“I see a lot of confusion about Google's Monday press release about quantum supremacy, so let me try to clarify a few things.

They say they did a computation on a ca 100 qubit chip much faster than a conventional (super)computer could do. The particular calculation in question is to produce a random distribution. The result of this calculation has no practical use.

They use this particular problem because it has been formally proven (with some technical caveats) that the calculation is difficult to do on a conventional computer (because it uses a lot of entanglement). That also allows them to say things like "this would have taken a septillion years on a conventional computer" etc.

It's exactly the same calculation that they did in 2019 on a ca 50 qubit chip. In case you didn't follow that, Google's 2019 quantum supremacy claim was questioned by IBM pretty much as soon as the claim was made and a few years later a group said they did it on a conventional computer in a similar time.

So while the announcement is super impressive from a scientific pov and all, the consequences for everyday life are zero. Estimates say that we will need about 1 million qubits for practically useful applications and we're still about 1 million qubits away from that.

Also, it's been a recurring story that we have seen numerous times in the past years, that claims of quantum "utility" or quantum "advantage" or quantum "supremacy" or whatever you want to call it later evaporate because some other group finds a clever way to do it on a conventional computer after all.”

https://x.com/skdh/status/1866352680899104960

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sabine is a great news source for quantum stuff, she knows the physics involved very well.

thanks for sharing 👏

the consequences for everyday life are zero

Do you measure everything that is important occuring in your lifetime, sheesh leave a breakthru for another generation

Interesting! There’s a lot of noise about Google’s statement.

When religion dies people become desperate for something anything please just something to believe in, instead of embracing the void.

Quantum computing has always been and i'm pretty confident will always be vapourware. I'm not even convinced that what they claim to be able to do is even theoretically possible.

A lot of folks have no idea what any of this means.

Before anyone gets too depressed, quantum theory is used in many practical real world applications, and quantum tech while more niche does exist.

Quantum computing is a different thing altogether. Words matter.

These are being used today:

https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/features/how-quantum-sensors-will-unlock-aviations-potential.html

Helpful, thanks

very interesting read.

nostr:note1g5f25fjdv9ud3qpyxwzmggk7qwsvqqnxks9tjamr0ysxy7syzq3qcrcs52

For people like me without any knowledge of Quantum computing and the theory behind it, it's extremely hard to interpret news about these "breakthroughs". Everytime I see such news, it usually seems to be cool in theory but not in practical terms.

Google has a habit of being "too clever by half"

pump it $GOOGL

they seek funding...

I'm not technical enough to know, but I thought, in theory, 'they' already know how to break 128-bit or 256-bit or whatever encryption if they just had enough qubits. So, to me, when the claim revolves around a certain number of qubits - like 100 or whatever, shouldn't they already be able to demonstrate supremacy in the realm say 8-bit? or even 16-bit encryption? (or maybe they do already claim this supremacy? I don't know; but would like to know).

Maybe I'm wrong; but, all the hype around inevitably being able to break encryption once they are able to build enough qubits seems to be ignoring the important fact that what they are calling a 'qubit' isn't even in itself what they would eventually need - never mind how many of these proto-qubits they manage to be able string together.

Thanks for sharing Peter.