Skip to main content

Has quantum computing been cracked?

In recent days there has been a surge in interest in quantum computing - computers that use quantum particles as the equivalent of bits. Out of the blue, I've received several invitations to talk to people about quantum computing as a result of my my book, imaginatively named Quantum Computing, which provides an introduction to the field. I suspect this upsurge is because of the recent announcement that the BBC dramatically headlined Quantum breakthrough could revolutionise computing. 

This is a topic that has suffered from considerable hype in the past - so is this breakthrough (which there certainly has been) transformative or an incremental step towards what is still a fairly distant proposition?

The reason quantum computers are of huge interest is that for certain applications they can, in principle, carry out calculations that would take conventional computers the lifetime of the universe to churn through. The reason that they can do this is that instead of using bits that can store values of 0 and 1, the quantum computer uses qubits - each a quantum particle which can be in a superposition of states - partly 0 and partly 1 simultaneously, with the 'partly' effectively capable of representing an infinitely long real value. The way that qubits link together means that what would usually require sequential processes in a conventional computer can be undertaken simultaneously.

However, there also plenty of problems with making quantum computers work. You need to be able to isolate quantum particles from their environment, or the states of the qubits will be lost, while still being able to interact with them. This is not trivial and as yet it has limited quantum computers to orders of magnitude around 100 qubits. You also need to undertake error correction, because the process is inherently prone to errors, which means it takes considerably more qubits to undertake a calculation that might otherwise be thought. What's more, you need to have both a suitable algorithm, specifically devised for a quantum computer, and the ability to get information in and out of the computer, when the typical answer may well just be 0 or 1.

It's important to emphasise that quantum computers are not desktop devices - they may well always require a specially controlled environment, working as shared cloud devices - and they are not general purpose computers, with relatively limited numbers of potentially very powerful algorithms. The first two examples  produced were an algorithm that effectively makes it easier to crack the encryption used for internet payments (a trifle worrying), and (the reason Google, for example, is very interested) a search algorithm that makes it possible to find something with the square root of the number of searches required by a conventional computer. To emphasise how much the development of this hardware is a slow process, these algorithms were both developed in the mid-1990s, long before anything was available to run them on.

The breakthrough that is making the news involves one class of quantum computers - those where the qubits are based on ions (atoms that have gained or lost electrons to become electrically charged). Other quantum computers use photons, for example, but ions have the advantage of being relatively easy to keep in place due to their electrical charge. A chip to confine and interact with ions requires a lot more space that dealing with the equivalent number of conventional bits. A standard-sizes chip can only handle around 100 qubits, where an effective quantum computer might require a few millions (still vastly smaller than the billions of bits in a conventional computer processor). The breakthrough involves being able to transfer ions from one chip to another with a very low loss rate and without measurably impacting the 'phase coherence' of the qubit - in simple terms, the qubit keeps the values its holding.

This is an impressive piece of work. It makes it possible in principle to have a quantum computer with many chips that interact with each other, enabling it to support the kind of number of qubits that would make it a truly effective resource. However, it's worth emphasising that there are still plenty of other issues to be dealt with, and that while this is an effective demonstration, it's still a way from being applicable on any scale. Realistically it could be another 5 to 10 years before there is a real product where large scale, useful quantum algorithms can be deployed. An important step, then, but definitely incremental rather than a revolution.

If you'd like to read more about the technology, the paper is here and is freely downloadable. (Surely it's time the BBC started providing links to papers?)


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Who Invented the Computer? – Ian Watson

Ian Watson is the author of  The Universal Machine  and featured in a recent  Four Way Interview . Saturday June 23 2012 was the centenary of the birth of Alan Turing, the troubled genius who invented the modern computer. Why though do so few people recognize his name and his great achievements? In 1936 English mathematician Alan Turing, published a paper,  On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem . This became the foundation of computing. In it Turing presented a theoretical machine that could solve any problem that could be described by instructions encoded on a paper tape. A Turing Machine could calculate square roots, whilst another might solve Sudoku puzzles. Turing demonstrated you could construct a single  Universal Machine  that could simulate any Turing Machine. One machine solving any problem for which a program could be written – sound familiar? He’d invented the computer. Then,  computers  were peop...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ignorance: How it drives science – Stuart Firestein *****

This is a delightful little book that really gets you thinking. I stress the ‘little’ part not as a negative, but as a good thing. There is nothing worse than fat, bloated popular science books where the author feels they have to get 120,000 words to be taken seriously. This is the sort of book that can be read in a couple of hours – but you will get so much more out of it than one of those tedious doorstops. The premise underlying the book is in once sense extremely simple, yet is fundamental to an understanding of what science is and what scientists do. And it is an understanding that is totally at odds with the typical way science is portrayed both in university lectures and popular science books. As Stuart Firestein points out, what is important is not the facts, but rather the area of ignorance. The interesting part and the fundamental heart of science is not about what we know, but about what we don’t know and where we want to look next. Take this lovely quote: ‘Working ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Star Book – Peter Grego ****

This attractive landscape format book combines an excellent introduction to the stars and basic astronomy with a set of star maps, plus in depth looks at some of the stars featured, with a  bonus section on the solar system. Amazon says it’s a hardback, but in fact it’s a paperback with a rather ingenious cover – you can’t tell from the photo, but the words ‘The Star Book’ are punched through as a series of holes that show the white paper of the next page beneath. Like many astronomy/space books, the cover lacks shelf appeal because it is mostly black, but at least there is some original thought here. Unlike many books in this format which tend to concentrate on the pictures, there is a good deal of excellent text by Peter Grego, so there was no feeling that you were only getting the star maps and star ‘biographies’, something these days much more suited to an iPad or smartphone app. Instead, the opening 30 or so pages give a very good introduction that would be valuable to ...
Post a Comment
Read more