Slashdot Mirror
Google Has Enlisted NASA To Help it Prove Quantum Supremacy Within Months (technologyreview.com)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Quantum Supremacy" sounds like the name of a song off a Muse album.
Or a film, where James Bond fights Jason Bourne.
"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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
There are public-key encryption methods thought to be resistant to quantum computing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography
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});