Slashdot Mirror
Arrays of Atoms Emerge As Dark Horse Candidate To Power Quantum Computers (sciencemag.org)
Sophia Chen reporting for Science Magazine: In a small basement laboratory, Harry Levine, a Harvard University graduate student in physics, can assemble a rudimentary computer in a fraction of a second. There isn't a processor chip in sight; his computer is powered by 51 rubidium atoms that reside in a glass cell the size of a matchbox. To create his computer, he lines up the atoms in single file, using a laser split into 51 beams. More lasers -- six beams per atom -- slow the atoms until they are nearly motionless. Then, with yet another set of lasers, he coaxes the atoms to interact with each other, and, in principle, perform calculations.
It's a quantum computer, which manipulates "qubits" that can encode zeroes and ones simultaneously in what's called a superposition state. If scaled up, it might vastly outperform conventional computers at certain tasks. But in the world of quantum computing, Levine's device is somewhat unusual. In the race to build a practical quantum device, investment has largely gone to qubits that can be built on silicon, such as tiny circuits of superconducting wire and small semiconductors structures known as quantum dots. Now, two recent studies have demonstrated the promise of the qubits Levine works with: neutral atoms. In one study, a group including Levine showed a quantum logic gate made of two neutral atoms could work with far fewer errors than ever before. And in another, researchers built 3D structures of carefully arranged atoms, showing that more qubits can be packed into a small space by taking advantage of the third dimension. Chen goes on report on the startups -- ColdQuanta and Atom Computing -- that are working to build fully programmable quantum computers. ColdQuanta has received $6.75 million in venture funding while Atom Computer has raised $5 million.
It's a quantum computer, which manipulates "qubits" that can encode zeroes and ones simultaneously in what's called a superposition state. If scaled up, it might vastly outperform conventional computers at certain tasks. But in the world of quantum computing, Levine's device is somewhat unusual. In the race to build a practical quantum device, investment has largely gone to qubits that can be built on silicon, such as tiny circuits of superconducting wire and small semiconductors structures known as quantum dots. Now, two recent studies have demonstrated the promise of the qubits Levine works with: neutral atoms. In one study, a group including Levine showed a quantum logic gate made of two neutral atoms could work with far fewer errors than ever before. And in another, researchers built 3D structures of carefully arranged atoms, showing that more qubits can be packed into a small space by taking advantage of the third dimension. Chen goes on report on the startups -- ColdQuanta and Atom Computing -- that are working to build fully programmable quantum computers. ColdQuanta has received $6.75 million in venture funding while Atom Computer has raised $5 million.
This is more on the level of a few single transistors, although actual transistors can be combined for the whole to scale. This cannot.
The more of these "breakthroughs" I see, the more I am convinced this stuff will never be of any use. They are making slower and slower process and still cannot solve even computing tasks a pocket calculator could solve 50 years ago. And they have been at it for like 30 years now.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"No no, up and atom!"
No problem, then! All the hard work has already been done! You have a barely functional preliminary version roughly based on an abstract theoretical approach and all the long-term thinking ("we have just to scale it up"). The only missing detail now is estimating how long it will most likely take. I am personally a big fan of the within-the-next-5-years technique. (This is part of the speech which I am expecting to give in my hopefully-never-happening MBA graduation ceremony). LOL
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
I read quite a bit about this the last time there was a 'breakthrough' and I came to similar conclusion. Seems like the problems along the way are non-tivial and possibly built into fabric of the universe. But I think research brings us forward anyway in the sense that the only failed experiment is the one you cannot reproduce. Negative result does not really exist - one makes a conjecture, thinks out a way to prove it or disprove it and at the end you get the result. The billions that landed there could have been put to other use - that is true but then again there is no such thing as 100%efficiency anywhere and we learned here quite a few things.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-...
As an incentive for businesses to keep investing in R&D, the tax law provides favorable tax treatment for research and experimental costs. In most cases, you can currently deduct these costs or deduct them over five or ten years.
Government is funding research and development through tax incentives.
It's basically giving companies money to spend on playing around with LEGOs, trying to make a better mousetrap.
Why? Cause some of them work AND you get to keep and train a lot of experienced LEGO builders and other eggheads.
The kind of people who come up with better medicines and bigger bombs.
It's not the most efficient way of going about it, but the successful results get pumped straight into the economy and you save a lot on administration and planning costs.
Cause someone somewhere is probably developing something you don't even know you'll absolutely need in ten years.
Unlike monkeys on typewriters, scientists and engineers DO come up with useful things by just playing around with stuff all day.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I do. Different words, same old stupid people.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
When you have many tens of billions to burn (like Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft), a few hundred million for a pie-in-the-sky research project is chicken feed, especially if the patents involved may turn out to be valuable in the future.