Google and IBM Believe First Workable Quantum Computer is in Sight (ft.com)
- Reference: 0178657682
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/08/12/2048213/google-and-ibm-believe-first-workable-quantum-computer-is-in-sight
- Source link: https://www.ft.com/content/2fe4b1a3-b0d3-403a-bdd3-f033b3e5e56a
Current experimental systems contain fewer than 200 qubits. IBM encountered crosstalk interference when scaling its Condor chip to 433 qubits and subsequently adopted low-density parity-check code requiring 90% fewer qubits than Google's surface code method, though this requires longer connections between distant qubits.
Google plans to reduce component costs tenfold to achieve its $1 billion target price for a full-scale machine. Amazon Web Services quantum hardware executive Oskar Painter told FT he estimates useful quantum computers remain 15-30 years away, citing engineering challenges in scaling despite resolved fundamental physics problems.
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/06/13/218205/ibm-says-its-cracked-quantum-error-correction
They would say that, wouldn't they? (Score:3)
As Mandy Rice-Davies so candidly said so many decades ago: it was accurate then and it is accurate now.
Say What, Willis? (Score:3)
Google aims to get the cost down to $1billion for a full scale machine?
So, if these things get built, they'll be massively more expensive than main frames and they'll be rarer than hen's teeth. But, they're being hyped almost as much as AI.
What a load of crap.
open science vs corporate R&D (Score:2)
We'd be so much further along if all of the big corporate players in this space (google, IBM, microsoft, amazon, honeywell) could cooperate rather than compete. They are still outpacing us poor shmucks working federal research grants because each one of them can throw bags of money at the problem. But all of their chip designs and fab processes are completely secret. I asked one of the lead google researchers if he could even tell me the dimensions of one of their devices, and he held his fingers a few cm a
10K logical qubits? (Score:2)
So a million physical qubits means 10K or so logical qubits usable (as IBM has mentioned needing around 100 physical qubits for each error corrected logical qubit). If IBM can build a million physical qubit system by 2030, larger ones will no doubt follow. Moving to PQC and deprecating (in 2030) and disallowing (in 2035) RSA 2048 is probably the right recommendations by NIST.
So... (Score:2)
What is a Qubit worth?
What speed does it run at?
Last I checked (it's been a while since I looked up processor specs two days ago)... speed matters... faster processor (or more cores) makes worlds of difference.
So, is a five Qubit computer faster than my 24-core 3.8GHz processor?
If it's a special-usage case thing (a random number generator, or something), it's useless.
If it's used for encryption on your home computer, 'may the Gods have mercy' when the Q computer dies.
The idea of Q computing is fun, but the
Re: So... (Score:2)
The claims IBM and Google are making are completely unjustifiable. 5 years is what people say who want a government contract.
However, quantum computing can, in theory, solve certain NP complete problem in polynomial time. The concept of "speed" doesn't translate directly, because some problems that are impossible to solve within the lifetime of the universe, become solvable within a lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... but, how fast can it crunch a SETI workunit?
If it's gonna take longer than a day... is it worth it? If it's gonna be so specialized for one particular thing, is it worth it?
While the idea of quantum computing sounds like an awesome thing (closer to Star Trek), if it can't be used for anything beyond random encryption, what's the real purpose?
It'd be cool to have a 20THz computer, but if I can't even play a movie on the thing... what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
"However, quantum computing can, in theory, solve certain NP complete problem in polynomial time."
If you can solve one NP complete problem in polynomial time, you can solve them all.
Quantum computers can't solve NP complete problems in polynomial time. That is incorrect.
But it can solve some other troublesome problems that can't be solved in polynomial time with a conventional computer.
Just like fusion... (Score:2)
... it's always 20 years away.
Re: Just like fusion... (Score:2)
Fusion is actually much more solvable than QC. One might even call it solved. Literally, all you have to do is make the reactors big enough. The main problem is fusion competes with the fossil fuel industry and would disrupt power balances around the world in ways the establishment isn't willing to risk. The U.S. decided under Bush Jr to become the top oil producer. So you'll see a world war before they allow anyone to bring a production scale reactor online.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion power has been steadily getting better. The tech has greatly improved over time. For example, the triple product, a measure of how effective a fusion system was growing steadily since the 1950s, slowed down in the early 2000s when almost all fusion research money started going into ITER and is now projected to start increasing again [1]https://www.fusionenergybase.com/articles/measuring-progress-in-fusion-energy-the-triple-product [fusionenergybase.com] . Moreover, fusion research has been drastically underfunded compared t
[1] https://www.fusionenergybase.com/articles/measuring-progress-in-fusion-energy-the-triple-product
Target price: $1Bn... per year (Score:2)
This is clearly an effort to get a government contract. Of course it's "possible."
And fusion! (Score:2)
2030 gonna be hella year.
Market size (Score:2)
Somebody should ask the CEO of IBM how many he thinks they'll sell. I'm guessing maybe five...
What else would they claim to believe? (Score:3)
"Dear Investors, we sank billions in research on quantum computers, but we do not believe them ever to become workable, which is consistent with our success so far. But of course we will keep on trying, so keep investing in us! Thanks for your understanding, yours truly Google & IBM."
Would anyone expect them to publish a statement like the above, even if it was their honest opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
> "Dear Investors, we sank billions in research on quantum computers, but we do not believe them ever to become workable,
I'm not sure why they would believe that. The number of coherent qubits over time has gone steadily up. See here [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/993634/quantum-computers-by-number-of-qubits/ [statista.com] Right now, we're in what is sometimes called the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_intermediate-scale_quantum_era [wikipedia.org] which looks radically different from where we were 20 years ago. We now have in labs all over the world quantum computers with enough qubits that they would have
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/993634/quantum-computers-by-number-of-qubits/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_intermediate-scale_quantum_era