

Trump quantum brain? THINK.

Remember. Forget. Do both.

Mental health problem? No.

No coincidences.

Just schizophrenia.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

And the damn thing will still not play Crysis at full resolution and maintain a decent frame rate.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed not immediate. The point is that you can solve an NP problem with a QC in P time, rather than the normal EXP time.

This is a big deal, a really big deal, but don't go claiming "immediate" because that just isn't true.

The difference a QC makes is that it can solve an NP problem in about as many steps and a classical computer takes to verify a solution.

Re: The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s an open question. Itâ(TM)s in the realm of possibility that P != NP but NP is contained in BQP, which is the useful quantum class most related to P (itâ(TM)s actually more related to BPP, which is P plus access to truly random bits, but thereâ(TM)s no useful deterministic variant of BQP). Most theorists believe BQP does not contain NP, so certainly such a result would be surprising.

Personally, I have no opinion on whether P equals NP, though my PhD dissertation relied entirely on the validity of a certain cryptographic assumption much stronger than just that P and NP are distinct. Of course, if P=NP then quantum computing can trivially solve NP complete problems in polynomial time. I wouldnâ(TM)t be surprised to find out that P and NP really are equal, though Iâ(TM)d be surprised that someone managed to prove it.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

First off O(1) isn't immediate. It could take 1,000 years. It's just guarantees that it'll take the same time for any input.

Quantum computing is not nearly the panacea you believe it to be. Your above posts show you have a very frail grasp of the capabilities of a large and reliable quantum computer. It cannot just take any problem reworded in quantum language and crunch an answer instantly. In fact, there are few problems which can be efficiently computed on a QC. All a QC will do is reduce (not eliminate) the time complexity for a small set of problems.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Fly Swatter]

I think you have no idea what QC actually is

Great, I thought you were going to explain what it actually is, instead you explain what it might be able to do. This in a nutshell is why most people poopoo quantum computing, no one 'in the know' actually explains what it physically is. Instead we get to hear about theories and more rounds of taxpayer funding.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that God solved P = NP meanwhile the mortals tried and failed to discover it.

I think that a n-Qbits computer is proportionally 2^n times faster than classic computer but with permissive errors in the quantum calculation. So faster doesn't guarantee P = NP.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[gweihir]

"Immediate" is O(0). O(1) is "you have to wait, but how long does not really depend on the input". Does nobody understand the fundamental definitions anymore?

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic processors will never be able to solve some problems (unless P=NP).

This statement is an oxymoron. If you are unable to provide a proof limiting complexity how can you possibly prove no problem specific shortcut exists?

If QC doesn't deliver... it doesn't deliver. It's not going to become irrelevant due to classical computing. It either works (and it really is doing quantum computing), and it provides access to scaling that classical computers never will... or it doesn't.

More likely it works, is productive and worth doing yet fails to provide breakthrough performance.

One aspect of quantum computing nobody disputes is use of "qbit" as an expression of capability of a quantum computer is circling the drain of irrelevance. As with similar abuses of language this is largely a willful distortion driven by marketing departments in a calculated bid to garner unearned notoriety.

When IBM/DWave/Google/etc.. proclaim their faux quantum computers are **** qbits it's all of our duties to stand up like good ole uncle Joe and shout "You Lie".

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[hazardPPP]

"Classical" is the term use by physicists to refer to pre-GR and pre-QM physical theories.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't call modern digital computers "classical", since without an understanding of quantum mechanics, we would not be able to make the chips that they are built out of.

"Classical computers" may be then abacuses, Babbage's difference engine, and early electronic computers (e.g. those built out of vacuum tubes), but certainly not anyithing built with integrated circuits since the 1960s.

Re:The problem with quantum computing

[hazardPPP]

Sigh.

That's the practicalities of the prototype systems.

The answer is immediate. O(1). Not O(n) or worse as in any classical system.

Sounds like someone who never built anything practical of scale (and also, as other /.ers have pointed out, doesn't know what O(1) means*).

"The practicalities" of real systems are often the things that matter most. An algorithm that solves a problem in O(n^2) will finish faster on a modern computer than an algorithm that solves the same problem in O(nlogn) running on a computer from 1975. Big-O notation was invented essentially as a way to "neutrally" evaluate algorithms without taking into account the actual speed of the machine - to able to conclude, given two algorithms that run on the same machine, which one would be faster. In the real world, the speed of the machine matters. A lot.

*As other have pointed out: O(1) means that the algorithm runs in *constant time*, i.e. the running time of the algorithm does *not* depend on the *size of the input* (that would be the "n" in logn, n^2, and the like). This time however could be of varying lengths: 1 second, 1 hour, 1 year. Depends on your machine, i.e. the "practicalities".

Qubits are Qberts

[Anonymous Coward]

You have 2 qubits and you don't want to detect their state because that would 'collapse entanglement'.

So instead you add more qubits, and us xor operations so you cannot tell the data qubits state, or the mixer qubits state. You can only determine if they were the same or not, i.e. entangled.

And you pretend this xoring is not detection of the state because you, the experimenter, only know if the item is entangled, not its exact state.

And if it isn't entangled, you throw away the result. i.e. you filter.

So all you've really done is select the subset of experiments that fit your hypothesis.

The entangled particle/photon etc. does not know that you are ignorant of its state. It does not know that your are xoring with another qubits state does not tell you its state. It is not sentient. It does not see the circuit you created.

Why not do the experiment and not look at the success or failure flag. Instead measure all the results, and hand them to another experimenter that has no idea what the experiment is. Let him filter the experiment write it down, and only then tell you the result.

When you find out, does it change the words he wrote on the paper? No.

Just because you didn't know the actual state, you still filtered based on a 'success' flag.

quit your nonsense.

Re:is this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Not The End Of IT! ;)

How the world changes...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Chinese advance fundamental science while the Americans degrade into a fundamentalist christian state which has no place for science.

Re:How the world changes...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Are you fucking kidding. Christians aren't the problem for science in the US.

The Left is.

SJWs/Feminists/Far Left are attacking STEM is US universities... demanding quotas instead of quality, using violence against biologists... harassing scientists who refuse to teach blatantly anti-scientific nonsense.

If you actually care about science... start defending STEM fields against this bullshit.

Re:How the world changes...

[gtall]

You are assuming the Chinese are telling the truth about what they've done and not performing a tail wiggling exercise for their State and its funding.

Re the fundamentalist Christian state, let me remind you the fundamentalists have a direct line to G-d through the Archangels....Gomer and Goober.

Re:How the world changes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you wrote The Right wrong.
They are the ones refusing to listen to scientists, they are the ones pushing their religious agenda over scientific facts. You can't continue blaming everyone else when it's obvious the main problems when it comes to technological advancement, is far Right who are scared of science. Just the fact that we had a Climate Change denier at the head of the EPA for months, the agency that really should be 100% based around science and not on "feelings" or "God", shows that there's a problem with the current government.

Re:How the world changes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither Christians nor the far right have any influence at all in academia.

Anyone claiming they do either can't read stats, is 'Freedom is slavery' deluded type, or a deliberately trying to deceive you.

Re:is this

[Anonymous Coward]

an ansible

No, it is the CHINESE ansible

Compulsory stealing and cheating required

A gift for you rotten bastards... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download).

Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any SINGLE solution (99% of threats = hostnames vs. IP address that most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

(Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" competitors slowing you, hosts speed you up 2 ways (adblocks + hardcodes u spend most time @) vs. competition loaded w/ bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + their overheads (messagepass ('souled-out' to advertiser addons) + filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation).

* ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI on Linux/BSD!

(Much better vs. Windows model in speed & efficiency + new "merge" feature)

APK

P.S.=> I use Firefox on Linux & it works like a DREAM w/ hosts. Too bad you rotten bastard JEALOUS JOWIES keep abusing downmodpoints to censor me... apk

Re:A gift for you rotten bastards... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Who let that fruitloop out of his cage?

Even you rotten bastards like & use my work

[Anonymous Coward]

Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017

I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

* See subject: Best part's the Linux 64-bit model's faster/more efficient (does 2x the work in 1/2 the time)

APK

P.S.=> Even you rotten bastards can enjoy a faster/safer/more reliable internet... apk

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Blog keep up the good work
Click Here

Why hasn't an AFRICAN university done this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait... the Jewish media has been LYING to you about race and IQ!

Quick, shout "racist" and go back to your prison cell...

Re: Why hasn't an AFRICAN university done this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn.

Re:Why hasn't an AFRICAN university done this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the leader of your cult has been lying to you about 'Jewish media'. Now go back to your bunker...

A few more bits...

[hcs_$reboot]

and encrypted data will have a hard time...

Re:A few more bits...

[phantomfive]

It's probably ok. At least, anything encrypted with the new algorithms is ok. If you want to steal someone's bitcoins, yeah, go ahead.

Re:A few more bits...

[gweihir]

Actually quite a few more. Even to break an ECC modulus, they need about 300 more. With the scaling of around 1Qbit/year since 2001 (when they factored 15 on a 7 Qbit machine), my guess would be that it will take a few centuries to get there.

Silicon scaled exponentially almost from the beginning and continued to do so for a long time. That is what makes it powerful today. QCs have never scaled better than linearly and are still at a ridiculously useless size as a consequence, after about 30 years of applied research. They may also well scale sub-linearly. The whole thing would have been dropped as a dead-end a while ago, except that many humans run after every hype that tickles their fantasy.

Re:A few more bits...

[hcs_$reboot]

With the scaling of around 1Qbit/year since 2001 (when they factored 15 on a 7 Qbit machine), my guess would be that it will take a few centuries to get there.

Likely to become a non-linear progress, though.

Re:A few more bits...

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't they just link multiple of these machines together to reach that magic 300 Qbit number? I mean, if it was possible for regular computer to be linked for a shared workload... Surely they can figure out how to do the same with quantum computers.

Re:A few more bits...

[ShanghaiBill]

Couldn't they just link multiple of these machines together to reach that magic 300 Qbit number?

No. To be useful, multiple qubits have to be entangled, and share a single superposition.

Re:A few more bits...

[gweihir]

That is the big problem with QCs: Computations on them are not divisible in smaller sub-tasks. If you have an arbitrary large number of 299 QBit QCs, they are completely worthless to solve even a single 300 QBit problem.

Re:A few more bits...

[gweihir]

Indeed. Looks very much like it is actually sub-linear and will hit a wall pretty soon. The effort invested today is massively larger than back in 2001 and they still have only a pathetic linear increase to show for it.

Re:A few more bits...

[Anonymous Coward]

you know what else looks linear? an exponential.

18 or 20 qbits?

[kwikrick]

One of the linked articles claims that another team set the 'real' record at 20 qbits...

Re:18 or 20 qbits?

[hackingbear]

Read that linked article again, carefully

Broken

[dohzer]

Wow... they broke quantum entanglement? Nice!

Re:Broken

[Anonymous Coward]

It never really worked to begin with...

Wake me up when they can do 2048 qbits

[gweihir]

Before that, these things are useless to break public-key crypto, at least the one that has not insanely jumped on the ECC-hype.
Since they has 7 qbits in 2001, and now they have 18 qbits about 17 years later, looks to me this scales with +1 Qbit/year at best. May still scale sub-linear. Anyways, I guess nobody living will see these things become useful.

Re:Wake me up when they can do 2048 qbits

[tofus]

Due to the nature (and implementation) of Shor's Algorithm, which is used in factoring large integer on a quantum computer, the ammount of qbits needed to factor an n-bit integer is actually 2n+3. So you can snooze a bit longer... ;)

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205095

Re:Wake me up when they can do 2048 qbits

[rogoshen1]

I think it's almost always a mistake to assume linear progress on R&D -- a single breakthrough can drastically alter time-lines.

Re:Wake me up when they can do 2048 qbits

[gweihir]

I know. But due to the general cluelesness observable here on this topic, I uses 1QBit/1bit as an obvious lower bound.

Re:Wake me up when they can do 2048 qbits

[gweihir]

Observable facts say linear or worse, and there have been quite a few breakthroughs to allow even that.

My guess is that the idea of the QC will end up on the trash-heap of science, like converting lead to gold. Possible today, but completely useless.

Re:Wake me up when they can do 2048 qbits

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You're assuming factoring the number is required. There are other ways to crack RSA. These may be stupider on a regular computer, but work well on a quantum one.

Is that a distance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean this is the ship that did the Kessel run in 11 parsecs. How many qubits is that?

Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

A Feymann theoretical quantum computer would go through all states instantaneously and find a perfect solution. But nobody has such a thing.

What they have is analogue computers using various properties, e.g. superconduction magnetics, spinning calcium atoms, etc. Those they try to configure into a circuit to solve a problem.

It's not instantaneous, these networks don't settle down immediately, and it doesn't always get an optimal result (in cases where alternate digital algos exist those have found better solutions). Failing on both Feymanns tests, they are to quantum anything.

The rest of your comment relates to 'classical' computing, and is really an appeal to modernity. But I'd like to point out that analogue computers were how computers were *before* digital computers came along. They are the older computer, and they were the computers of Feymans days.

If they would lose the quantum bullshittery and make a modern analogue computer, no longer the valve and filaments thing of the 50's, they could actually make a damn useful machine. A configurable analogue circuit that settles to a defined (configurable) constrained state as fast as possible (i.e. stop chasing instantaneous), suddenly we have a coprocessor that would be damn useful for a lot of math and if you can build hierarchies of these in the chip then even useful for DNNs.

So I partly agree that this is an area for research, but wish they'd end the quantum bullishittery and get on with a proper stab at analogue.

Zontar stalks me via sockpuppets (rotten bastard)

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to make more sockpuppets to stalk & troll me with you LITERALLY ADMITTED loon https://slashdot.org/comments.... + sending me postcards w/ threats too https://slashdot.org/comments.... you little STALKING whacko??

Zontar, take your meds you ADMITTED mentalcase https://slashdot.org/comments....

&

You're also a druggie too https://slashdot.org/comments....

* You're a butthurt loon freak, plain & simple - you did it to yourself, loser... see below for proof.

APK

P.S.=> Still trying to live down how I shot you to pieces in the art & science of computing Mr. Butthurt https://slashdot.org/comments.... ?

How about proving hosts & my program that builds them are useless too https://slashdot.org/comments.... ? ... apk

Impersonating me AGAIN? Please, lol... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Impersonating me AGAIN? Imitation = sincerest form of flattery & you imitating ME just PROVES you WISH you were ME!

* Unbelievable...

APK

P.S.=> You're a seriously mentally DISTURBED little freak doing that but as long as it WASTES YOUR TIME? That's fine by me, lol - as it keeps you RIGHT where I want "your kind" to be: Nowhere... apk

epistemological doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole quantum computing concept is based on the presumption that quantum entanglement is an ontological phenomenon, a "resource". However, if entanglement turns out to be a mere epistemological effect (telling us more about what we know or what we can not know than about what is really there), then quantum computer will never outperform the scaling of classical computing.

Bell's inequality and the related experiments have ruled out naive hidden variables IF quantum interactions are local and causal. But what if nature really is non-local (as in Bohm's pilot wave interpretation) or non-causal (as in Watanabe's Two-State Vector Formalism)? Then quantum computers will turn out to be a sophisticated version of classical analog computers.

I would not bet my money on quantum computing.

QD

[Anonymous Coward]

I have quantum diarrhea.

anonumous

[truesay3]

Are you serious

Correction ...

[CaptainDork]

... photons, the fundamental particle of light.

The photon is the fundamental quantum of light.

I've got just one question:

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a cubit?

Re:Zontar stalks me via sockpuppets (rotten bastar

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh FFS, get back on your meds

Impersonating me AGAIN?... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: "Imitation=sincerest form of flattery" PROVING u WISH u were ME & poor imitation = u.

* I don't post on hosts in topics that don't fit it (unless u of "moron kind" bring it up 1st)

(Hence, you give yourself away you're impersonating me!)

APK

P.S.=> What are you trying (& failing) to accomplish? Trying to "make me look bad"?? I have to ask as it's EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for me to "think like 'your kind'" (no-mind do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-wells" that can't think, lol) to even TRY to understand your "mental processes" (none obviously that are up to any good)... apk

640 qubits ought...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to be enough for anybody.

Re:Zontar stalks me via sockpuppets (rotten bastar

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second. Zontar The Mindless admits to being a self medicating drug addict that has to see shrinks, not apk. Zontar take your own advice.

I'll let quotes of u speak 4 you Zontar

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & how YOU make sockpuppets to stalk & troll me https://slashdot.org/comments....

Sending me threatening postcards https://slashdot.org/comments....

Your "watch your mailbox" THREAT & you "going postal" (pun intended) that way w/ MORE 'warnings' from you (wow).

Take your meds you mentalcase https://slashdot.org/comments.... & drug addict https://slashdot.org/comments....

* You're a butthurt loon freak, plain & simple - you did it to yourself, loser... see below for proof.

APK

P.S.=> Still trying to live down how I shot you to pieces in the art & science of computing Mr. Butthurt https://slashdot.org/comments.... ?

How about proving hosts & my program that builds them are useless too https://slashdot.org/comments.... ? ... apk

Almost time to build The Ark

[RogueWarrior65]

When they get to 300, sh*t's gonna get real.