5 ms·
In 2018 at my local makerspace, one of the guys behind this[0] research did a talk about "noise interference" in quantum computers. He did a great job of explai
by equalunique 7y ago
In 2018 at my local makerspace, one of the guys behind this[0] research did a talk about "noise interference" in quantum computers. He did a great job of explaining how conventional electronic components are unsuitable for the precise and isolated requirements of quantum computing. What really left an impression was the remark he made about error-checking. It was something like, the then-current state-of-the-art qbit tech requires eight qbits to error correct every one qbit to at the same level current x86 computers are error-corrected, meaning that a viable quantum computer is a very, very long way away.
[0] https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.062002 https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.062...
- q_eng_anon 7y agoError detection vs. error correction are very different things. It's true that many physical qubits (and a proper error correction scheme) are required to implement a single logical qubit. But once a valid design for a single logical qubit (device, error correction, etc.) is realized, the limits of scaling the entire system change completely (infinite t1 of each qubit means you don't NECESSARILY have to have all of your qubits on the same device...)
- cma 7y agoI'd imagine that though error-checking is the biggest hurdle, we don't need quite the same level of error checking as an x86 computer for applications like breaking cryptography, since you can verify the result quickly on a classical computer.