They're trying to make a computer that computes using light that bounces around inside the computer. The more the light bounces around, the dimmer it gets, and the less effective it becomes at computing things. They figured out a way to make the light bounce around twice as long (and so be able to compute more stuff) before it gets too dim to work any more.
("Dim" isn't quite the right word, but you did say five.)
Damnit, now I have to learn Q#...I've been putting it off for more than a year but I guess I need to stay competitive.
Well, actually, maybe this would be the right audience to ask; if I wanted to do some stuff with quantum, would you recommend Q# or is there a cooler language to use now?
I do know the MS guy largely responsible for Q#. He's an honest fellow and adamant that there is nothing like it. I've never worked with it. If you do get serious with it I'm sure the team would be very interested in hearing from you.
Well, since I don't really have access to a real quantum computer yet, I'm ok with it just being on a simulator; I'm assuming that if/when quantum computers become cheap enough for consumer products, the MS team will probably work to make Q# support it.
TIL that the right angle bracket is called a 'ket', and the left part is called a 'bra'. The 14-year-old inside of me is now looking to use the word 'bra' with impunity more often.
Honestly, how many money-making initiatives do you expect to require programming a quantum-computer in the next 5 years? I can't imagine many people outside the upper tiers of a University lab or some highly-funded security arm at Google using this tech in the near-future? (Asking an honest question, not accusing)
So shor's algorithm for factoring primes get's a lot of press in the software community because it unravels chunks of encryption, but grover's algorithm for inverting functions is also pretty neat and it would have lots of constructive applications in engineering contexts where you're trying to find configurations that satisfy non-linear constraints.
Any evidence that these are quantum coherent devices? In seems like the only reference in the paper is that "future improvements" will allow entanglement generation. I don't think the use of "closes in" in the HN title would be appropriate if these are such early stage devices that they can't even put a number on the coherence time yet.
It may be that the use of photons gives long coherence in these devices as compared to other types of potential qubits, but then you still have to ask about (coherence time) / (gate time).
With all due respect I think the title of the article “Ultra-efficient frequency conversion in quasi-phase-matched lithium niobate microrings” is better than the editorialised title given here.
Maybe let us debate whether or not the presented research does what the poster claims it does.
Why is this the "holy grail"? Seems that room temperature quantum chips are not nearly as much of a big deal as, say, room temperature superconductors. You could keep a quantum chip in a special environment since they don't have to move around or span large areas.
Have you seen the machinery needed to cool down IBM's tiny qubit chip at the bottom? [1]
It would be nice if you could just stick these things into your PC over PCIe some day.
That’s not even half that equipment needed to reach cryogenic temperatures. What you linked appears to be the experimental setup that will get placed in some sort of cold chamber.
On an unrelated note: room temperature quantum chips would likely be more energy efficient as the coolers that go that cold aren’t particularly efficient.
Source: I used to work for a cryogenics companies.
Most of what you see in that picture is commercially-available, commodity scientific-grade cryogenics gear. There are a handful of suppliers that make this kind of gear and it's probably pretty common across all of the superconducting QC research machines.
So yeah, it's crazy machinery, but it's not anything special to IBM. Hopefully there's pressure to miniaturize it, but ultimately do you want to have to worry about getting a Helium 3 delivery to be able to use your laptop?
32 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 77.2 ms ] thread("Dim" isn't quite the right word, but you did say five.)
Well, actually, maybe this would be the right audience to ask; if I wanted to do some stuff with quantum, would you recommend Q# or is there a cooler language to use now?
Damn I'm old.
I've had it in my todo's for almost two years now...still haven't played with it yet.
[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/quantum/language/?view=qsha...
AFAIK the only "quantum computer" it currently interfaces with is LIQ𝑈𝑖⏐〉 (a simulator). http://stationq.github.io/Liquid/
An Introduction to Quantum Computing http://www.primaryobjects.com/2019/01/07/an-introduction-to-...
Maybe let us debate whether or not the presented research does what the poster claims it does.
[1] https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4403/23518086798_3d3af8313e.jp...
On an unrelated note: room temperature quantum chips would likely be more energy efficient as the coolers that go that cold aren’t particularly efficient.
Source: I used to work for a cryogenics companies.
So yeah, it's crazy machinery, but it's not anything special to IBM. Hopefully there's pressure to miniaturize it, but ultimately do you want to have to worry about getting a Helium 3 delivery to be able to use your laptop?
Hence why a room temperature quantum computing chip is a "holy grail"?