Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology Supercomputing Hardware

Opening Quantum Computing To the Public 191

Posted by Soulskill
from the take-two-they're-small dept.
director_mr writes "Tom's Hardware is running a story with an interesting description of a 28-qubit quantum computer that was developed by D-Wave Systems. They intend to open up use of their quantum computer to the public. It is particularly good at pattern recognition, it operates at 10 milliKelvin, and it is shielded to limit electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions across the whole chip. Could this be the first successful commercial quantum computer?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opening Quantum Computing To the Public

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 27, 2008 @09:17AM (#24357273)

    There's only a market for at most 10 of these computers, and only big companies will need one.

    • by f2x (1168695) * <flush2x.gmail@com> on Sunday July 27, 2008 @09:34AM (#24357363) Homepage
      I'm going to have to turn in my geek license once and for all...

      "operates at 10 milliKelvin"?

      "...electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions..."?

      Throw in a few universal phase detractors and you've got one heck of a retroencabulator! [youtube.com]
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It runs near absolute zero, and shields electromagnetic radiation (which can knock electrons loose among other things to cause problems) to an insane degree. At first I was like "that's cool!" but then I read that and figured the thing must be large and room-like, and they probably only give remote access to it's usage... haven't RTFA of course.
    • by 4D6963 (933028) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @09:35AM (#24357375)
      No encryption key cracking. Bigger than a PDP-7. Lame.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by lenski (96498)

        You have just received the ancient reference of the day award!

        Well played! :-)

    • by Hojima (1228978) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @11:13AM (#24358065)

      Your statement is ironically close to the truth. Quantum computers actually function in parallel to conventional devices when it comes to the simple tasks that they perform, such as rendering intricate scenes, or estimating series values. What quantum computers are better at is taking advantage of quantum effects to exponentially outperform conventional computers at things such as factoring immense integers. They will most likely be used for decryption and quantum simulations, or other mathematically novel applications. In other words, it benefits businesses and scientists the most. They will most likely have commercial value in the future, but that is when they develop more uses for it, such as emulating the human mind to make ultra-realistic (if not realistic) AI. At the moment however, it is still in the computer equivalent stage of useless behemoth. Someone in some field will most likely make a huge discovery similar to the silicon transistors of the past, win a Nobel prize, and set the stage for a new revolution. Feels like a long way from now, but I'll probably be proved wrong.

      • by speedtux (1307149) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @12:10PM (#24358643)

        What quantum computers are better at is taking advantage of quantum effects to exponentially outperform conventional computers at things such as factoring immense integers.

        That's a little misleading; it's unknown how fast classical factoring is, so it's impossible to say that quantum factoring "exponentially outperforms" it.

        but that is when they develop more uses for it, such as emulating the human mind to make ultra-realistic (if not realistic) AI.

        It's unlikely that quantum computers are needed for AI; the problem with AI is not that we don't have enough computer power, but that we don't know what to do.

        Someone in some field will most likely make a huge discovery similar to the silicon transistors of the past

        Or it will turn out that quantum computing just isn't feasible for some physical reason.

        • by Hojima (1228978) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @01:17PM (#24359233)

          Actually, it doesn't matter how fast a classical computer operates, a quantum computer WILL go exponentially faster regardless. I researched quantum computers in a laureate report I did a few year back. Quantum computers are able to achieve a dual state as a result of calculations. Also, quantum computers operate on the mathematical principles of a unitary matrix. One of the properties of a unitary matrix is it's reversibility, so that any operation that can be perform can be "unperformed". So take the ability to reverse calculations and achieve more than one answer at once, and you can "unperform" at an exponential rate. For example, you have a matrix with an "and" gate. If you where to reverse the and gate on the value '0', superposition will allow you to get the answers '10', '01', and '00' all at the same time. This means that a 64-qubit computer and theoretically "unrun" 2^64 (more than the molecules in the universe) times faster than a 64-bit computer. Now that is just a simplified gist of things. I don't want any physicists saying "you forgot the Hademard gate etc." The process is much more elaborate, and much more prone to other factors.
            Now as for you other comments: 1) quantum computers will be a better candidate for simulating AI on a common commercial scale, and 2) quantum computing already is possible. The discovery that will most likely be made is the ability to create a room-temperature equivalent of a Bose-Einstein condensate so that topological quantum computers (the most reliable model so far) can be fit onto something the size of a thumb.

          • Hadamard gate (Score:5, Informative)

            by HiggsBison (678319) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @01:59PM (#24359575)

            I don't want any physicists saying "you forgot the Hademard gate etc."

            I think you meant "Hadamard gate".

            -- Any Physicist

            (Much easier to google for the wikipedia article with that spelling.)

          • by Hojima (1228978)

            I don't like replying to my own comment, but I felt that I should have been a bit more proficient (not just in my bad grammar and typos) in explaining that mathematics also has to evolve to take advantage of the quantum principles. As you can imagine, the field of "uncalculating" isn't very big, just as Boolean algebra wasn't so big before transistors. That is another factor in making quantum computers that will be incorporated into every-day use.

          • by qcomp (694740) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @03:43PM (#24360513)
            Hojima wrote: Actually, it doesn't matter how fast a classical computer operates, a quantum computer WILL go exponentially faster regardless.
            this has so far not been proven. What is proven is that a quantum computer can outperform a classical computer polynomially (in algorithms based on unstructured search) and that it can outperform the best currently known classical algorithms for some problems (factoring, quantum simulation) exponentially. Moreover, exponential separation has been proven in terms of "query complexity" for "oracle problems" (in which a quantum black box is assumed to be available and only the number of accesses to the black box is counted as cost) and in terms of "communication complexity" in quantum communication (where the number of (qu)bits that need to be exchanged between two locations is counted as cost).

            Quantum computers are able to achieve a dual state as a result of calculations. Also, quantum computers operate on the mathematical principles of a unitary matrix. One of the properties of a unitary matrix is it's reversibility, so that any operation that can be perform can be "unperformed". So take the ability to reverse calculations and achieve more than one answer at once, and you can "unperform" at an exponential rate.
            that does not follow. having a superposition of 2^100 answers doesn't help you to get out a single one (since when you perform a measurement (and a quantum computer is supposed to give us a conventional ("classical") answer to our problem) each answer occurs with exponentially small probability only. The hard part is to make all these many "answers" to interfere such that the right answer comes out with high probabiliy (that decreases only polynomially in the number of bits used as input). Also, reversibility is not needed for a quantum speed-up.

            • What is proven is that a quantum computer can outperform a classical computer polynomially (in algorithms based on unstructured search) and that it can outperform the best currently known classical algorithms for some problems (factoring, quantum simulation) exponentially.

              Not even for factoring, actually. Factoring is known to be sub-exponential. =)

              • by qcomp (694740)
                Not even for factoring, actually. Factoring is known to be sub-exponential.
                yes, you're right. I should have said "outperforms super-polynomially" (I guess it is poly(n) for a QC vs n^log(n) classically, n beinig the input size in bits)
          • by stephentyrone (664894) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @06:46PM (#24361781)

            Actually, it doesn't matter how fast a classical computer operates, a quantum computer WILL go exponentially faster regardless.

            I really, really hope that you failed whatever course the report was for. There is not, at present, any known problem which for which a quantum-computing algorithm is known to be exponentially faster than the fastest classical algorithm.

            Factoring is known to be sub-exponential, so Shor's O(n^3) quantum algorithm does not provide an exponential speedup.

            The strongest known result in terms of speedup for quantum algorithms is for unordered search, from O(n) to O(sqrt(n)), which, again, is not an exponential speedup.

            There are some intuitive arguments for why an exponential speedup might be possible. There are also some intuitive arguments for why it shouldn't be. There is no proof either way, as things currently stand.

            (Note: I am not an expert in the field. This reflects my understanding, which was current as of about 5 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, things have not changed, but I don't read the literature like I do in other areas).

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Geldon (444090)

        Your statement is ironically close to the truth. Quantum computers actually function in parallel to conventional devices when it comes to the simple tasks that they perform, such as rendering intricate scenes, or estimating series values. What quantum computers are better at is taking advantage of quantum effects to exponentially outperform conventional computers at things such as factoring immense integers. They will most likely be used for decryption and quantum simulations, or other mathematically novel applications. In other words, it benefits businesses and scientists the most. They will most likely have commercial value in the future, but that is when they develop more uses for it, such as emulating the human mind to make ultra-realistic (if not realistic) AI. At the moment however, it is still in the computer equivalent stage of useless behemoth. Someone in some field will most likely make a huge discovery similar to the silicon transistors of the past, win a Nobel prize, and set the stage for a new revolution. Feels like a long way from now, but I'll probably be proved wrong.

        I actually am inclined not to agree with you. Back when people were making similar statements about the computer in general, they weren't small enough, powerful enough, or cheap enough for anyone to afford them who wasn't going to set up some sort of business unit around them. But I say give it 20-30 years. What will probably end up happening is that they'll be making quantum processors that run along side traditional processors, working much like today's GPUs, or yesterday's "Math Co-processors." Programme

        • by tenco (773732)

          My money says that 50-60 years from now, you'll be running a hybrid quantum/traditional computer on a mobile device you carry in your pocket.

          50-60 years from now, i will most probably be dead, you insensitive clod!

    • by b4upoo (166390)

      Maybe when the technology is inexpensive we can all own such a rig!
                    But I'll bet that all kinds of research could benefit from use of this computer.
                    My best guess is that government will control who has access to quantum computers as they just could not stand communications that they could not spy on.

  • by Mornedhel (961946) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @09:22AM (#24357285)

    FTFA : "These things [quantum computers] can be very small and very cold, and they can be built out of exotic materials" - emphasis mine.

    He makes this sound as a good thing.

    • No chance of having one running off a Honda generator in a cave somewhere in the Pakistan Tribal Territories, or Somalia.

      To keep our security agencies happy, quantum computers need to be almost impossible to make. The inventor of a really simple, cheap one is unlikely to have a successful career selling them to Joe Public.

      • The same reasoning applies to classical computers as well, and yet they're ubiquitous these days.
    • by kestasjk (933987) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @10:50AM (#24357919) Homepage
      • There's no access to the computer to scientists
      • They say it'll be able to do more than "pattern matching" if they get more funding (but until then that's all it can do)
      • They give their own definition of quantum computing, which is much broader than most would give
      • They claim they can do "quantum computing" without needing the qubits to be interconnected, which is the main problem all other major research teams are trying to tackle
      • Big claims, big predictions, few results
      • Who ever heard of a quantum computer only capable of pattern matching?!

      Thanks to scam companies like this more qualification is needed when referring to "quantum computing".

      This is only a little better than the quacks who talk about "quantum healing energy"; they're exploiting the vague term "quantum computing" and the small amount of understanding to try and make a quick buck from investors.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Cyberax (705495)

        Probably, their Hamiltonian phase-space is severely limited. I.e. their quantum computer can't explore all possible configurations of phase-space.

        That means it'll need a lot more qubits than an 'ideal' computer for some tasks.

    • by sokoban (142301)

      FTFA : "These things [quantum computers] can be very small and very cold, and they can be built out of exotic materials" - emphasis mine.

      He makes this sound as a good thing.

      Oh, it is a great thing for the marketing folks.

  • by VincenzoRomano (881055) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @09:32AM (#24357349) Homepage Journal
    From an earlier experiment was even not clear whether the factorisation of 15 had really happened!
  • Won't this make standard encryption useless?
    • by norton_I (64015) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Sunday July 27, 2008 @09:59AM (#24357517)

      No, their device is *NOT* a universal quantum computer. So far as I know, no reputable quantum physicist not in their employ has been allowed to examine what they actually do. Examples of performing calculations impractical on a classical computer are not available as far as I know.

      They are something of a joke among the QC people I know. While people acknowledge that their device may be possible of doing some interesting things, everything they do is acting like they have something to hide.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MrNaz (730548)

        Not that I'm passing comment either way, as I don't know, but:

        "acting like they have something to hide"

        Something like intellectual property?

      • by TeknoHog (164938) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @11:02AM (#24357991) Homepage Journal

        No, their device is *NOT* a universal quantum computer. So far as I know, no reputable quantum physicist not in their employ has been allowed to examine what they actually do.

        Duh, of course you can't examine what a quantum computer is doing. That would change the outcome.

      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

        So far as I know, no reputable quantum physicist not in their employ has been allowed to examine what they actually do.

        Well if they did go ahead and examine it, wouldn't the system change anyway?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by gweihir (88907)

      No impact on encryption, unless you use ROT-13.

    • This has no impact on cryptography whatsoever. Symmetric encryption has never been shown to be a problem that quantum computing can help with. A *large* QC would affect the use of public key algorithms as both factoring and discrete logs can be sped up.

      However:
      1. 28 is not a large number. Current asymmetric key sizes would takes thousands of qubits.
      2. This is not a "quantum computer". Shor's algorithm requires entangled qubits that stay coherent during the length of the algorithm. The 28 cubits in this syst

  • How does it work? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath (38547) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @09:37AM (#24357383)

    Can someone post a link that describes the benefits of a quantum architecture and how software can be written to take advantage of them?

    And by "benefits", I don't mean hype.

    • by matria (157464)

      Considering that UNIX was developed to play a game on a pdp7, I'd say it doesn't much matter. It will grow.

    • Re:How does it work? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 27, 2008 @10:03AM (#24357545)

      Can someone post a link that describes the benefits of a quantum architecture and how software can be written to take advantage of them?

      And by "benefits", I don't mean hype.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm [wikipedia.org]
      ^The big one.

    • Re:How does it work? (Score:5, Informative)

      by norton_I (64015) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Sunday July 27, 2008 @10:11AM (#24357621)

      The wikipedia article is not bad, though it is fairly technical.

      A very small number of algorithms are known for universal quantum computers (which the D-wave device does not claim to be) that are asymptotically faster than any known algorithm for classical computers.

      The most widely known of these is Shor's factoring algorithm. Mostly it would be useful for breaking public key cryptography. The others are: Grovers search algorithm which can give a small speed boost to any classical algorithm that involves enumerating all possibilities and checking some property and quantum simulation: simulating the behavior of systems of many particles where quantum effects are important.

      In the past 10 years, considerable progress has been made, but nobody still has a good handle on when scalable universal quantum computing might be a reality, though it no longer looks impossible--only very hard. D-wave does not claim their device is universal. In particular they don't say they can do factoring. They claim to be able to efficiently do quantum simulation and also traveling salesman type optimization problems. Evidence of them actually solving any hard problems is not widely available.

      • I dunno... Producing a working device seems to be plenty hard. There's vaporware, and then there's university research that doesn't even bother leave the lab. No use if it just remains theory.

      • Grovers search algorithm which can give a small speed boost to any classical algorithm...

        I wouldn't call the step from O(N) to O(sqrt(N)) a small speed boost. You can even be pretty fast when your qubits are ramdomly (but not too fast) change state using error correction techniques. So you don't even need a perfect quantum computer to do usefull work.
        That said; I know a few people who do actual research on quantum computing and I've never even heard them talk about D-Wave.

        • Re:How does it work? (Score:4, Informative)

          by norton_I (64015) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Sunday July 27, 2008 @12:10PM (#24358639)

          sqrt(N) is small compared to the other promised speedups of quantum computers which are typically reduction from super-polynomial or exponential time to polynomial time.

          The real crux is that the type of problems that you often want to apply Grover's algorithm to are already O(2^n). Grovers algorithm reduces that to O(2^(n/2)). With a similar size quantum computer you could only solve problems of roughly twice the size.

          Still interesting and potentially useful, The main advantage is its wide applicability. Many classical algorithms can simply be directly translated to a quantum equivalent, then have Grover's algorithm applied. Finding a special-purpose quantum algorithm is typically very hard or impossible.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by bap (75675)

        D-wave does not claim their device is universal. In particular they don't say they can do factoring. They claim to be able to efficiently do quantum simulation...

        Being able to "efficiently do quantum simulation" makes a device a universal quantum computer. That is what "universal" means.

      • by oodaloop (1229816)

        The wikipedia article is not bad, though it is fairly technical.

        You must be new here. And to Wikipedia.

    • I'm using a quantum preprocessor for my /. post as a result I may or may not have told you about the benefits of quantum computing. Unfortunately you can't verify its validity, but I can tell you the state of this post depends in some probabilistic way on you reading it, maybe.
    • Good luck with that - it's all hype.

      Quantum computing is the new string-theory, ie. a theoretical physics quagmire. It's soaking up funding and diverting graduate student talent that could be better utilized in other areas.

    • David Deutsch's Home Page (http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html) is a good place to start. Not only is he an active scientist in the field, he has written an excellent popular book(http://www.qubit.org/people/david/FabricOfReality/FoR.html); "The Fabric Of Reality".

      A good reason to look there is to get an intuition of the concept of computing using parallel universes.

  • But can it run Q*bert? ???

  • This ir several orders of magintude from from useful size. Invest the same money into a normal CPU and get much, much more power, even if you use it to simuulate the 28 qbit device.

    • By the same token, you could have performed calculations easier on a slide rule than on the first binary computers built. I think the point of this is proof-of-concept of a new technology rather than this particular unit taking over for modern systems.

      If no one had bothered to use, abuse, and continue to develop binary computers half a century ago, then we'd still be using abacus and slide rule to perform all our calculations.

      • This is very much not the case. Computing developed for entirely practical reasons, performing computations which were either difficult or impossible to perform without them: brute forcing the Enigma codes, calculating artillery tables, etc.

        In any case, the summary (I haven't bothered to read the article) makes it sound like they're presenting it as a practical, useful device, in which case saying that it's too weak to be useful is an entirely valid criticism.

  • by dos4who (564592) <[top_mcse] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Sunday July 27, 2008 @10:23AM (#24357719)
    "What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?"
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ihmhi (1206036)

      I'd write a Jeopardy program and have the only clue be "42". I'd like to see what the thing churns out.

      • I'd write a Jeopardy program and have the only clue be "42". I'd like to see what the thing churns out.

        Answer: "How many roads must a man walk down?"

  • D-Wave a bit of scam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 27, 2008 @10:41AM (#24357847)

    I work with the IQC, we specialize in quantum computing, quantum crypto, and many other things like that. We are also joined partially with the Perimeter Institute (and they do mostly theoretical physics). Anyway, when I first joined the institute, we had a discussion about d-wave. No one believed that it was real, and in fact considers d-wave to be bad for the field. Many of you will probably remember the cold fusion controversy. What happened was that experiment that could not be reproduced was published. This enraged the scientific community. Also, this led to massive funding cuts, and killed off the field. QC has a more stable base, but if d-wave keeps on been publicized like this, and they can never prove their claims (remember that all the experiments and functioning of the QC are considered "trade secrets", they let no one look at it), then we may end up with skepticism from the funders. Keep in mind that the ones who donate have usually no clue what is happening in the field (politicians, ceos, etc, so they are "stupid" enough to be affected by this. Everyone in the field is in the back of their head hoping that its real, but with that chance being so low, we want d-wave to be forgotten.

    • So are you saying that they haven't yet passed a series of tests that would prove their computer is working?

      One would think that it should be possible to design tests which they could pass if they possessed the working technology, without them having to reveal how exactly they achieved the result.

      Very high level example: For instance, perform X number of Z type calculations in Y seconds, where Z type calculations would normally take present-day computers Y * 10 months of time but through quantum computing c

      • by qcomp (694740) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @02:01PM (#24359579)

        One would think that it should be possible to design tests which they could pass if they possessed the working technology, without them having to reveal how exactly they achieved the result.

        This is actually quite hard (and I'm not sure any such test exists).

        One can distinguish two scenarios: (1) a quantum computer tas a box that gets a classical input, processes it and outputs a classical result. Then the only distinction between classical and quantum is speed - or rather "computational complexity" in the sense that the number of required computational steps sclaes differently with the size (in bits) of the input - hence by sending a series of queries with varying length and plotting the scaling one might conclude "this device is better than any known classical machine". But there are two caveats. one needs to go to really large input to see such a scaling and there's no proof that there does not exist a clever classical algorithm with the same scaling.

        (2) one can demand more of a quantum computer, namely the capability to perform a universal set of gates and therefor prepare a large class of quantum states. There are well-developed criteria to verify that such states have been produced and that certain gates have been performed. If a universal set of gates has been implemented with sufficient quality one knows that the device is capable of performing quantum computations (but maybe this capability is not needed for QC). To apply this criterion, however, one needs to "look into the box" and perform measurements on the qubits.

        This problem could be circumvented, if their supposed quantum computer would also have a "quantum interface" that allows input and output of quantum information (e.g., I send them a bunch of photons, they map their state into their computer, perfom a set of operations I ask them to do and then they write back the state ofthe qubits to photons and send them back to me for analysis. Then I could verify (not me, but experimentalists with the proper equipment) if the desired operation has indeed been performed.

        Of course, d-wave does not claim that their device is a "universal quantum computer" or that it can prepare these kind of states. How their claims can be verified without looking into their device, I don't know.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Ihmhi (1206036)

      [CITATION NEEDED]

      You state that you work for the Institute for Quantum Computing" [wikipedia.org]. How are we to know that you are not just badmouthing a company that may have gotten on your bad site?

      Sources and facts, please.

  • ...then we'll discuss the word "successful".

  • Uh (Score:3, Informative)

    by justinlee37 (993373) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @10:51AM (#24357921)

    It is particularly good at pattern recognition, it operates at 10 milliKelvin, and it is shielded to limit electromagnetic interference to one nanotesla in three dimensions across the whole chip. Could this be the first successful commercial quantum computer?

    Based on that description? No. I don't even know what the fuck any of that stuff you just said even means, man (except for the bit about pattern recognition, which was an unquantified statement anyway and about as useful as "the computer is fast"). Speak in a language I can understand, like, the average framerate it can run Crysis at.

    • by cowscows (103644)

      I'll translate for you:

      It's fairly useless but less useless at pattern recognition than it is for anything else. To make it work we have to make it really really cold. It won't get cancer from cell phones. We won't make any money off of this particular machine.

    • by pla (258480)
      I don't even know what the fuck any of that stuff you just said even means

      Do you understand what it means to say that the CPU in your desktop has a 14-stage execution pipeline? That it has a TLB hit rate over 98%? That it has a double-pumped ALU?


      Based on that description? No.

      Whether or not you understand the specs has no relation to commercial viability. As you say, you (or Joe Average) only care how it will affect your frame rate in the latest FPS.
      • It might be valuable as a specialized research tool, or in industry as a component of production, but it isn't consumer-viable. It will never be a "final product" (as counted in the GDP), at least not in this decade.

        Also, no, I didn't understand any of that stuff either, haha. I'm a student of economics and a consumer, not a hardware engineer.

  • But their claims are so far of everyone else's and there are so few details about how it works that it also sounds like an investment scam.

  • by yorkshiredale (1148021) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @11:25AM (#24358149)

    "Hello, Quantum Computer Tech Support"

    "My new QC is not working, I'd like a replacement under the warranty"

    "What makes you think it's broken?"

    "It keeps giving wrong results"

    "But it's giving the right results in lots of nearby parallel universes. The computer is not broken - you're not observing from the recommended viewing position. This is user error." CLICK.

  • No proof (Score:5, Informative)

    by bugnotme (1138795) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @11:29AM (#24358191)
    D-Wave has provided neither proof nor convincing evidence that they have, or are capable of building a quantum computer. There are several theoretical limitations that experts remain skeptical have been overcome. Their demonstrations have been suspicious and not open for peer review. In sum, I will believe it when I see it.

    See some skepticism here:
    http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=306 [scottaaronson.com]
    http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291 [scottaaronson.com]
    http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?s=d-wave [scottaaronson.com]
    • "D-Wave has provided neither proof nor convincing evidence..."

        Quantum computing is not a black or white or a yes or no type of field, D-Wave's response to your accusation could be 'Maybe'.

  • Almost got it, but not quite. We're looking for 300 qubits, by 80 qubits, by 40 qubits.
  • D-Wave sounds like a classic scam to lure investors.
    IF they really had a working QC, they could patent the tech and license the patents for Billions of dollars.

    All they're doing is saying 'Trust me, it works, ignore the man under the table'.

    I bet that in 2 or 3 years we'll be reading a story like this about D-Wave.
    http://trashotron.com/agony/columns/05-21-02.htm/ [trashotron.com]

  • Because I've got a date with the Xbox public key.

  • "it operates at 10 milliKelvin"

    First off, "kelvin" as a unit of measure is not a proper noun, any more than "meter" is (read me). But even if it was, it'd be "Millikelvin," you don't capitalize letters in the middle of words!

  • Purely by chance, I recently ended up sitting next to a D-wave employee while travelling from Philly to New York, and we got to talking about commercial viability.

    I was curious at what point they would reach the commercial tipping point, where it would be cheaper to use quantum computation than to do it on regularly processors.

    According to him, the point at which they planned to be commercially viable was somewhere in the vicinity of 512 qubits, at that point there was a number of problems that started to b

Happiness is a positive cash flow.

Working...