7 ms·

Announcing the D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer

93 points by johlo 11y ago

w0000t 11y ago
http://www.dwavesys.com/press-releases/d-wave-systems-breaks-1000-qubit-quantum-computing-barrier http://www.dwavesys.com/press-releases/d-wave-systems-breaks... This announcement, claims: Every additional qubit doubles the search space of the processor. At 1000 qubits, the new processor considers 2^1000 possibilities simultaneously, a search space which dwarfs the 2^512 possibilities available to the 512-qubit D-Wave Two. Since we still aren't able to factor any large numbers with it, those 2^1000 bits don't really work like they say they do. I'm guessing there are many caveats behind their description. I would appreciate any explanation from an expert.
- eggie 11y ago
  I also would love to hear someone who works in the space explain this.
  - lisper 11y ago
    The paper is pretty accessible: http://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/ttt_arxiv_v1.pdf http://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/ttt_arxiv_v1.pdf The money quote: "a D-Wave computation is both quantum and analog, with nothing resembling a discrete instruction or basic operation that can be counted" So it's not really a quantum computer at all in the sense that the term is usually understood nowadays. It's an analog computer. And if you believe Scott Aaronson (and I do) it's a classical analog computer.
- daivd 11y ago
  It is not a conventional quantum computer. You cannot use it to factor numbers. You use it to find approximate solutions to optimization problems.
  - thomasrossi 11y ago
    Well, I will tell one relevant problem that can be annihilated with this: ads placement. Google advertisement adwords is all based on a auction mechanism at the end of which you have to find the best allocation of ads to bidders (to slots) - which has an evident combinatorial nature, to find optimum you should try all possibile combinations. This is typically solved in approximated ways. It may not be a "conventional quantum computer" but it's pretty usefull anyway:) I can't wait to toy with one..
  - Florin_Andrei 11y ago
    So in a way it's similar to the analog computers that were around for decades (or, really, for millennia). It's just smaller and faster than most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
- ericmarcos 11y ago
  The D-Wave computer is called a quantum computer because it uses some quantum properties when running a simulated annealing kind of algorithm (which is a well known classical algorithm so find sub-obtimal solutions to combinatorial problems, aka NP-Complete problems). But it is NOT a universal quantum computer in which one could run Shor's or Groover algorithms. In order to do that, you need to keep a quantum system with entangled qubits, something that is extremely difficult to achieve due to quantum decoherence, etc. So, saying that "the new processor considers 2^1000 possibilities simultaneously" is basically a ton of bullsh. Even a real quantum computer cannot do that effectively. Nevertheless, I think D-Wave is doing a great work and is definitely taking steps towards a real QC.
- murbard2 11y ago
  The statement is also a common fallacy that Scott Aaronson has addressed many times. While some exponential speedups are possible, there are no indications that they are possible in general for problems in NP, and even if they were, we know that they would have to use the structure of the problem and not merrely "consider possibilities simulatenously"
arvinjoar 11y ago
Cue blog post by Scott Aaronson, will be interesting to hear his take on this.
- acqq 11y ago
  Just read older discussions, up to now they didn't even prove that they are faster than "conventional" computing. Is this now going to be faster?
  - wsha 11y ago
    According to Aaronson and others, the D-Wave architecture has not demonstrated any behavior that can't be explained using classical physics, so just making the device bigger shouldn't change it into a quantum device with a quantum speed up. That said -- who knows, maybe the architecture is different enough from everything else that it could be a better classical annealer than standard processors (though it's only ~1000 bits, so it probably can't outperform any conventional processor sold today with billions of bits).
    - Strilanc 11y ago
      > According to Aaronson and others, the D-Wave architecture has not demonstrated any behavior that can't be explained using classical physics That's not Scott's definitive opinion anymore. For example, from [1]: > Now, I’d say, D-Wave finally has cleared the evidence-for-entanglement bar—and, while they’re not the first to do so with superconducting qubits, they’re certainly the first to do so with so many superconducting qubits. [caveats about D-wave over-hyping and not having a demonstrated speedup yet] 1: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400
      - acqq 11y ago
        Yes, but no demonstrated speedup problem still remains.
taylodl 11y ago
What language is used to program for this processor? I wouldn't think you'd take the same approach programming a quantum computer as you would a conventional computer. Is there a quantum computer simulator? What does the development workflow look like? How do you debug? Boy I have a lot of questions!
- dan-bell 11y ago
  A friend of mine has been leaning the basics with this: http://qcplayground.withgoogle.com/#/home http://qcplayground.withgoogle.com/#/home
- manis404 11y ago
  Java of course! It is the most portable language of the planet.
- pakled_engineer 11y ago
  Common Lisp http://www.dwavesys.com/careers/senior-software-developer http://www.dwavesys.com/careers/senior-software-developer
  - hodwik 11y ago
    That's not to program for D-wave. They just need software developers in-house for their tooling.
- hodwik 11y ago
  >What language is used to program for this processor? Dwave doesn't work that way. You can think of it like an ASIC that can only do a single clock cycle as you bring it into a quantum state. The only way to prepare for this stuff is by learning the proposed quantum algorithm maths.
- LASR 11y ago
  There is one button - "on". There is no program. The program is baked into the machine itself. The input data is carefully prepared and fed into the system. The machine then runs and spits out the output. That's it. You should think of it more as a piece of lab equipment rather than a computer.
sshb 11y ago
It would be nice to have these computers available in public clouds. It is not trivial though.
- minthd 11y ago
  At least, getting access to some pretty programmed algorithm running on a it on a cloud should be easy enough to do.
khed 11y ago
There was a paper in 2008 claiming that adiabatic quantum computers could factor with a quantum speed up. http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1935 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1935
- krastanov 11y ago
  Adiabatic quantum computers are polynomially equivalent to what is usually referred as quantum computer so no surprise there. Dwave is neither, nor is it faster than classical computers. At best it is somewhat interesting from an engineering point of view.
Beltiras 11y ago
I think the most significant gain made here is not speed but power consumption. On http://www.dwavesys.com/d-wave-two-system http://www.dwavesys.com/d-wave-two-system they compare a supercomputer using almost 2 gW while 2X uses 27 kW when you factor in "the fridge". I don't know if that's an apples-2-apples comparison, hoping the supercomputer is set up to solve comparable problems. If I am understanding this properly they have a great product on their hands and a great deal of units to make.
- sbierwagen 11y ago
  On http://www.dwavesys.com/d-wave-two-system they compare a supercomputer using almost 2 gW while 2X uses 27 kW when you factor in "the fridge". Megawatts, not gigawatts. A gigawatt is a thousand times larger than a megawatt, and a million times larger than a kilowatt. A two gigawatt computer would consume the entire output of a large coal power station, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_City_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_City_Generating_Station
  - Beltiras 11y ago
    Ouch, mybad there, brainfart (and can't edit anymore :( )
mechagodzilla 11y ago
These results seem a bit misleading - they're comparing their multi-million dollar system to a classical optimizer running single-threaded on a 3-year old processor (Intel Xeon E5-2670), and then saying 'look how much faster we are than a classical optimizer!' How does this compare to a giant cluster of new Xeons with faster interconnects?
- nwah1 11y ago
  Not to mention the continual energy requirements of cooling a system to near absolute zero, in addition to the fixed cost of the system. Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense.
  - agsamek 11y ago
    > Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense I don't think so. I haven't heard of any and would like to learn about even one that was validated by any of: algorithms experts or real life.
    - nwah1 11y ago
      My understanding is that quantum computers are very good at simulating quantum physics. Which, granted, probably doesn't have many commercial applications.
      - murbard2 11y ago
        Designing better transistors, discovering new drugs...
      - gjm11 11y ago
        "Normal" quantum computers are good at simulating quantum physics, or would be if we could build big enough ones. D-Wave's adiabatic allegedly-quantum computer is not, so far as anyone knows. The only thing (so far as I am aware) that anyone knows how to do with D-Wave's machine is to use it to find approximate solutions to certain optimization problems. The last I heard, it did so slower than a standard-issue laptop running (non-quantum!) software designed to find approximate solutions to the same optimization problem that D-Wave's underlying hardware models. That was before the release of the latest D-Wave machine. I don't think it was ever clear whether D-Wave's device scales better than a conventional computer when trying to solve larger problems. Perhaps it does, in which case their new $10M machine may outperform commodity laptops. [EDITED to add: see http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/ http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-w... and the other pages linked therefrom for some comparisons between D-Wave's reported performance and that of some heuristic optimization software running on a commodity laptop. Disclosure: the author is a friend of mine.]
eternalban 11y ago
Wake me up when we have quantuum networking gear and magical perfect locality :)
logicallee 11y ago
Didn't we just read about the NSA moving to quantum resistant algorithms a few days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064226 - NSA announces plans for transitioning to quantum resistant algorithms also I found this from a few hours ago: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/08/nsa-preps-quantum-resistant-algorithms-to-head-off-crypto-apocolypse/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/08/nsa-preps-quantum-re...

93 points by johlo 11y ago

http://www.dwavesys.com/press-releases/d-wave-systems-breaks-1000-qubit-quantum-computing-barrier http://www.dwavesys.com/press-releases/d-wave-systems-breaks... This announcement, claims: Every additional qubit doubles the search space of the processor. At 1000 qubits, the new processor considers 2^1000 possibilities simultaneously, a search space which dwarfs the 2^512 possibilities available to the 512-qubit D-Wave Two. Since we still aren't able to factor any large numbers with it, those 2^1000 bits don't really work like they say they do. I'm guessing there are many caveats behind their description. I would appreciate any explanation from an expert.

eggie 11y ago
I also would love to hear someone who works in the space explain this.
- lisper 11y ago
  The paper is pretty accessible: http://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/ttt_arxiv_v1.pdf http://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/ttt_arxiv_v1.pdf The money quote: "a D-Wave computation is both quantum and analog, with nothing resembling a discrete instruction or basic operation that can be counted" So it's not really a quantum computer at all in the sense that the term is usually understood nowadays. It's an analog computer. And if you believe Scott Aaronson (and I do) it's a classical analog computer.
daivd 11y ago
It is not a conventional quantum computer. You cannot use it to factor numbers. You use it to find approximate solutions to optimization problems.
- thomasrossi 11y ago
  Well, I will tell one relevant problem that can be annihilated with this: ads placement. Google advertisement adwords is all based on a auction mechanism at the end of which you have to find the best allocation of ads to bidders (to slots) - which has an evident combinatorial nature, to find optimum you should try all possibile combinations. This is typically solved in approximated ways. It may not be a "conventional quantum computer" but it's pretty usefull anyway:) I can't wait to toy with one..
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  So in a way it's similar to the analog computers that were around for decades (or, really, for millennia). It's just smaller and faster than most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
ericmarcos 11y ago
The D-Wave computer is called a quantum computer because it uses some quantum properties when running a simulated annealing kind of algorithm (which is a well known classical algorithm so find sub-obtimal solutions to combinatorial problems, aka NP-Complete problems). But it is NOT a universal quantum computer in which one could run Shor's or Groover algorithms. In order to do that, you need to keep a quantum system with entangled qubits, something that is extremely difficult to achieve due to quantum decoherence, etc. So, saying that "the new processor considers 2^1000 possibilities simultaneously" is basically a ton of bullsh. Even a real quantum computer cannot do that effectively. Nevertheless, I think D-Wave is doing a great work and is definitely taking steps towards a real QC.
murbard2 11y ago
The statement is also a common fallacy that Scott Aaronson has addressed many times. While some exponential speedups are possible, there are no indications that they are possible in general for problems in NP, and even if they were, we know that they would have to use the structure of the problem and not merrely "consider possibilities simulatenously"

arvinjoar 11y ago

Cue blog post by Scott Aaronson, will be interesting to hear his take on this.

acqq 11y ago
Just read older discussions, up to now they didn't even prove that they are faster than "conventional" computing. Is this now going to be faster?
- wsha 11y ago
  According to Aaronson and others, the D-Wave architecture has not demonstrated any behavior that can't be explained using classical physics, so just making the device bigger shouldn't change it into a quantum device with a quantum speed up. That said -- who knows, maybe the architecture is different enough from everything else that it could be a better classical annealer than standard processors (though it's only ~1000 bits, so it probably can't outperform any conventional processor sold today with billions of bits).
  - Strilanc 11y ago
    > According to Aaronson and others, the D-Wave architecture has not demonstrated any behavior that can't be explained using classical physics That's not Scott's definitive opinion anymore. For example, from [1]: > Now, I’d say, D-Wave finally has cleared the evidence-for-entanglement bar—and, while they’re not the first to do so with superconducting qubits, they’re certainly the first to do so with so many superconducting qubits. [caveats about D-wave over-hyping and not having a demonstrated speedup yet] 1: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400
    - acqq 11y ago
      Yes, but no demonstrated speedup problem still remains.

taylodl 11y ago

What language is used to program for this processor? I wouldn't think you'd take the same approach programming a quantum computer as you would a conventional computer. Is there a quantum computer simulator? What does the development workflow look like? How do you debug? Boy I have a lot of questions!

dan-bell 11y ago
A friend of mine has been leaning the basics with this: http://qcplayground.withgoogle.com/#/home http://qcplayground.withgoogle.com/#/home
manis404 11y ago
Java of course! It is the most portable language of the planet.
pakled_engineer 11y ago
Common Lisp http://www.dwavesys.com/careers/senior-software-developer http://www.dwavesys.com/careers/senior-software-developer
- hodwik 11y ago
  That's not to program for D-wave. They just need software developers in-house for their tooling.
hodwik 11y ago
>What language is used to program for this processor? Dwave doesn't work that way. You can think of it like an ASIC that can only do a single clock cycle as you bring it into a quantum state. The only way to prepare for this stuff is by learning the proposed quantum algorithm maths.
LASR 11y ago
There is one button - "on". There is no program. The program is baked into the machine itself. The input data is carefully prepared and fed into the system. The machine then runs and spits out the output. That's it. You should think of it more as a piece of lab equipment rather than a computer.

sshb 11y ago

It would be nice to have these computers available in public clouds. It is not trivial though.

minthd 11y ago
At least, getting access to some pretty programmed algorithm running on a it on a cloud should be easy enough to do.

khed 11y ago

There was a paper in 2008 claiming that adiabatic quantum computers could factor with a quantum speed up. http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1935 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1935

krastanov 11y ago
Adiabatic quantum computers are polynomially equivalent to what is usually referred as quantum computer so no surprise there. Dwave is neither, nor is it faster than classical computers. At best it is somewhat interesting from an engineering point of view.

Beltiras 11y ago

I think the most significant gain made here is not speed but power consumption. On http://www.dwavesys.com/d-wave-two-system http://www.dwavesys.com/d-wave-two-system they compare a supercomputer using almost 2 gW while 2X uses 27 kW when you factor in "the fridge". I don't know if that's an apples-2-apples comparison, hoping the supercomputer is set up to solve comparable problems. If I am understanding this properly they have a great product on their hands and a great deal of units to make.

sbierwagen 11y ago
On http://www.dwavesys.com/d-wave-two-system they compare a supercomputer using almost 2 gW while 2X uses 27 kW when you factor in "the fridge". Megawatts, not gigawatts. A gigawatt is a thousand times larger than a megawatt, and a million times larger than a kilowatt. A two gigawatt computer would consume the entire output of a large coal power station, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_City_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_City_Generating_Station
- Beltiras 11y ago
  Ouch, mybad there, brainfart (and can't edit anymore :( )

mechagodzilla 11y ago

These results seem a bit misleading - they're comparing their multi-million dollar system to a classical optimizer running single-threaded on a 3-year old processor (Intel Xeon E5-2670), and then saying 'look how much faster we are than a classical optimizer!' How does this compare to a giant cluster of new Xeons with faster interconnects?

nwah1 11y ago
Not to mention the continual energy requirements of cooling a system to near absolute zero, in addition to the fixed cost of the system. Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense.
- agsamek 11y ago
  > Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense I don't think so. I haven't heard of any and would like to learn about even one that was validated by any of: algorithms experts or real life.
  - nwah1 11y ago
    My understanding is that quantum computers are very good at simulating quantum physics. Which, granted, probably doesn't have many commercial applications.
    - murbard2 11y ago
      Designing better transistors, discovering new drugs...
    - gjm11 11y ago
      "Normal" quantum computers are good at simulating quantum physics, or would be if we could build big enough ones. D-Wave's adiabatic allegedly-quantum computer is not, so far as anyone knows. The only thing (so far as I am aware) that anyone knows how to do with D-Wave's machine is to use it to find approximate solutions to certain optimization problems. The last I heard, it did so slower than a standard-issue laptop running (non-quantum!) software designed to find approximate solutions to the same optimization problem that D-Wave's underlying hardware models. That was before the release of the latest D-Wave machine. I don't think it was ever clear whether D-Wave's device scales better than a conventional computer when trying to solve larger problems. Perhaps it does, in which case their new $10M machine may outperform commodity laptops. [EDITED to add: see http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/ http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-w... and the other pages linked therefrom for some comparisons between D-Wave's reported performance and that of some heuristic optimization software running on a commodity laptop. Disclosure: the author is a friend of mine.]

eternalban 11y ago

Wake me up when we have quantuum networking gear and magical perfect locality :)

logicallee 11y ago

Didn't we just read about the NSA moving to quantum resistant algorithms a few days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064226 - NSA announces plans for transitioning to quantum resistant algorithms also I found this from a few hours ago: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/08/nsa-preps-quantum-resistant-algorithms-to-head-off-crypto-apocolypse/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/08/nsa-preps-quantum-re...