But you can only do that if the observer is implemented on quantum hardware, so I postulated this quantum hardware that was running an artificial intelligence program, and as a result was able to concoct an experiment which would give one output from an observer's point of view if the parallel universes theory was true, and a different outcome if only a single universe existed.
This device that I postulated is what we would now call a quantum computer, but because I wasn't particularly thinking about computers, I didn't call it that, and I didn't really start thinking about quantum computation as a process until several years later.
That lead to my suggesting the universal quantum computer and proving its properties in the mid-'80s. WN: How many qubits does it take to make the general-purpose quantum computer useful? Deutsch: I think the watershed moment with quantum computer technology will be when a quantum computer -- a universal quantum computer -- exceeds about to qubits.
Now when I say qubits, I have to stress that the term qubit hasn't got a very precise definition at the moment, and I've been arguing for a long time that the physics community ought to get together and decide on some criteria for different senses for the word qubit.
What I mean here is a qubit which is capable of being in any quantum state, and is capable of undergoing any kind of entanglement with another qubit of the same technology, and all those conditions are actually necessary to make a fully fledged quantum computer. If you relax any one of the those conditions it's much easier to implement in physics. For instance, if you call something a qubit but it can only be entangled with qubits of a different technology, then it's much easier to build. But of course a thing like that can't be made part of a computer memory.
With computer memory you need lots of identical ones. There's also the question of error correction. The one physical qubit is probably not enough to act as a qubit in genuine quantum computation, because of the problem of errors and decoherence. So you need to implement quantum error correction, and quantum error correction is going to require several physical qubits for every logical qubit of the computer.
When I said you need to , that probably means several hundred, or perhaps 1, or more, physical qubits. Deutsch: Yes, and that is what would have to count as the watershed for quantum computation, for being a distinctive new technology with its own genuine uses. WN: That's actually D-Wave's stated goal as well: essentially 1, qubits in two years. Do you think engineering-wise, and this is not completely within your realm, they will be able to maintain enough coherence at that level to create a practical computer.
Deutsch: As you said that really isn't my field. Maintaining coherence itself isn't quite enough. They've got to maintain coherence in the operation that I spoke of; that is, the arbitrary superposition, the arbitrary entanglement, and so on I don't know. The technologies I've seen so far have got way fewer than 1, They've got way fewer than I always have to ask whether the claimed number of qubits are qubits that I would count as qubits by these stringent criteria, or whether it's merely two-state systems that can in some sense act in a quantum way.
Because that's a much more lenient criterion. WN: I don't have the sophistication to answer that, for D-Wave at least. If I were to ask you to cast your mind forward, saying everything goes well, what does a world that combines ubiquitous quantum computing and classical computing look like? And you've said that quantum computing would never replace classical computing. Deutsch: It's not anywhere near as big a revolution as, say, the internet, or the introduction of computers in the first place.
The practical application, from a ordinary consumer's point of view, are just quantitative. One field that will be revolutionized is cryptography. All, or nearly all, existing cryptographic systems will be rendered insecure, and even retrospectively insecure, in that messages sent today, if somebody keeps them, will be possible to decipher Verifying the solution was a further challenge.
To do that, the team compared the results with those from simulations of smaller and simpler versions of the circuits, which were done by classical computers — including the Summit supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Extrapolating from these examples, the Google team estimates that simulating the full circuit would take 10, years even on a computer with one million processing units equivalent to around , desktop computers.
Sycamore took just 3 minutes and 20 seconds. Google thinks their evidence for quantum supremacy is airtight. But he also warns that the news could create the impression that quantum computers are closer to mainstream practical applications than they really are.
In reality, Monroe adds, scientists are yet to show that a programmable quantum computer can solve a useful task that cannot be done any other way, such as by calculating the electronic structure of a particular molecule — a fiendish problem that requires modelling multiple quantum interactions. Another important step, says Aaronson, is demonstrating quantum supremacy in an algorithm that uses a process known as error correction — a method to correct for noise-induced errors that would otherwise ruin a calculation.
Physicists think this will be essential to getting quantum computers to function at scale. Google is working towards both of these milestones, says Martinis, and will reveal the results of its experiments in the coming months. Aaronson says that the experiment Google devised to demonstrate quantum supremacy might have practical applications: he has created a protocol to use such a calculation to prove to a user that the bits generated by a quantum random-number generator really are random.
This could be useful, for example, in cryptography and some cryptocurrencies, whose security relies on random keys. Google engineers had to carry out a raft of improvements to their hardware to run the algorithm, including building new electronics to control the quantum circuit and devising a new way to connect qubits, says Martinis. Arute, F. Nature , — Article Google Scholar. Physically bringing the hardware to a new location for the first time was never going to be easy — and the global COVID pandemic only added some extra hurdles.
Typically, explains Bob Sutor, chief quantum exponent at IBM, the company would've shipped some key parts and a team of in-house specialists to Germany to assemble the quantum computer, but the pandemic meant that this time, everything had to be done remotely. We developed new techniques to actually put these systems around the world without travelling there. And it worked. To train German engineers from the local IBM development lab, Sutor's team put together a virtual course in quantum assembly.
From installing the computer's refrigeration system to manipulating the Falcon processor, no detail was left out and the device successfully launched in line with the original schedule. For Fraunhofer, this means that the institute and its partners will now have access to a leading-edge quantum computer built exclusively for German organizations, instead of relying on cloud access to US-based systems. Since the partnership was announced, the institute has been busy investigating potential applications of quantum computing and designing quantum algorithms that might show an advantage over computations carried out with classical computing.
This is because quantum computing is nascent, and despite the huge potential that researchers are anticipating, much of the technology's promise is still theoretical. Existing quantum processors like IBM's Falcon come with too few qubits and too high an error-rate to resolve large-scale problems that are relevant to businesses. The research effort, therefore, consists of spotting the use-cases that might be suited to the technology once the hardware is ready. At Fraunhofer, researchers have been looking at a variety of applications ranging from portfolio optimization in finance to logistics planning for manufacturers, through error correction protocols that could improve critical infrastructure and molecular simulation to push chemistry and materials discovery.
Working in partnership with the German Aerospace Center, for example, the institute has been conducting research to find out if quantum algorithms could simulate electro-chemical processes within energy storage system — which, in turn, could help design batteries and fuel cells with better performance and more energy density. IBM's offer in quantum computing has some significant strengths. Since the release of its first cloud-based quantum processor, the company now has made over 20 Quantum System One machines available, which are accessed by more than organizations around the world.
Two billion quantum circuits are established daily with the cloud processors, and IBM is on track to break a trillion circuits before the end of the summer. The Falcon processors used in the Quantum System One are 27 qubits, but the company is working in parallel on a chip called Hummingbird, which has 65 qubits.
A few hundred entangled qubits would be enough to represent more numbers than there are atoms in the universe.
This is where quantum computers get their edge over classical ones. In situations where there are a large number of possible combinations, quantum computers can consider them simultaneously.
Examples include trying to find the prime factors of a very large number or the best route between two places. However, there may also be plenty of situations where classical computers will still outperform quantum ones. So the computers of the future may be a combination of both these types.
0コメント