IBM Claims Quantum Computing Research Milestone (ft.com) 33
Quantum computing is starting to fulfil its promise as a crucial scientific research tool, IBM researchers claim, as the US tech group attempts to quell fears that the technology will fail to match high hopes for it. From a report: The company is due to unveil 10 projects on Monday that point to the power of quantum calculation when twinned with established techniques such as conventional supercomputing, said Dario Gil, its head of research. "For the first time now we have large enough systems, capable enough systems, that you can do useful technical and scientific work with it," Gil said in an interview. The papers presented on Monday are the work of IBM and partners including the Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Tokyo. They focus mainly on areas such as simulating quantum physics and solving problems in chemistry and materials science.
Expectations that quantum systems would by now be close to commercial uses prompted a wave of funding for the technology in recent years. But signs that business applications are further off than expected have led to warnings of a possible "quantum winter" of waning investor confidence and financial backing. IBM's announcements suggest the technology's main applications have not yet fully extended to the broad range of commercialisable computing tasks many in the field want to see. "It's going to take a while before we go from scientific value to, let's say, business value," said Jay Gambetta, IBM's vice-president of quantum. "But in my opinion the difference between research and commercialisation is getting tighter."
Expectations that quantum systems would by now be close to commercial uses prompted a wave of funding for the technology in recent years. But signs that business applications are further off than expected have led to warnings of a possible "quantum winter" of waning investor confidence and financial backing. IBM's announcements suggest the technology's main applications have not yet fully extended to the broad range of commercialisable computing tasks many in the field want to see. "It's going to take a while before we go from scientific value to, let's say, business value," said Jay Gambetta, IBM's vice-president of quantum. "But in my opinion the difference between research and commercialisation is getting tighter."
So they keep the scam alive (Score:3)
No surprise. This is what most "innovation" is today: A scam.
My guess is they add that "conventional supercomputing" to have something to show (because the QC side has not shown anything so far) and then hope nobody notices that the QC side is still not delivering anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the amount of noise and errors they read from it they need to repeat the calculation many times so it becomes statistically significant.
Maybe they should run these things inside a mine, or the in cavern where they have those neutrinos detectors!
Imagine... (Score:2)
What can a quantum computing system running AGI do... I think the sky is the limit.
Re:Imagine... (Score:4, Funny)
What can a quantum computing system running AGI do... I think the sky is the limit.
The Skynet's the limit?
Re: (Score:3)
The bottom... For the huge manatee. One day the QAGI will make their own Jesus and y'all will be pinned to the Tree of Pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the sky the limit, or is the firmament the limit? And what implementation of AGI? Look forward to reading your patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Q-star, of course. Didn't you read the memo, a breakthrough like no other.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole world is quantum meaning what exactly? Can you write out the world's quantum state?
Re: (Score:2)
Elon, is that you? Your "knowledge" of physics gives you away immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Only that QCs cannot run stuff in the regular sense at all. They can do a few specialized tricks (well, in theory, in practice they cannot do anything so far except burn money), but that is it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, but don't ruin the gold rush, it is so beautiful :)
Re: (Score:2)
You have low standards...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm too old to be picky.
Still waiting for a practical application (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article: "They focus mainly on areas such as simulating quantum physics...". This is really just complex circular logic where one comes up with a theory with a mathematical formula, builds a machine to compute the formula, and then claims that because the machine computes the formula, that is how the universe works. It's all based on faulty logic and incorrect assumptions about the nature of space, time, wave/particle duality and what entanglement really means.
Normally I wouldn't care, but when people like Michio Kaku go on 60 Minutes promoting a book claiming that whoever gets one of these to work first will rule the global economy, I get very concerned. If he's right (he's not), some sociopathic emperor could take over the world. If he wrong, billions in taxpayer dollars better spent elsewhere will be squandered.
So far, the only practical application has been employing people to conduct these experiments.
Re:Still waiting for a practical application (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. But you are far too ambitious with "practical application". A real-world demonstration of a non-tiny-toy example would be pretty revolutionary at this point. And please no QCs "simulating" QCs bullshit either.
Fully agree on "black hole for money". The thing with "simulating quantum physics" is that they are not simulating it. They do it in that quantum device that a QC is and merely observe it. The only thing QCs are good at so far is somehow having quantum effects in them. No "simulation" going on and essentially just a big fat lie.
My take is we live in a time were lying by misdirection has become a really big thing, because being honest about the actual problems and the things that would need to be done and would need to change rather urgently and drastically is just too much for most people. But this illusion of "great things to come" sells really well.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article: "They focus mainly on areas such as simulating quantum physics...". This is really just complex circular logic where one comes up with a theory with a mathematical formula, builds a machine to compute the formula, and then claims that because the machine computes the formula, that is how the universe works. It's all based on faulty logic and incorrect assumptions about the nature of space, time, wave/particle duality and what entanglement really means.
What matters is real world usefulness not whether or nor you can explain how the universe works. Current problem for quantum computers is capabilities of present day hardware and software. Most problems can be hacked with cheap GPU clusters combined with good enough approximation algorithms limiting real world value of quantum at present despite advances.
Normally I wouldn't care, but when people like Michio Kaku go on 60 Minutes promoting a book claiming that whoever gets one of these to work first will rule the global economy, I get very concerned. If he's right (he's not), some sociopathic emperor could take over the world.
If you had one that lived up to the hype of the sort that could break RSA this would certainly be a pretty big deal. While it would be a significant adv
Re: (Score:3)
What matters is real world usefulness not whether or nor you can explain how the universe works. Current problem for quantum computers is capabilities of present day hardware and software. Most problems can be hacked with cheap GPU clusters combined with good enough approximation algorithms limiting real world value of quantum at present despite advances.
Actually, no. GCs cannot replace conventional computers. They cannot realistically do most things conventional computers can do. The only reason for QCs is that they can, maybe, computer some very specific mathematical problems that are out of reach of conventional computers, no matter how much hardware you throw at it. Problem is, you need really large GC hardware to reach any useful problem sizes and you need to keep it completely entangled for a long, complex calculation. That is not going to be possible
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. GCs cannot replace conventional computers. They cannot realistically do most things conventional computers can do.
I'm unsure how you were able to read my statements as suggesting quantum computers would replace classical computers. This was neither stated nor intended.
What I did say was "My personal view like analog computers, quantum computers will eventually prove useful providing value in certain domains. "
The only reason for QCs is that they can, maybe, computer some very specific mathematical problems that are out of reach of conventional computers, no matter how much hardware you throw at it.
I disagree with this perspective. I believe simply lowering the cost of computation vs a competing classical machine is by itself a good enough reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. GCs cannot replace conventional computers. They cannot realistically do most things conventional computers can do.
I'm unsure how you were able to read my statements as suggesting quantum computers would replace classical computers.
Simple: You claimed conventional computers with GPU clusters could solve problems and that made QCs unneeded because of good enough approximations. That is very much not the case unless you believe QCs could replace conventional computers for some applications. They cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: You claimed conventional computers with GPU clusters could solve problems and that made QCs unneeded because of good enough approximations.
I said "Most problems can be hacked with cheap GPU clusters combined with good enough approximation algorithms limiting real world value of quantum at present despite advances."
Here "Most problems" are the problems quantum computers would be expected to solve as the statement is made within the context of quantum computers.
I didn't claim quantum computers were unneeded. What I said is "limiting real world value of quantum at present despite advances" this means at present the cost and performance of class
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: You claimed conventional computers with GPU clusters could solve problems and that made QCs unneeded because of good enough approximations.
I said "Most problems can be hacked with cheap GPU clusters combined with good enough approximation algorithms limiting real world value of quantum at present despite advances."
Here "Most problems" are the problems quantum computers would be expected to solve as the statement is made within the context of quantum computers.
Yes. And that is not actually possible. Conventional computers _cannot_ solve the problems you would use actually working QCs of some real size for, no matter how much hardware or approximation you throw at the problem. That is the whole reason for all this QC research.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And that is not actually possible. Conventional computers _cannot_ solve the problems you would use actually working QCs of some real size for
There is no reason whatsoever to impose artificial constraints limiting quantum computers to only problems classical computers are never reasonably able to solve themselves.
At this point there is no publicly known means of enabling exponential scaling. Adding logical qubits makes maintaining coherence increasingly untenable and error correction requires fanouts of supporting circuitry that also does not allow for exponential scaling. The extent to which these systems can scale in the real world remains t
Re: (Score:2)
I do not understand the antagonism for quantum computing on slashdot! It's a fascinating meeting between science, engineering, mathematics, and even has security implications.
Quantum mechanics itself is really a useful working theory and admittedly not a true complete reflection of reality.
Quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of science. Quantum computing is driven by entanglement, which has been demonstrated repeatedly. Sure, we're missing a theory of quantum gravity, but quantum computing does not rely on that.
At this point quantum computing is an engineering problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a couple major sticking points that seem to lead to controversy and it certainly isn't just slashdot. The word "quantum" has been applied to a fairly wide variety of theories. Its original valid use was to describe the fact that electrons that surround a nucleus have discrete energy levels. This is what Einstein described in his Nobel winning explanation of the photoelectric effect. Without a doubt, this aspect of quantum m
Commerical Application (Score:3)
I'll be more impressed... (Score:2)
I'll be more impressed when they claim a kilometerstone.
IBM's Quantum is "dirty" (Score:1)
The usual quarter PR update (Score:2)