35 ms·
It's a good thing of course, but it's also trapped-ion qubits, so this is not exactly something that can freely scale or be widely manufactured. It is in short,
by Aelinsaar 10y ago
It's a good thing of course, but it's also trapped-ion qubits, so this is not exactly something that can freely scale or be widely manufactured. It is in short, probably not the future of quantum computing, it's just another important step on the way.
- gji 10y agoDisclaimer: I used to work on trapped-ion systems. I hear this a lot about trapped-ion qubits, but in their current state, no technology is scalable. The usual suspects are superconducting, quantum dots, or diamond NV-based qubits, but each technology has their own scalability problems. Superconducting qubits suffer from either requiring massive (vacuum tube sized) cavities or a ton of crosstalk. Good luck isolating superconducting LC circuits from one another on one circuit board - a reason why these are limited to only a few qubits. Quantum dots have pretty awful decoherence issues and I'm not sure they can be implanted deterministically. Moreover, I don't think people have demonstrated non-photon mediated entanglement, which is not particularly scalable. NVs have the same implantation and entanglement problems, though at least they can be used at room-temperature. Superconducting and quantum dot technologies require million-dollar dilution refrigerators and large amounts of (expensive!) helium-3. Obviously, these technologies also have their advantages over trapped-ion qubits. But trapped-ion proponents also have their own roadmaps to scalability (surface traps created using lithiography).