3 ms·
I agree with "many many years" but a good number of quantum computers use other methods (superconducting qubits from Google/Rigetti, or trapped ions from IonQ).
by mapmeld 3y ago
I agree with "many many years" but a good number of quantum computers use other methods (superconducting qubits from Google/Rigetti, or trapped ions from IonQ). They have much smaller numbers of qubits, are more generally applicable to problems, but have the issue of noisy readings.
- combat-banana 3y agoThose are not quantum computers they are classical computers that have been enabled to process data matrices. Not the same as moving amplitudes directly.
- klyrs 3y agoNo, that doesn't accurately describe either Google's nor Rigetti's quantum efforts. Google does make a classical matrix-multiplication circuit (TPU), but that's different from their quantum computing effort.
- combat-banana 3y agoNot really. Different as in “BBQ chicken pizza” vs. “pepperoni pizza”.
- fastneutron 3y agoOn what basis do you make that statement? The hardware is literally manipulating coherent quantum states of trapped ions or transmon junctions in the cases of IonQ and IBM, respectively. Noisy and unreliable, sure, but most definitely not classical.
- combat-banana 3y agoBecause it is doing it within a closed time series that is located in the past. Like predicting what the weather was yesterday in areas with no radar. Cool, and useless. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/ab5f3f https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/ab5f3f