3 ms·

But what technologies are needed to make quantum computing work with say superconducting qubits? High speed room temperature processors? FPGAs and fast DACs/ADC

by gaze 8y ago

But what technologies are needed to make quantum computing work with say superconducting qubits? High speed room temperature processors? FPGAs and fast DACs/ADCs will do it. Low loss cables? Got that. Low noise amplifiers? Got it. Idk what people want. It’s a good time to start throwing money at it to iron out the problems that nobody wants to do a thesis on. It’s not riskfree but it’s a reasonable bet.

bassman9000 8y ago
Indeed, you gotta risk to win. But at which threshold you stop, and reconsider, given the lack of results? 1B? 10B? 1T? I'm not an expert on the matter, but I understand "cut your losses".
- gaze 8y ago
  What “lack of results?”
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    I very clearly pointed out that no QC researcher has created, for example: 1) An actually error corrected qubit 2) A quantum factorization of the number 15 You can set yourself artificial goalposts of "hey my entanglement lasted a little longer on architecture X this year, therefore Moore's law means it is inevitable" -but you still can't factor the number 15. Please factor the number 15. No "pre compilation" where you leave out the number of gates needed to get the answer -just factor the number. Show me this, and then I will proceed to make fun of the idea that you can factor, say, a 3 digit decimal number. This is the only demonstrated interesting use case for QC, and the only reason anyone is funding the topic. Yes, yes, "modeling quantum systems" -OK, go model an interesting quantum system for me.
    - gaze 8y ago
      1) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18949 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18949 https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7403 https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7403 2. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1068 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1068 seems like it might satisfy your requirements. It doesn't seem to use the answer in its calculation, but I'm not sure.
      - scottlocklin 8y ago
        If the abstracts were actually true and someone implemented an actually error corrected qubit with lifetime 320ms, I guess it should be trivial to apply a few thousand operations to a mere 4 qubits and factor the number 15. You're at Yale and presumably going to Berkeley later: maybe you should try to do this. Sounds to me like you could build a whole career on meeting the challenges involved in factoring the number 15. Edit add: since you continue to add material, I will continue to add comments; half the text of the Blatt paper is verbiage making excuses for the fact they dropped the operations they knew were not needed to factor 15, just like the NMR quantum computers in the 90s did. In fact, this one is worse than 90s results.

by gaze 8y ago

bassman9000 8y ago

Indeed, you gotta risk to win. But at which threshold you stop, and reconsider, given the lack of results? 1B? 10B? 1T? I'm not an expert on the matter, but I understand "cut your losses".

gaze 8y ago
What “lack of results?”
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  I very clearly pointed out that no QC researcher has created, for example: 1) An actually error corrected qubit 2) A quantum factorization of the number 15 You can set yourself artificial goalposts of "hey my entanglement lasted a little longer on architecture X this year, therefore Moore's law means it is inevitable" -but you still can't factor the number 15. Please factor the number 15. No "pre compilation" where you leave out the number of gates needed to get the answer -just factor the number. Show me this, and then I will proceed to make fun of the idea that you can factor, say, a 3 digit decimal number. This is the only demonstrated interesting use case for QC, and the only reason anyone is funding the topic. Yes, yes, "modeling quantum systems" -OK, go model an interesting quantum system for me.
  - gaze 8y ago
    1) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18949 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18949 https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7403 https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7403 2. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1068 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1068 seems like it might satisfy your requirements. It doesn't seem to use the answer in its calculation, but I'm not sure.
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      If the abstracts were actually true and someone implemented an actually error corrected qubit with lifetime 320ms, I guess it should be trivial to apply a few thousand operations to a mere 4 qubits and factor the number 15. You're at Yale and presumably going to Berkeley later: maybe you should try to do this. Sounds to me like you could build a whole career on meeting the challenges involved in factoring the number 15. Edit add: since you continue to add material, I will continue to add comments; half the text of the Blatt paper is verbiage making excuses for the fact they dropped the operations they knew were not needed to factor 15, just like the NMR quantum computers in the 90s did. In fact, this one is worse than 90s results.