5 ms·

> and that path is very clear How is the time of this clear path measured? I actually have the exact same question about fusion reactors (such as ITER with res

> and that path is very clear How is the time of this clear path measured? I actually have the exact same question about fusion reactors (such as ITER with results planned decades ahead of time) What could speed up those decades? Letting more people work on it at the same time? Throwing more money at it? (e.g. for ITER, are we just waiting for them to pour concrete faster?) Or are these decades of planning also waiting for other technologies to appear in 10, 20, ... years? (Which would be some kind of unclear uncertainty after all)

ghaff 3y ago
One area in quantum that’s getting a lot of attention is dealing with noise. (Basically you want to decrease the number of qubits needed to make a reliable logical qubit to a reasonable number.) This has turned out to be a big problem (with some calling it potentially intractable.) But a lot of progress is being made in this area. There’s a good article in the current issue of Technology Review.) This is one area that could lead to outsized advances. More money and people can usually move but there’s a limit to which just throwing money at a problem can accelerate the outcome in part because of all the complex interconnection, some not even appreciated. Think ML with GPUs.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
antonvs 3y ago
Assuming it's true that there's some clear path in the quantum computing case, then ITER is rather different because there's currently no clear path to commercially viable nuclear fusion. ITER itself isn't even intended to achieve that. It's a research facility to test and demonstrate large-scale fusion in a tokamak. It's not even designed to generate electricity as output - just heat energy. If ITER ends up demonstrating that its approach could be further improved in the direction of a commercial design - which is not at all clear (see reference below) - they'll have to start a new project to achieve that. And you can expect that project to take even more money and quite probably a longer time, since there will be a lot of advances that will still need to be made. You might be interested to read "ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy": https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-drawbacks-of-fusion-energy/ https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-d... . I recommend reading the whole article. > Letting more people work on it at the same time? Throwing more money at it? There are 6500 people all told that work on ITER, and its total funding is projected to reach as much as $65 billion. More people and money for ITER is almost certainly not the answer. But other groups are also working on it, including 30+ fusion startups (see e.g. https://app.dealroom.co/lists/25184 https://app.dealroom.co/lists/25184). However, ITER's funding is about 10-15 times that of all those startups combined. The problem with the startup approach is they're more likely to be killed if they don't achieve results. > Or are these decades of planning also waiting for other technologies to appear in 10, 20, ... years? For fusion, that's certainly the case. Despite the existence of startups, which perhaps reflect the existence of either altruistic and/or gullible VCs, fusion power is still very much a research project. It's not even certain that commercial fusion power will ever be viable - the article I linked helps explain that.
fastneutron 3y ago
With ITER (and tokomaks more generally), the original assumption was that scaling laws would enable you to reach breakeven just by making the thing big enough. The problem is that "big enough" means throwing $25B at it, and when that's spread across a committee of a dozen countries, that's not a recipe for getting anything done quickly. With quantum error correction, we're not talking a $25B facility with many competing hands in the pie. Instead, we're talking about improving the spatial and timing precision of RF, optics, and photonic hardware. Unlike fusion, where basically everything needs to be a custom job, there are established industries around these quantum-adjacent technologies with decades of accumulated know-how and plenty of low-hanging fruit to get most of, if not all of the way there.
happytiger 3y ago
Well one important metric is this one: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3246752/china-and-russia-test-hack-proof-quantum-communication-link-brics-countries https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3246752/chin... Read the quotes. Global financial systems are trying to harden themselves with quantum computers in anticipation of forecast technology advancements. Maybe this piece by 60 minutes is worth watching too to get a better sense: https://youtu.be/K4ssT6Dzmnw?si=FseoJawRowldaaPH https://youtu.be/K4ssT6Dzmnw?si=FseoJawRowldaaPH It directly addresses technology progress and explains the basics.
- JoachimS 3y ago
  But that is just hedging the bets - it does not show that the path to practical quantum computers at scale to handle real problems is feasible. We see customers getting requirement requests for using PQ safe crypto algorithms to be used in systems that will be used 30+ years. But that too is also just hedging the bets. Quantum Key Distribution is feasible - esp for systems that don't need to move and where you own the medium. And can spend the 1000+ kUSD these machines costs. For most use cases (for example between a client and a server setting up a secure session over Internet) these machines does not solve anything. But they sure are very cool to own and deploy.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Please see the comments at 7:30 and then look the guy up. He founded Google’s quantum lab.

ghaff 3y ago

One area in quantum that’s getting a lot of attention is dealing with noise. (Basically you want to decrease the number of qubits needed to make a reliable logical qubit to a reasonable number.) This has turned out to be a big problem (with some calling it potentially intractable.) But a lot of progress is being made in this area. There’s a good article in the current issue of Technology Review.) This is one area that could lead to outsized advances. More money and people can usually move but there’s a limit to which just throwing money at a problem can accelerate the outcome in part because of all the complex interconnection, some not even appreciated. Think ML with GPUs.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

antonvs 3y ago

Assuming it's true that there's some clear path in the quantum computing case, then ITER is rather different because there's currently no clear path to commercially viable nuclear fusion. ITER itself isn't even intended to achieve that. It's a research facility to test and demonstrate large-scale fusion in a tokamak. It's not even designed to generate electricity as output - just heat energy. If ITER ends up demonstrating that its approach could be further improved in the direction of a commercial design - which is not at all clear (see reference below) - they'll have to start a new project to achieve that. And you can expect that project to take even more money and quite probably a longer time, since there will be a lot of advances that will still need to be made. You might be interested to read "ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy": https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-drawbacks-of-fusion-energy/ https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-d... . I recommend reading the whole article. > Letting more people work on it at the same time? Throwing more money at it? There are 6500 people all told that work on ITER, and its total funding is projected to reach as much as $65 billion. More people and money for ITER is almost certainly not the answer. But other groups are also working on it, including 30+ fusion startups (see e.g. https://app.dealroom.co/lists/25184 https://app.dealroom.co/lists/25184). However, ITER's funding is about 10-15 times that of all those startups combined. The problem with the startup approach is they're more likely to be killed if they don't achieve results. > Or are these decades of planning also waiting for other technologies to appear in 10, 20, ... years? For fusion, that's certainly the case. Despite the existence of startups, which perhaps reflect the existence of either altruistic and/or gullible VCs, fusion power is still very much a research project. It's not even certain that commercial fusion power will ever be viable - the article I linked helps explain that.

fastneutron 3y ago

With ITER (and tokomaks more generally), the original assumption was that scaling laws would enable you to reach breakeven just by making the thing big enough. The problem is that "big enough" means throwing $25B at it, and when that's spread across a committee of a dozen countries, that's not a recipe for getting anything done quickly. With quantum error correction, we're not talking a $25B facility with many competing hands in the pie. Instead, we're talking about improving the spatial and timing precision of RF, optics, and photonic hardware. Unlike fusion, where basically everything needs to be a custom job, there are established industries around these quantum-adjacent technologies with decades of accumulated know-how and plenty of low-hanging fruit to get most of, if not all of the way there.

happytiger 3y ago

Well one important metric is this one: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3246752/china-and-russia-test-hack-proof-quantum-communication-link-brics-countries https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3246752/chin... Read the quotes. Global financial systems are trying to harden themselves with quantum computers in anticipation of forecast technology advancements. Maybe this piece by 60 minutes is worth watching too to get a better sense: https://youtu.be/K4ssT6Dzmnw?si=FseoJawRowldaaPH https://youtu.be/K4ssT6Dzmnw?si=FseoJawRowldaaPH It directly addresses technology progress and explains the basics.

JoachimS 3y ago
But that is just hedging the bets - it does not show that the path to practical quantum computers at scale to handle real problems is feasible. We see customers getting requirement requests for using PQ safe crypto algorithms to be used in systems that will be used 30+ years. But that too is also just hedging the bets. Quantum Key Distribution is feasible - esp for systems that don't need to move and where you own the medium. And can spend the 1000+ kUSD these machines costs. For most use cases (for example between a client and a server setting up a secure session over Internet) these machines does not solve anything. But they sure are very cool to own and deploy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- happytiger 3y ago
  Please see the comments at 7:30 and then look the guy up. He founded Google’s quantum lab.