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

The Infinity Machine - Sebastian Mallaby ****

It's very quickly clear that Sebastian Mallaby is a huge Demis Hassabis fan - writing about the only child prodigy and teen genius ever who was also a nice, rounded personality. After a few chapters, though, things settle down (I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' description of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ) and we get a good, solid trip through the journey that gave us DeepMind, their AlphaGo and AlphaFold programs, the sudden explosion of competition on the AI front and thoughts on artificial general intelligence. Although Mallaby does occasionally still go into fan mode - reading this you would think that AlphaFold had successfully perfectly predicted the structure of every protein, where it is usually not sufficiently accurate for its results to have direct practical application - we get a real feel for the way this relatively unusual company was swiftly and successfully developed away from Silicon Valley. It's readable and gives an important understanding of...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Seach of Sea Dragons - Matthew Myerscough ****

It's common advice to would-be authors of narrative non-fiction to open with something dramatic - Matthew Myerscough certainly does this with the story of his being trapped under an avalanche on Snowdon (while his girlfriend, also carried away remains on top of the snow unhurt). It certainly is dramatic, but seemed entirely disconnected from the reason I got the book, which was to read about fossil collecting.  Luckily, though, in the second chapter we get into a more conventional 'how I got interested in fossils as a boy'. Having recently reviewed Patrick Moore's autobiography and noting that astronomy was one of the few sciences where amateurs can still make a contribution, it came to mind that palaeontology is another - Myerscough is a civil engineer by trade, but just as amateur astronomers can find new details in the skies, so amateur fossil hunters have been searching for these relics for centuries. When I give talks in junior schools, the two topics that guarant...
Post a Comment
Read more

Robot-Proof - Vivienne Ming ****

As Vivienne Ming makes apparent, there seem largely to be two views of AI's pros and cons, both of which are almost certainly wrong. It's either doom-saying 'It'll destroy life as we know it' or Pollyanna-ish 'It'll do all the boring work and we can all be wonderfully creative and live lives of leisure.' Instead, Ming gives us a clear analysis of the likely trajectory for the workplace, particularly for the IT industry. She describes three 'equally flawed, intellectually lazy strategies' to deal with the impact of AI. The first is substitution and deprofessionalisation, using AI to allow cheaper 'AI-augmented technicians' to replace more expensive professionals, producing more low wage jobs and fewer mid-range. This does save money but leaves a company at risk of being easily outcompeted. The second is what Ming describes as the '"A-Player" Hunger Games', the approach favoured by Silicon Valley. This sees the growing rif...
Post a Comment
Read more