Quantum technology

godtabh

One work today I was taking to some one from Trinity who did some research on bus trips in Dublin or a perlongged period.

The collected passengers data from leap cards and analysed OD data to try and figure out new bus routes (ie bus connects).

It took the computers (10 I believe) two weeks to crunch the numbers and solve what I can assume was a problem similar to the traveling sales man problem.

The researcher remarked that a quantum computer would have solved this in minutes.

Which got me to google and the here.

Quantum technology - will see it in our life time in every day use?

Is there other forms of Quantum technology?

mikhail

Lots of big companies working on quantum computing. Google, IBM, and the like. Prototype machines built with tens of qubits. Probably something like a thousand or so qubits would allow some basic (for a quantum computer) but useful problems be solved. Might see them in a generation or so, but I get the impression they're only ever going to be a niche thing - useful for a limited set of problems, complementary to regular computers, not replacing them.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/start-ups/is-it-time-for-quantum-computing-startups

The other big one in the pipe is quantum entanglement for secure communications. I'm not sure where that stands.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/china-launches-worlds-first-quantum-communications-satellite

Fourier

godtabh wrote: »

Quantum technology - will see it in our life time in every day use?

Is there other forms of Quantum technology?

Possibly, but as mikhail said they aren't better than regular computers at everything. It's a specific set of small problems that we currently know they're a good deal better.

As I've mentioned in other threads, it'll be funny to see them in operation when we have no idea how they're doing what they do. It's possible that how they operate cannot be comprehended scientifically in light of recent results in quantum foundations.

godtabh

When you say generation are you talking about human generation or a computer generation?

Fourier

mikhail wrote: »

The other big one in the pipe is quantum entanglement for secure communications. I'm not sure where that stands.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/china-launches-worlds-first-quantum-communications-satellite

The Hefei National Laboratory for Physical Sciences in China has made some advances last month which improves the ability to use quantum communication via photons.

godtabh wrote:

When you say generation are you talking about human generation or a computer generation?

There's really no way to know when it will arrive if ever, some interpretations of quantum mechanics don't allow the construction of a scaleable quantum computer.

mikhail

godtabh wrote: »

When you say generation are you talking about human generation or a computer generation?

As Fourier said, it's not really clear, but what I mean is that while there has been significant progress in recent years, I think the remaining steps to commercially available and useful quantum computers won't be solved in just a few years. I think we're talking tens of years at least. But that's one of the charms of quantum mechanics - you never know until you see it!

Fourier

It's important to say that they may not be possible at all, it heavily depends on the interpretation.

In collapse interpretations like GRW, superdeterministic interpretations like 't Hooft's and some others, they cannot be built.

Fourier

godtabh wrote: »

The researcher remarked that a quantum computer would have solved this in minutes.

I meant to remark that this is not known, proving a quantum computer is faster than any classical algorithm is extremely difficult. Right now there is no direct proof they are faster, just cases where they might be.

The Travelling salesman problem is not one of the cases where our confidence is high that there will be a speedup.

(Formally in mathematics, the space of problems that are "fast" on a quantum computer is BQP and those fast on classical computer are called P, it's not known if BQP is a superset of P)