Electrical Control of Nuclear Spin Qubits: Important Step For Quantum Computing 42
Taco Cowboy writes: "Using a spin cascade in a single-molecule magnet, scientists at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and their French partners have demonstrated that a single nuclear spin can be realized in a purely electric manner, rather than through the use of magnetic fields (abstract). For their experiments, the researchers used a nuclear spin-qubit transistor that consists of a single-molecule magnet connected to three electrodes (source, drain, and gate). The single-molecule magnet is a TbPc2 molecule — a single metal ion of terbium that is enclosed by organic phthalocyanine molecules of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen atoms. The gap between the electric field and the spin is bridged by the so-called hyperfine-Stark effect that transforms the electric field into a local magnetic field. This quantum mechanical process can be transferred to all nuclear spin systems and, hence, opens up entirely novel perspectives for integrating quantum effects in nuclear spins into electronic circuits"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. Well, maybe not you *personally*, they're insanely expensive. And we're not yet 100% certain their computations are actually quantum in nature. But they do seem to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
well, we are 100% certain that the computations are not on the individual quantum bit level. what d-wave claims is to have quantum adiabatic computation, which achieves some quantum speed-up on some optimization problems by (roughly speaking) quantum-parallelizing hill-climbing algorithms.
and it seems so far that they are full of shit, even on that vague claim...
Re: (Score:2)
btw, this was referring specifically to d-wave.
we do have bona fide quantum computers already. it's just that they have so far, at most, 7 qubits, and the registers persist for only ~100 microseconds. but they do exist.
Re: (Score:1)
Have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
Re: (Score:1)
If you're going to cite something, at least make the effort to read it fully beforehand!
You must have missed the "Controversy" section of that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Controversy [wikipedia.org]
So there are some serious doubts about veracity of the technology in question.
Had you known this, you probably wouldn't have gone ahead and thrown the link out like you did. If it does anything, it's that it provides significant evidence against what you're trying to argue in favor of!
Re: (Score:2)
There is an article covering the controversy in the June "Wired."
Re: (Score:2)
we have quantum computers with seven qubits, so strictly speaking we do have them already. scaling seems to be an issue, but progress is being made.
and of course we'll still be doing research into them in 50 years. we're still doing research into classical computers after all.
non-locality or GTFO (Score:2)
no.
we do not have the ability to initiate or control quantum entangled particles
to be quantum it must be **non-local**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, we really do have working quantum computers in the lab right now. They are fully capable of running Shor's algorithm [princeton.edu]. It's just that they can factor at most a number like 15.
non-locality or GTFO (Score:2)
no, we don't have non-local entanglement...I'm not going to have this discussion...it's not true non-locality, at all
please don't start this...it's becoming like arguing about apple vs microsoft
i have a standard response, one that I saved from another commenter...I will post it if I have to
not for an AC (Score:2)
who are you, AC?
a logged in user made the post before me...my comment was directed to them
if that logged-in user wants to contribute to the discussion I'll be happy to post it
Re: (Score:2)
what? i thought you were "not going to have this discussion". lol.
**INSTEAD OF** (Score:2)
if you re-read it you'll see that I refused to have a discussion, and ***INSTEAD*** I would post a standard response that describes, with boring detail, why "quantum computing" is really just "quantum" cryptography
I said I would **post that** instead of have a discussion
Re: (Score:2)
what the fuck are you talking about? if you want anyone to listen to you, explain yourself why running Shor's is inadequate to illustrate sufficiency; don't link to a wikipedia article about something you don't understand.
Re: (Score:1)
"non-locality" would be the only thing that would make quantum computing a novel process. Otherwise, it's sort-of like an electric car, using new tech to solve old problems.
If you didn't know, building a "quantum computer" is about more than ramping up the GHz and shrinking die space.
Re: (Score:1)
PS: "Locality" vs "Non-locality" are elementary ideas in quantum mechanics, if you aren't aware of their basic meaning then why should anyone waste their time trying to explain them to you. Do you think the world owes you answers just because you're too lazy to look them up yourself? In the most basic terms these ideas aren't even difficult to understand-- phenomenon that are unexplained by, that contradict classical physics.
For example, one branch of Quantum Computing is projected to accommodate instant ne
Re: (Score:1)
That description of nuclear spin ... (Score:1)
I read it, but it all just made me feel dizzy!
What has happened to Slashdot? (Score:1)
As I write this, the parent comment is the only one visible by default, nearly an hour after this submission was posted. Yet it's totally useless.
Meanwhile, there are several good threads of discussion about the actual topic involving Anonymous Coward commenters, yet they're not visible by default.
It's no wonder Slashdot is on its way out. Total crap, like the parent comment, is visible, while the actual discussion is not. It takes effort to show the useful content.
If it's any consolation, at least there's
Re: (Score:2)
So why are you hiding AC comments by default? And why are you posting as such? I thought it was long understood that a lot of the best comments are posted AC, even if a lot of dreck gets posted that way as well.
Though frankly, I routinely browse at -1 and I'm still not seeing much in the way of decent discussion on this topic.
And incidentally, does anyone know why some comments still vanish entirely? Do they get downmodded to -2 and thence irretrievable oblivion or what? It's really annoying to encounter
Re: (Score:2)
Quantum Cryptography (Score:2)
can we **please** stop calling this tech "quantum computing"?
it's factually inaccurate as it does not use quantum non-locality but two independent things that only act as entangled
the application they are developing it for is cryptography
"quantum cryptography" still has "quantum" in it...it still sounds just as cool as quantum computing and its much more precise
Re: (Score:2)
Definition? he doesn't even have a definition. Just some jargon he doesn't really understand and a sock puppet to post the really off the wall stuff (Hategrin; instant communication to Mars).