> whether quantum simulation is indeed the fastest way to solve the quantum speckle problem on a classical computer. They give arguments for this in the paper.

> whether quantum simulation is indeed the fastest way to solve the quantum speckle problem on a classical computer. They give arguments for this in the paper. Intuitively, if there's some fast way to classically sample a random quantum circuit then that means most quantum circuits should be easy to simulate classically. But that doesn't seem to be the case: we don't have algorithms that go fast on most circuits but go slow in highly specialized cases. It's the other way around. > whether the output of a quantum speckle computer can only be explained by the large state space and quantum mechanics or whether there are alternative explanations. Given that all the engineering was based on quantum mechanics, it would be very surprising if the machine worked based on something else. It's quite difficult to make things accidentally work like that. It'd be like trying to build a car, confirming it can take you from place to place, then realizing that actually you made a hang-glider by accident.