3 ms·

> In any practical chip design, isn't one required for the other? No. Superposition (in a qubit sense) is not necessary for superconductivity. Most quantum com

> In any practical chip design, isn't one required for the other? No. Superposition (in a qubit sense) is not necessary for superconductivity. Most quantum computer designs require superconductivity, but it is not a strict requirement. Photon based quantum computers don't need any superconductivity iirc. > it is a superconducting chip, and that is a major engineering problem Superconductivity is not a super high bar. The bigger issue from quantum computing is coherence time; and it just happens that low temperatures are critical for lengthening it.

akvadrako 9y ago
Well, coherence and superconductivity are closely related. Superconductivity implies no interaction with the environment, which is necessary and sufficient to maintain superpositions.
- thethirdone 9y ago
  > Superconductivity implies no interaction with the environment, which is necessary and sufficient to maintain superpositions. I am not sure what you mean here. Superconducting magnets are often used to control plasma (part of the environment) so it doesn't imply isolation from the environment. Superconducting qubits are only superconducting because josephson junctions happen to be good candidates to make qubits out of. Ion traps (which generally have much better coherence times than superconducting qubits) and photon based systems don't need superconductivity.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    What I mean is that waste heat is equivalent to decoherence. If you use superconductors to do work, then they are no longer superconducting - that work introduces resistance. To do otherwise would violate conservation of energy. I'm not sure how to make it more clear, but decoherence happens because some energy / information is transmitted into the environment. That loss of information is why superpositions collapse. Maybe the confusion is what I mean by superconducting - I mean zero resistance circuits. It's not about what it's made of.
TallGuyShort 9y ago
Well the point is whether or not this is a superconducting chip. It is. Since it is a superconducting chip, I'd like to know what OP meant when they said they mixed it up, because I don't see where they said superconducting where it isn't true and relatively relevant. edit: also, I meant superconducting was (practically) required for superposition, but not vice-versa. I guess I misused the phrase one-required-for-the-other.
- thethirdone 9y ago
  > Since it is a superconducting chip, I'd like to know what OP meant when they said they mixed it up, because I don't see where they said superconducting where it isn't true and relatively relevant. I believe that everywhere superconducting was used it was correct and using superposition instead would be wrong. So I agree with you there.

akvadrako 9y ago

Well, coherence and superconductivity are closely related. Superconductivity implies no interaction with the environment, which is necessary and sufficient to maintain superpositions.

thethirdone 9y ago
> Superconductivity implies no interaction with the environment, which is necessary and sufficient to maintain superpositions. I am not sure what you mean here. Superconducting magnets are often used to control plasma (part of the environment) so it doesn't imply isolation from the environment. Superconducting qubits are only superconducting because josephson junctions happen to be good candidates to make qubits out of. Ion traps (which generally have much better coherence times than superconducting qubits) and photon based systems don't need superconductivity.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  What I mean is that waste heat is equivalent to decoherence. If you use superconductors to do work, then they are no longer superconducting - that work introduces resistance. To do otherwise would violate conservation of energy. I'm not sure how to make it more clear, but decoherence happens because some energy / information is transmitted into the environment. That loss of information is why superpositions collapse. Maybe the confusion is what I mean by superconducting - I mean zero resistance circuits. It's not about what it's made of.

TallGuyShort 9y ago

Well the point is whether or not this is a superconducting chip. It is. Since it is a superconducting chip, I'd like to know what OP meant when they said they mixed it up, because I don't see where they said superconducting where it isn't true and relatively relevant. edit: also, I meant superconducting was (practically) required for superposition, but not vice-versa. I guess I misused the phrase one-required-for-the-other.

thethirdone 9y ago
> Since it is a superconducting chip, I'd like to know what OP meant when they said they mixed it up, because I don't see where they said superconducting where it isn't true and relatively relevant. I believe that everywhere superconducting was used it was correct and using superposition instead would be wrong. So I agree with you there.