3 ms·
Super interesting result, but some of the things mentioned in the article are just plain wrong or grossly misrepresented. Not sure for example what they mean wi
by ThePhysicist 4y ago
Super interesting result, but some of the things mentioned in the article are just plain wrong or grossly misrepresented. Not sure for example what they mean with "IBM mentions that without non-reciprocal superconductivity, a computer running on superconductors is impossible". RSFQ (Rapid single flux quantum) logic is based on Josephson junctions and works just fine up to many GHz, Prof. Likharev's group at SUNY / Stony Brooke developed these together with IBM, and RSFQ circuits are still being used in niche applications as well as quantum computing. The reason that they never replaced semiconductor-based computers is simply that they couldn't keep up with the rapid progress of those. In the 80s and 90s it was impressive that RSFQ devices could (theoretically) run at several 10s - 100s GHz, fast and efficient MOSFET transistors have much better characteristics and don't need costly cooling. For high-frequency applications there are HEMTs (high electron mobility transistors), which are often also easier to operate and manufacture than superconducting circuits. Also, no one managed to really scale RSFQ logic beyond a few 100.000 junctions.