Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Has Enlisted NASA To Help it Prove Quantum Supremacy Within Months (technologyreview.com)

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

Google wants NASA to help it prove quantum supremacy within a matter of months, MIT Technology Review reported Monday, citing the Space Act Agreement. From the report: Quantum supremacy is the idea, so far undemonstrated, that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer will be able to complete certain mathematical calculations that classical supercomputers cannot. Proving it would be a big deal because it could kick-start a market for devices that might one day crack previously unbreakable codes, boost AI, improve weather forecasts, or model molecular interactions and financial systems in exquisite detail. The agreement, signed in July, calls on NASA to "analyze results from quantum circuits run on Google quantum processors, and ... provide comparisons with classical simulation to both support Google in validating its hardware and establish a baseline for quantum supremacy." Google confirmed to MIT Technology Review that the agreement covered its latest 72-qubit quantum chip, called Bristlecone. Where classical computers store information in binary bits that definitely represent either 1 or 0, quantum computers use qubits that exist in an undefined state between 1 and 0. For some problems, using qubits should quickly provide solutions that could take classical computers much longer to compute.

51 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Break the internet by harrkev · · Score: 1

    So, if they get this computer that can break encryption, people will suddenly know that the encryption used on the Internet is completely broken, and suddenly not trust it. They are building the shovel that will dig their own grave.

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    1. Re:Break the internet by Megol · · Score: 1

      This will not break anything in actual use.

    2. Re:Break the internet by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Much encryption is based on old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers. So obviously, plenty of people don't really care much about security.

      For those that do care, there is post-quantum cryptography based on algorithms believed to be resistant to quantum cryptanalysis.

    3. Re:Break the internet by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      No one is particularly worried. First, they would need a quantum computer with vastly more qubits, and no one is quite sure when that will happen. Next it also requires that no one implements a form of encryption that quantum computers are just as useless against as classical computers, and researchers are already working on those.

      Quantum computing isn’t a magical silver bullet that solves any and all problems instantly through some kind of quantum voodoo. There are plenty of problems where you’re better off with a classical computer anyways. Quantum computers have potential in many domains, but there’s just as much misinformation about them as well.

    4. Re:Break the internet by gweihir · · Score: 1

      My 30 year old pocket calculator can factor numbers up to 70 bit. Color me unimpressed even if this thing works...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Break the internet by harrkev · · Score: 1

      This will not break anything in actual use.

      Well, if this thing can quickly factor a very large number, then RSA is essentially broken (if you can get your hands on one).

      The real problem is that ALL asymmetric crypto uses a "trapdoor" function. This means that going from input to output is easy. Going from output back to input is very hard. If quantum computers can efficiently work backwards on the trapdoor functions, then public-key crypto is dead.

      The problem is that I have not heard of any sort of replacement. There are studies of quantum cryptography, but that involves sending entangled particles -- not the sort of thing that your typical router can handle. I have not heard of any work on crypto algorithms that can survive a quantum computer.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    6. Re:Break the internet by harrkev · · Score: 1

      There are only two commonly-used trapdoor functions: factoring very large prime number, or calculating elliptic curves. Obviously, the strength of the crypto depends on the key sizes. Factoring an 8-bit number can be done with pencil and paper. Factoring a 4,096 bit number takes quite a bit longer. It is wrong to say that that "old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers." If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies that even if you had 10,000 computers, it would still take a year.

      Modern ECC crypto is still considered VERY secure against conventional computers.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    7. Re:Break the internet by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      "Next it also requires that no one implements a form of encryption that quantum computers are just as useless against as classical computers, and researchers are already working on those."

      Yes and No? Yes, future communications and encrypted archives using quantum computing invulnerable codes may be safe in the presence of quantum computers that are more than toys.

      But No, archived existing encrypted data and communications might well become readable. That could be ... ahem ... embarrassing for some folks.

      OTOH, I'll believe in serious quantum computers when I see one working.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    8. Re:Break the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're against quantum supremacists?

    9. Re:Break the internet by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      The encryption breaking applications are wildly overstated. I've talked to scientists from both Rigetti, DWave who don't think Shor's algorithm will ever be practically useful. If it is, it's a long way away. An implementation to break 256-bit keys would require thousands of qubits. Google has 72, and it gets harder and harder to add more.

      If you're worried about it, SSH will be happy to create a public keypair for you based on elliptic curves that is even more resistant to quantum computers than is RSA.

    10. Re:Break the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not the real problem. The real problem is all the companies and governments that have slurped up every bit to ever cross the Internet. The data is there, forever, and can be broken whenever it's easy. Think of all the private secret corporate, government, and personal information that is sitting waiting to be cracked open. Bank accounts, etc... Yikes.

    11. Re:Break the internet by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      So, if they get this computer that can break encryption, people will suddenly know that the encryption used on the Internet is completely broken, and suddenly not trust it. They are building the shovel that will dig their own grave.

      Well, at 72 qubits, they're not going to be cracking much that isn't already cracked already using classical computers.

      It's estimated for the likes of RSA and ECC to fall, you're going to need a machine with at least as many qubits as the key size, and right now, each added qubit adds exponential complexity to the system - the coherence time shortens significantly with added qubits (how long they can remain in superposition to do your calculation before spontaneously collapsing). And you need long coherence times because you need to set up the initial system state and reading/writing the qubits takes a bit of time.

      At least in the near future, all your secrets are still safe

    12. Re:Break the internet by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

      After X tries, password lockout kicks in.

      Every time something gets encrypted, there's a new key for the next one, like what your chip credit card does.

      Don't talk to systems you don't trust and don't assume trust for the ones you talk to.

      There are numerous methods of encrypting data that are considered quantum safe.

      There are definitely concerns about something magical that can break cryptography, but most risks can easily or already are mitigated.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    13. Re:Break the internet by harrkev · · Score: 1

      After X tries, password lockout kicks in.

      Not relevant. If you have somebody's public key, a large enough quantum computer can allow you to calculate the private key. This is bad. Yes, this machine won't be large enough, but they might get there in a few years.

      There are numerous methods of encrypting data that are considered quantum safe.

      How many of them are in common usage? Most everything uses AES for actual data, but the AES key exchange depends on RSA or ECC. The only method of making those quantum-safe involve just increasing the key size to be larger than that of the largest quantum computer -- that is going to be quite a race.

      It takes MANY YEARS of study before people become convinced that an algorithm is actually sound. New "secure" algorithms are proposed, and somebody breaks it. A patch is applied, and repeat. Gaining trust takes years.

      So, quantum computers suddenly come on the market and new algorithms are implemented. Those are found to be insecure, so the the standards have to change again. Lather, rinse, repeat. That will be a very bad time for the industry.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    14. Re:Break the internet by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I remember years ago there was hype about trinary and analog computers, because 'mathematically' they could scale much bigger or solve problems instantly without having to approximate values in digital. It never panned out. I suspect quantum computing is going to go the same way, under ideal circumstances better but always lagging behind conventional solutions when actually built.

    15. Re:Break the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not the real problem. The real problem is all the companies and governments that have slurped up every bit to ever cross the Internet. The data is there, forever, and can be broken whenever it's easy. Think of all the private secret corporate, government, and personal information that is sitting waiting to be cracked open. Bank accounts, etc... Yikes.

      A quantum computer offering code breaking level of capability would quickly become as transformative to the world as pocket sized fusion reactors or room temperature superconductors. It would provide the means for rapid transformation across an array of domains biology, chemistry, material science, design automation... the very least dangerous and least interesting thing QC could possibly be used for assuming the technology is hoarded and not generally available or known to exist is extraction of secrets from old data.

    16. Re: Break the internet by As_I_Please · · Score: 2

      There are public-key encryption methods thought to be resistant to quantum computing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography

    17. Re:Break the internet by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I think quantum computing will be incredibly useful for many things. It's a fundamentally new method of computing. Those things are going to be more interesting than reading people's mail. Quantum simulation for materials and drug design, solid state physics discovery, maybe new superconductors. Things like that.

    18. Re:Break the internet by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies that even if you had 10,000 computers, it would still take a year.

      Alternatively, if you had a 100,000 node bot network, it would take on the order of a month. In other words, it's good casual security, but terrible security if you're a dedicated target.

    19. Re:Break the internet by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      >Not relevant. If you have somebody's public key, a large enough quantum computer
      Explain how a quantum computer would be used to break into my Gmail account

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    20. Re: Break the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Factoring the public key of a CA to make a private key, make certificate for gmail.com with it, use for mitm.

    21. Re:Break the internet by Megol · · Score: 1

      That's the thing - this machine will not factor very large numbers. We already know that a theoretical quantum computer can crack RSA quickly using Shor's algorithm but a practical quantum computer would require a lot more qubits, thousands of them, with each being close to a theoretical perfect qubit which means each logical qubit is comprised of several physical qubits for error correction.
      So when we start having true quantum computers with over 10k qubits some people should change to something more secure.

    22. Re:Break the internet by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The worry is that governments are collecting vast amounts of information and storing it. If they get a quantum computer one day and we all switch to quantum resistant crypto (a big ask, considering how long it's taken to deprecate broken stuff in the past, and given than updates for a lot of old systems will never come) they still have a lot of historical data to work with.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Break the internet by jythie · · Score: 1

      Thing is, it is unknown if actual quantum computers will ever been able to outperform simulations of quantum computers. Analog computers were also a fundamentally different way of computing, but they never caught up.

    24. Re:Break the internet by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's very strong theoretical evidence for quantum supremacy, and I believe it's been practically demonstrated for quantum simulation. Analog computing is also very useful in the same way. It's not used much for reading people's mail, but it is used extensively in some areas, particularly simulation.

  2. How things change by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you told me this 10 years ago, I'd only want Google to be the ones to do this.

    Now, one of the companies I trust the least on the planet is doing it, not a good sign.

    1. Re:How things change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is there suddenly so much hatred for Google?

      Nothing sudden about it. It's something that has been building over many years in response to specific articulable behavior.

      I think they're still delivering great products for the price of not very intrusive ads.

      Ads are irrelevant. People don't want others following them around and keeping track of everything they do. It's creepy and gross and all these fuckers think of they hide it so people don't see what's happening they can get away with it.

      I use their search and browser all the time,

      Chrome calls home and there is no way to stop it. Every website on the Internet has tracking bugs installed which enable Google to follow you around everywhere you go even if you never use Google they always know where you go and what you do. Totally gross and disgusting behavior.

      not to mention my Android phone.

      Android as in Google play store is a cesspool of malware. In fact Google play services which includes Google play store is itself malware. Android permission system is intentionally designed to favor app developers at the expense of interests of end users offering only take it or leave it demands and ever decreasing levels of granularity in the name of "ease of use".

      It's perfectly understandable how end users can use Android and be happy with it not knowing what's happening. The technology after all is intentionally designed this way to be out of sight of normal people. No app ever complains about failure to connect to "telemetry" servers or failure to secretly upload your contact list to god knows who... it just does it in the background where you can't see and always fails silently because the last thing they want is for the user to find out.

      Is it because certain groups turned on them?

      It certainly doesn't help they are now censoring speech /w systematic purging of Alex Jones and crew but the issue isn't about "certain groups" it's directly about Google's behavior. It's about a company that is too big and too willing to leverage it's power to do whatever it feels like. Specific examples:

      They are currently hard at work replacing Internet stacks with their own technology for self serving reasons. TCP and TLS.... replaced with QUIC now under total application control. Oh look surprise Google went and tweaked the CUBIC algorithm to be TWICE as aggressive as normal TCP sessions to give themselves an edge and make more money BECAUSE THEY CAN.. all that lesser non-Google traffic throttling itself doesn't make Google any money.

      They are busy trying to get everyone to host web site on Google (AMP) and use technology Google wants you to use or else.

  3. NASA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why NASA? What do they have to do with Quantum Mechanics?

    1. Re:NASA? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      NASA is desperate for relevancy....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:NASA? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Why NASA?

      Because NASA is seen by many as an unbiased 3rd party, with the technical expertise to do the analysis.

      If NASA says Google's Q-computer works, that is more credible than if Google says it works.

      There is a scramble for talent in quantum computing, and if Google is seen as the leader, it makes it easier for them to recruit promising scientists who can extend their lead. Like many other tech fields, QC could be a winner-takes-most market.

    3. Re:NASA? by daknapp · · Score: 1

      NIST would be more appropriate, methinks.

    4. Re:NASA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're exploring some claims that were made instead of assuming they know and understand everything - I'd call that real science. It only got press because it isn't accepted science, and if it works, because we don't have an understanding of the mechanism.

    5. Re:NASA? by Megol · · Score: 1

      So you are unscientific. You take the dogma and rituals as true instead of examining possible flaws in our understanding of the universe, you dismiss even the slightest possibility of the holy laws not being perfect and dismiss everyone else as heretics.

      And then there's the dismissal of a group because you dislike one of its members...

    6. Re:NASA? by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Multiple groups of scientists around the globe have already debunked the EM-drives "thrust" as merely being an interaction of the electrical lines powering the "drive" through the magnetic field of the earth. It was embarrassing NASA did not notice this obvious source.

  4. No more supremacists! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    First it was white supremacists, spouting bullshit about difference between races.

    Now if that was not bad enough, you have these damned Quantum supremacists exclaiming that only quarks should be allowed to vote or exist in cafeterias or what have you!!

    No more I say, shame on Google for dividing our nation at a time like this into a super-imposed half that agrees with Quantum theory, and another half that more or may not also agree with Quantum theory. but they can't really tell until they cut us all open with a saw. Hell of a platform there Google.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  5. DO NOT WANT by nwaack · · Score: 1

    It would take about 45 seconds for Google to severely abuse this technology once they had it. Hopefully NASA tells them to go pound sand.

  6. It will also cure acne by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Well, at least half of the time.

    The other time, the acne becomes a cat.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  7. Black Holes and Revelation by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    "Quantum Supremacy" sounds like the name of a song off a Muse album.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Black Holes and Revelation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      "Quantum Supremacy" sounds like the name of a song off a Muse album.

      Or a film, where James Bond fights Jason Bourne.

    2. Re:Black Holes and Revelation by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Or a film, where James Bond fights Jason Bourne.

      That works too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Black Holes and Revelation by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Try Machinae Supremacy for a proper geek band.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:Black Holes and Revelation by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Try Machinae Supremacy for a proper geek band.

      Good name.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Black Holes and Revelation by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Try Machinae Supremacy for a proper geek band.

      They're not bad. Pretty good, in fact. I just saw "Bohemian Rhapsody", the Freddie Mercury biopic, and was lamenting the fact that so precious few new groups are trying to step up to the Queen mantle. I give Muse a lot of credit for trying and this band you just turned me on to is also making a play for that territory.

      There's something about that symphonic heavy rock filled with hysterical operatic vocals that gets my blood going. It's not my favorite type of music, but it's all I want to hear when I play video games (except for Fallout games, when I want to hear Ink Spots and weird old stuff). When I play racing sims, I always turn down the game's music and blast a carefully-curated playlist I call, "NFS ULTIMATE". I use headphones, of course, because my wife would think I was completely insane, a grown man banging his head while driving a Lamborghini Huracán through billboards and shit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. EMDrive by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can get the same NASA people that validated that the EMDrive worked.

    1. Re:EMDrive by ffkom · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought, too. Really, that completely destroyed their credibility for such jobs. Google probably knows where to best get positive results for their hype.

  9. Translation-Re:How quantum computers... by MrTester · · Score: 2

    When I put this through Googles translation I got the following:
    ------------
    Most people, including 99% of those here (Including me), haven't a clue how current 'quantum' computers work.

    I've read some stuff about it and its obviously (reference previous parenthetical statement) a hoax.
    <lots of words>
    I dont like Google and Americans are stupid.

    -Anon

    1. Re:Translation-Re:How quantum computers... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Actually his explanation is 100% correct. Quantum computing is only useful for a vanishgly small set of problems. The fact that they threw in "AI" in there shows it is a hoax. How would quantum computers "help AI"?

    2. Re:Translation-Re:How quantum computers... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Maybe Googlers are adherents to the quantum brain hypothesis?
      Most likely they like including an extra buzzword whenever possible.

  10. Wake me when they get to 2048 qubits by Myria · · Score: 1

    The original Xbox and I have some unfinished business from 17 years ago.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  11. Loss of trust in Google happened in stages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is there suddenly so much hatred for Google?

    It didn't happen suddenly. It evolved gradually, starting with the first glimmers of doubt when they began to hide the Do No Evil sign, gaining momentum when the real purpose of Chrome, Android and Google services became clear, raising worldwide concern when Eric Schmidt repudiated privacy of users (while protecting his own), exploding when mass surveillance by social networking giants hit the headlines, and finally going stratospheric when privacy abuse triggered European investigations of compliance with Data Protection laws. We're now left in a state of play where all trust in Google (and Facebook and others) has completely vanished, and of those Google is by far the most dangerous as it has its hooks into people from so many angles.

    There are very few people unaware of this situation now ---- it's no longer just the province of techies and nerds. Google relies on those who are still oblivious of all this, and those who are aware of it but can't see a way out from Google's leeching grasp, for their continued fortune. It will get still worse for them as more solutions for guarding one's privacy emerge.

  12. Re:They both can access a D-Wave system by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

    Because D-Wave isn't a universal quantum computer. It only solves annealing problems, and not even all of those.

    You can't, for example, run Shor's algorithm on it.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});