A Look At Quantum Computer Manufacturer D-Wave and Its Founder 96
First time accepted submitter tpjunkie writes "Many slashdot readers will remember D-wave's announcement in 2007 of its quantum computer, an announcement met with skepticism and a good amount of scorn. However, today the company has sold quantum computers to such companies as Lockheed Martin and Google, and their computers have gone from a handful of qubits to 512 in their most recent offerings. Nature has a story including an interview with the company's founder Geordi Rose, and a look at where the company is headed and some of the difficulties it has overcome."
Re: the missing fine print (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the missing fine print (Score:4, Funny)
I guess D-Wave's Google Ads campaign (Buy a 10 million dollar computer! Click here!) wasn't getting good sell through rates, huh?
Re: (Score:1)
Why would you possibly use one for web browsing? Are you retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
Quantum computers would be perfect for web browsing. Encryption would be meaningless, since you'd be able to access any encrypted website that someone is browsing ... perfect for corporate espionage, bank fraud, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you possibly use one for web browsing? Are you retarded?
That sentiment reminds me of how people were ridiculed for suggesting that people in the future might want computers in their homes. ... six.
After all, the estimated world need for computers was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've used a BlueGene/Q. It sucks for web browsing and gaming, the processors are only 1.6 GHz and it doesn't even run Windows ;-)
Implementing MPI scalable parallelism into Firefox would actually be a pretty interesting exercise for somebody with the time on their hands...
Re:quantum computing (Score:5, Informative)
The research into quantum computing is using done with the goal of a universal quantum Turing machine, which would, by proof, run classical algorithms in addition to quantum ones.
Not the D-Wave. There's two branches in current quantum computation: General quantum computation, which is still stuck at the implementation stage (of which languages like QCL derive) and D-Wave's computation (which, admittedly, is geared toward quantum annealing and no other quantum procedures, and is therefore not a general quantum computer).
If I were to think a few years down the road, the path D-Wave is taking would culminate in chips that do specific things, such as perform quantum communication protocols, but only those things that were hardwired into the chip. It's hard to think of how a quantum operating system or a quantum programming language would operate under such a model. The general quantum computing path, for which four major quantum programming languages have been written already (QCL, LANQ, CQPL, and QML), if possible, would allow for Turing-Complete machines.
Re:quantum computing (Score:5, Insightful)
This technology won't be impressive until it can perform general computing tasks. Right now, it's too constrained of a technology to be useful for something as simple as web browsing. Great promise... but that's what it is: A promise.
There are lots of specialized computers that do one thing really well, yet still aren't great at general computing tasks... like GPUs and DSPs. For that matter, the CPU in your hard drive may not be nearly powerful enough to run a web browser, yet it's still extremely useful for its intended purpose.
Not every computer development is meant to make Firefox run faster.
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of specialized computers that do one thing really well, yet still aren't great at general computing tasks... like GPUs and DSPs.
And even analogue computers, giving a near immediate result where a digital or GP computer would have to do complex calculations.
Not a QC! (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is saying it is a quantum computer because it sold these to Lockheed Martin and Google. Please. stop that shit. They are pretty fast computers, however nobody has proven it is quantum computers. Even the CTO at D-Wave is not able to demonstrate it and he just doesn't care saying it is damn fast and that's all matter for him.
Slashdot should stop advertising D-Wave computers as QC until it has been proven.
”What we do is build computers,” Rose says, “and if we can build the fastest computers the world has ever known, you can call them whatever you like, and I’ll be happy.”
"Instead, journalists have preferred a paper released this week by Catherine McGeoch and Cong Wang, which reports that quantum annealing running on the D-Wave machine outperformed the CPLEX optimization package running on a classical computer by a factor of ~3600, on Ising spin problems involving 439 bits. Wow! That sounds awesome! But before rushing to press, let’s pause to ask ourselves: how can we reconcile this with the USC group’s result of no speedup?"
Re:Not a QC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those papers don't indicate it's a quantum computer either. It's a computer that makes calculations using "quantum effects", as the company claim on the few places they have to be honest.
Re:Not a QC! (Score:4, Insightful)
A computer directly using quantum effects is a quantum computer.
Transistors directly use quantum effects to work, yet we don't call desktop computers "quantum computers".
Most of the interest around "quantum computers" exists because there's good reason to believe that they can yield improvements in the asymptotic time complexity in solving some problems (the mathematical definition would be something like "can solve BQP problems efficiently"). Before Shor's algorithm, almost no one cared about quantum computing.
So, if all you have is a special-purpose computer like D-Wave's, which just uses some quantum effects to calculate something, but you're not sure it can solve BQP problems efficiently, it's debatable whether it should be called "quantum computer".
Re:Not a QC! (Score:5, Informative)
Transistors directly use quantum effects to work, yet we don't call desktop computers "quantum computers".
The transistors in the CPU in your desktop computer are IGFETs (insulated gate field effect transistors). The principle of operation of this device is that moving charge on the gate can enhance or deplete the number of mobile electrons in the source to drain channel under the gate and cause it to turn on or off using an electric field effect which is not considered a quantum effect.
To be fair, at the scales that modern transistors operate, there are some interesting quantum effects. Most are considered as "bad" (causing problems with the "classical" operation of the transistor by tunneling charge or changing thresholds), but there are a few things like strained silicon that are used to improve performance (which used to create quantum containment and effective mass modifications to make small geometry operation more feasible), but these quantum effects aren't intrinsic to the operation of a generic IGFET (just a FET that's really small).
There are of course stuff in your desktop computer that intrinsically rely on quantum effects to work. For example, the flash memory (uses tunneling to move charge in and out of an isolated control gate). However, there are many other things that are similar to the transistor's use of QM effects like the optical drive (solid state laser uses bandgaps to get a certain frequency) and the disc drive (uses the GMR effect which is related to QM electron spin transport), but that's really just to make stuff work when it is really small, not intrinsic to the operation.
In the end, it's all physics and computers use physics and when you make things really small the quantum nature of physics must be accounted for, but it can be taken advantage of too. As for calling a quantum adiabatic computer a "quantum computer" I agree that would be a no. It technically relies on tunneling, so it's sort of like a flash memory in that respect (it's basic theory of operation requires a non-classical QM effect which is different than a transistor).
As to whether D-Wave actually does or doesn't implement a QM adiabatic algorithm, or perhaps just uses QM tunneling to improve a more classical annealing implementation speed and result, and if that actually makes any practical difference, is another question.
Re: (Score:3)
Transistors directly use quantum effects to work, yet we don't call desktop computers "quantum computers".
The transistors in the CPU in your desktop computer are IGFETs (insulated gate field effect transistors). The principle of operation of this device is that moving charge on the gate can enhance or deplete the number of mobile electrons in the source to drain channel under the gate and cause it to turn on or off using an electric field effect which is not considered a quantum effect.
I think the point is that a transistor does this through a quantum effects. It works due to the energy levels of the semiconductor, which are definitely a quantum mechanical in nature. You could do the same with a vacuum tube, so there is nothing inherent in the effect of a transistor that is quantum mechanical, but the the level that flash memory is quantum mechanical (the effect can be obtained differently, but in this case it isn't), so is a transistor.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record - in flash memory what people refer to as 'tunnelling' might better be referred to as "electrical breakdown of a dielectric" ... People can call it tunnelling if they want to - but ask me this - if it is tunnelling and not electric breakdown (in the old fashioned classical sense) why are write cycles limited?? I know which of those two phenonoma damages materials in the long run - and it isn;t tunnelling..
In actuality, physics is always involved, so since a flash memory is an actual device, rather than a theoretical device, both processs are happening , but my understanding is that di-electric breakdown isn't currently the predominant process.
The difference between di-electric breakdown and tunnelling is that di-electric breakdown creates semi-permanent electrically conductive paths through the insulator where tunnelling does not, but statistically leaves some charge trapped in the insulator. The primary li
Re: (Score:2)
Everytime an electron passes from the metal interconnect to silicon in a semiconductor a quantum process is occuring. The electron has to pass a thin but but carrier empty region by quantum tunnelling because the metal either fills or empties the region of the interface. So the electron has to do a "quantum jump" so to speak. So basically every semiconductor is quantum to a degree and in an instrinic way.
Re: (Score:2)
Everytime an electron passes from the metal interconnect to silicon in a semiconductor a quantum process is occuring. The electron has to pass a thin but but carrier empty region by quantum tunnelling because the metal either fills or empties the region of the interface. So the electron has to do a "quantum jump" so to speak. So basically every semiconductor is quantum to a degree and in an instrinic way.
Although everything has a quantum component when it is small (because quantum=physics and everything has to follow the laws of physics), this "tunnelling" aspect isn't really important part of the function of the IGFET as it is currently used.
Sure, with a metal/semi-conductor interface, there is a "depletion-region" which creates a potential barrier that needs to be overcome by electrons. As I understand it, the potential provided by the power-rails to switch the device are more than enough to overcome this
Re:Not a QC! (Score:5, Funny)
Let's make every one happy :
D-Wave = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Psi_{classical computer} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Psi_{quantum computer}
But, PLEASE, don't measure it, seriously...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the moment I run out of mod points...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, please use a command like \mathit or \text around text used in maths mode. I see $italics$ far too often still in papers and presentations.
So, you should e.g. write: $\Psi_\mathit{classical computer}$
See also: http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=mathstext [tex.ac.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's make every one happy :
D-Wave = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Psi_{classical computer} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Psi_{quantum computer}
But, PLEASE, don't measure it, seriously...
Why not? All you have to do is ph{#`%${%&`+'${`%&INDETERMINATE CARRIER
Not fast either (Score:1)
The one thing the D-Wave computer is good at is solving the "D-Wave problem", or things that can be expressed in terms of that problem. However, even at this, its speciality, it is 12000 times slower than a normal single-core computer. The reason why some were reporting that the D-wave computer was faster than classical computers at this problem was simply that they used a very inefficient program to do this.
http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/ [archduke.org]
So basically: Th
It is not fast either (Score:2)
The one thing the D-Wave computer is good at is solving the "D-Wave problem", or things that can be expressed in terms of that problem. However, even at this, its speciality, it is 12000 times slower than a normal single-core computer. The reason why some were reporting that the D-wave computer was faster than classical computers at this problem was simply that they used a very inefficient program to do this.
http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/ [archduke.org]
So basically: Th
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, politicians never make bad* decisions. How dare the GP claim otherwise.
* Bad for the people they represent, not for their pockets, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's purchases are decided by politicians? Since when? Since, you know, Google's the one who bought it for the collaboration with NASA.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize you're cherry picking the NASA buy, but I'm pretty sure Google is acting on self interests alone. Even if you choose to believe that NASA picked up the phone one day, and a bunch of politicians on the other line said, "Hey NASA, buy this thing from Canada, cause that would be awesome!" I bet that kind of simplistic worldview makes their scientists and mathematicians feel awesome.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure the people at Google and NASA know what they were buying without your "help".
He's not writing the above to "help" NASA or Google. He's writing it to help his fellow geeks understand something complex that is typically not part of a geek's knowledge set.
I found his comment interesting and informative and judging from the moderation it received, so did others.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We should require labels that say it contains quantum modified chips.
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Interesting)
Wake me when someone makes a 2048-qubit quantum computer that can run Shor's algorithm. The Xbox public key and I have some unfinished business.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we are talking about factoring a number that is the product of two large probable-primes, and the sum of their binary lengths is 2048 so the numbers themselves are approximately ~1024 bits each.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really necessary to have the same number of qubit as the problem, tho?
Unfortunately, I think it's worse than that.
The "quantum" part of Shor's algorithm factoring N involves a period finding operation that requires an input and output of k-qubits where k is approximately 2logN+1. A simplistic implementation to factor a 2048-bit number would be minimally 2x2048+1 input and the same number of output so about 8194 qubits (I don't think you can share the input and output for the quantum fourier transform computation step). That also presupposes that you can change the circuit
Re: (Score:2)
a ten million dollar math co-processor.
If you read some of the articles about the company, they're not just selling hardware. They enter into contracts for long-term partnerships with these companies, offering to keep them at the leading edge of quantum-or-whatever-it-is computing during that period.
They're probably going to get the 1024 then 2048-bit devices, and certainly whatever the next thing is they come up with.
For a company like Lockheed, spending $2-3M a year to be probably on the forefront of th
Re: (Score:2)
D-Wave will turn out to be whatever it is, but it's hard to find another company that's closer to commercializing quantum computing.
Given that, at best, it is only sort of a quantum computer, and definitely not what is normally meant with the phrase, and at worst in no way a quantum computer, I would say that there is a good chance that Bobs Banana Import is as close to commercializing quantum computing as this company is. It might still be true that nobody is closer than them, in the same sense as it is true that no company has a bigger presence on Jupiter than them.
Doesn't mean it is not money well spent by Lockheed et al., it just
Re: (Score:1)
"Conjectured" is too weak a statement here. It has been shown that a single-core normal classical CPU running a modestly optimized program is 12000 times faster than the D-wave computer at its speciality, the "D-wave problem":
http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/ [archduke.org]
nothing to add beyond my previous comments (Score:2)
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222846&cid=18048620 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222540&cid=18026304 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=221306&cid=17942722 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=221306&cid=17934696 [slashdot.org]
funny thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn it, I let my mod points expire.
Re: (Score:2)
Ye can nae change the laws of physics, Jim!
Paid advertisement masquerading as news (Score:1)
This is a marketing scam. DWave doesn't have a quantum computer, at best they have a weakly quantum annealer. They could never even show that they have a single working qubit in their machine.
This article is not worthy of Nature, frankly it is deeply unethical for a peer-reviewed journal to publish such misleading crap. As an expert in the field I would expect to find this kind of bullshit in a tabloid or in a slashvertisement at best.
The Nature Publishing Group will feel the heat on this one, I hope they a
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Competent fraudsters, obviously, but that is all they have. If they had a real quantum computer, at the very least some spectacular benchmarks would have been forthcoming. Oh, wait, these are easy to verify and would give buyers and competitors legal claims if proven wrong.
It is amazing how easy to manipulate people that should know better are in this day and age. Historically, you would claim "magic". Now you claim "quantum computer", and suddenly many people lose all rationality. Pathetic.
Re: Paid advertisement masquerading as news (Score:2)
Nature News isn't peer reviewed. Unless you consider the editor reading the journalist's article peer review because they're both journalists.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is not worthy of Nature, frankly it is deeply unethical for a peer-reviewed journal to publish such misleading crap.
Hahahaha! Yes. What you say is true, well the latter half anyway. Nature *loves* the contraversial articles, so anything designed to stir up strong feelings and strongly worded letters and articles is just up their street. In other words, they are actually professional trolls (and not in the more modern usage of trolls meaning simply being a dick until you're banned).
The Nature Pu
Re: (Score:2)
It is not controversial at all, it is a flat-out lie. This thing is not a quantum-computer at all. Unfortunately, there are enough suckers that think they are a lot smarter than they are and that have too much money. D-Wave is not the first set of fraudsters to work in the high-cost area. It is also quite telling that they tout their sales as their biggest accomplishment, and not anything their machine can do that quadratic factor faster than a conventional machine. As a quantum computer would be able to. B
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever it is, I find it interesting in that however it does whatever it does it apparently works differently than any other computing machine. It's that black-box weirdness that has kept me following D-Wave for the past six years.
(Please note I don't know a damn thing about any of this; I do like a bit of mystery and odd phenomena. Helps avoid ennui, and keeps the "man will never fly" demons from my door.)
Re: (Score:2)
The understood definition of "Quantum Computer" is pretty clear, and it requires entanglement. Using if for anything else in a commercial or scientific setting is a lie.
Selling crap to suckers is no big accomplishment (Score:2)
It is being done all the time. What is this fraudulent nonsense even doing here on /. Was this not already debunked enough?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not debunked; that is, no one has shown it not to be what's claimed. However it has been shown that even if it is what it claims it's no better than an optimized classical simulated version. It's like someone claims they have a quantum chicken, and it may be quantum chicken, but it still can't cross the road faster than a fast non-quantum chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what I meant was debunked. What I meant (being a Computer Scientist and not a Physicist) was the implicit claim that this performs massively better at some computations than classical computers for the same money. In the literal sense, you are right, of course, D-Wave is very careful what they claim, the fraudulent claims only turn up in peoples expectations.
Guts & Determination (Score:2)
Geordi Rose has more of this than anyone I have heard of. More power to him.
May it inspire more innovators!
Re: (Score:2)
How does selling to Google & Lockheed constitute sucking, since they evaluated the DWave and then bought it in a free market transaction.
Re: (Score:3)
How does selling to Google & Lockheed constitute sucking, since they evaluated the DWave and then bought it in a free market transaction.
well the fraud portion is that they thought the machine was any good for a problem they have and not beaten by desktop machinery in what it is supposed to do best...
lockheed billed it to government projects. neither company is willing to admit that they spend millions on shit - or are hoping the next gazillion million version will actually do something. adding units doesn't help at all either since that doesn't turn it into a real quantum computer.
Quantum Computer (Score:1)
If they cannot execute Shor's Algorithm for factorization it isn't a quantum computer, and I haven't seen anything that can solve Shor's algorithm in a single operation so it isn't a quantum computer. It really is that simple.
Judging by the comments (Score:2)
Use for Bitcoin mining? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised no one has suggested it yet...
d-wave can't be used for bitcoin mining. or can, but extremely slow.
a real quantum computer could be.
Geordi and Quantum Computing? (Score:2)
It's simple, just invert the polarity of the tachyon beam!
sounds familiar (Score:2)
Business background my ass (Score:2)
Where the hell was he shopping? That could have been easily $450. Great way to start a business, wasting money on overpriced crap. This guy must be a financial genius!