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 Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more