Comments on: Quantum Leap

Quantum Leap

sourbrew — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:06:05 -0800

Mass Producible Quantum Computer - Christopher Monroe has produced the first quantum computer capable of being scaled to a production model at the Trapped Ion Quantum Computing facility at the University of Michigan. (via)

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:09:21 -0800

Aw, crap. And I just bought my iBook.

By: sourbrew

sourbrew — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:18:34 -0800

wookie - we should stage a sour rebellion.

By: justkevin

justkevin — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:39:39 -0800

This is very interesting and I don't want to diminish what this group has accomplished, but there is still a long way to go before we have a scaleable quantum computer. The biggest problem, as I understand it, is not in our ability to mass produce quantum computing systems. It is creating multi-qubit entangled systems. In quantum computing, 2 8-qubit registers is not the equivalent to 1 16-cubit register, which is much harder to produce. There was a recent FPP which linked to a number of articles, including one by a physicist who predicted that the largest qubit system allowed by the laws of nature was around 400 qubits. I don't agree with him, but we are certainly a long way from producing "usefully complex" quantum computers.

By: stenseng

stenseng — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:45:29 -0800

there goes the neighborhood!

By: lucasks

lucasks — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:03:17 -0800

The problem isn't just creating multi-quibit entanglement or scalable systems, but creating reliable ones. Quantum computers are enormously error prone and even though a lot of work has been done in the area of quantum error correction, there is still a minimal amount of operation relability in order to create a system with any realiability. To the best of my knowledge this level has not yet been reached. It's a self link but if you want to read more about this problem of minimal device reliability, I co-authored a paper (PDF) that explored this topic that was published in the proceedings of ISCA 2005.

By: JohnR

JohnR — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:13:37 -0800

Check the faculty page. How many professors of physics does the U of M have? (many!)

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:14:41 -0800

Oh what an entangled web we weave, When first we practice to not perceive.

By: luriete

luriete — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:26:24 -0800

I think the biggest problem here is that the evil pirate-versions of ourselves will use this quantum gateway to pillage our universe. This, my friends, is very serious.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:39:57 -0800

Quanta le gusta?

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:16:23 -0800

cet ordinateur, il vibre?

By: clevershark

clevershark — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:45:46 -0800

I was going to have a look at that article, but I wouldn't want to change it by reading it.

By: rolypolyman

rolypolyman — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:57:12 -0800

Is this a really good development or just more hype & spin? I can't really tell.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:10:36 -0800

How many professors of physics does the U of M have? (many!) ... if you want to read more about this problem of minimal device reliability, I co-authored a paper (PDF) that explored this topic How many professors of physics does Metafilter have? (many!). I never cease to be amazed by the range of knowledge and experience tapped by this blog.

By: Richard Daly

Richard Daly — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:39:21 -0800

I'd like to point out the first recorded use of the "bakula" tag! For those of us laymen (and laywomen[believe me, I try]) what's the current state of applied quantum computing? I mean, how much more technology is required before they can be used to ad? What else will that machine be able to do?

By: paradroid

paradroid — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:38:10 -0800

quantum computers can implement quantum algorithms, which so far have been proven to solve several interesting problems more efficiently than any known classical algorithm, and in some cases (most notably factoring, and therefore the cracking of RSA encryption keys) exponentially more so. the serious study of quantum algorithms is barely more than 10 years old, who knows what else may turn up. there is no proof one way or the other that we can build a large reliable quantum computer. there are already several experimental devices which can process a few bits of quantum information, but they are neither scalable nor reliable. we do have, in theory, error correcting codes which protect against quantum noise, but the precise engineering of quantum systems is magnificently difficult. if we are able to build them, it would be an event at least as revolutionary as the invention of classical computers. pretty much every credible person i have heard has predicted this will take at least 25 years of intensive research. maybe more. maybe never.

By: NinjaPirate

NinjaPirate — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:32:20 -0800

I laughed, clevershark. 101

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:53:53 -0800

"No fair, you changed the result by measuring it!" We need more quantum mechanics jokes on TV.

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:25:12 -0800

do we really?

By: Pseudoephedrine

Pseudoephedrine — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:27:39 -0800

These quantum computers, are they something I'd have to own some atoms to know about?

By: SteelyDuran

SteelyDuran — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:46:36 -0800

[this may be good]

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:22:00 -0800

all that matters is, what kind of impact will this have on console gaming?