Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google

Google Claims a Quantum Breakthrough That Could Change Computing (nature.com) 61

Google said on Wednesday that it had achieved a long-sought breakthrough called "quantum supremacy," which could allow new kinds of computers to do calculations at speeds that are inconceivable with today's technology. From a report: In a paper published in the science journal Nature, Google said its research lab in Santa Barbara, Calif., had reached a milestone that scientists had been working toward since the 1980s: Its quantum computer performed a task that isn't possible with current technology. In this case, a mathematical calculation that the largest supercomputers could not complete in under 10,000 years was done in 3 minutes 20 seconds, Google said in its paper. Scientists likened Google's announcement to the Wright brothers' first plane flight in 1903 -- proof that something is really possible even though it may be years before it can fulfill its potential. "The original Wright flyer was not a useful airplane," said Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin who reviewed Google's paper before publication. "But it was designed to prove a point. And it proved the point."

A quantum machine, the result of more than a century's worth of research into a type of physics called quantum mechanics, operates in a completely different manner from regular computers. It relies on the mind-bending ways some objects act at the subatomic level or when exposed to extreme cold, like the metal chilled to nearly 460 degrees below zero inside Google's machine. One day, researchers believe, these devices could power advances in artificial intelligence or easily overwhelm the encryption that protects computers vital to national security. Because of that, the governments of the United States and China consider quantum computing a national security priority.
Further reading: Interview of Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who explains why quantum computing could be as important for Google as AI.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Claims a Quantum Breakthrough That Could Change Computing

Comments Filter:
  • Scam (Score:2, Insightful)

    Another Quantum Computing scam. They cherrypicked the algorithms. And yeah, just like every money losing tech company isn't the next Amazon, every QC scam isn't the next breakthrough.

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @09:55AM (#59338972)

      They cherrypicked the algorithms.

      Isn't that pretty much the whole point of Computer Science? I believe it's called "optimization"...

      You could just as easily dismiss claims that GPU's were really fast for some tasks saying they "cherry picked the algorithms" to deal with graphics. That's the whole point!

      They picked algorithms quantum computers would be good at, because pretty obviously that's what you'd be using them for... not classical algorithms that normal CPU's are best for. Because you'd use the hardware that made sense for the problem.

      The real question is how the results Google have correlate to breaking cryptography, because that informs how we need to change systems starting right now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Nope. You obviously aren't knowledgeable. That isn't the "point of CS". They picked a PARTICULAR non-useful algorithm (not a class of algorithms) because they knew idiots would be out bleating out their press releases. Anyone can build a purpose built machine to solve a particular algorithm.

        • You're not very good at explaining yourself and you're being kind of an asshole about your own shortcomings.

          Anyone can build a purpose built machine to solve a particular algorithm.

          Granted that hardware implementations of an algorithm are going to be more efficient than software implementations running on general purpose hardware. You're proposing that a purpose-built classical machine could have solved this algorithm even more quickly than the purpose-built quantum machine. Do you have evidence for this magnitude? I'm not looking for ironclad proof, I'm looking for a reason

        • Anyone can build a purpose built machine to solve a particular algorithm.
          If he has the cryo, the super magnets, the supra conductors, the lasers to entangle the particles, the reading equipment, the staff of 10 PhDs and 100 engineers, and a surplus of a billion dollars ...

      • "The real question is how the results Google have correlate to breaking cryptography, because that informs how we need to change systems starting right now."

        Actually, it tells us how we needed to change systems starting two or three decades ago. Unless of course, none of your encrypted files and messages from years past contain anything you'd prefer not to be seen by others. In which case, why did you bother to encrypt them?

    • They've achieved at least one thing: They've made people like you move your argument goalpost from "It can't be done" to "It's not fair".

    • by bobby ( 109046 )

      Ah, let me introduce you to vaporware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware [wikipedia.org]. Vaporware is the mechanism through which corporations attract big investment money from wealthy people who don't really know technology, but like talking about their investments and sounding hip and kewl to their country club friends.

  • by courteaudotbiz ( 1191083 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @09:12AM (#59338820) Homepage

    Big marketing talk. From what I've read, they've use a calculation program that classic silicon computers are excessively bad at, and that quantum computers are excessively good at. A randomization thing that I have no knowledge about. But when a corporation like Google makes this kind of claim, my skepticism-meter goes off the map...

    • You don't think there's any use in being able to calculate something that requires a massively expensive machine to calculate? It doesn't matter how arbitrary, as long as you have exclusivity there are plenty of useful applications.
    • by Headw1nd ( 829599 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @11:06AM (#59339284)

      From what I've read, they've use a calculation program that classic silicon computers are excessively bad at, and that quantum computers are excessively good at.

      But isn't that literally the point when you are trying to show that you have an actual functioning quantum computer though, or why you would want a quantum computer in the first place? To look at it the other way, why would you go to the trouble of making a quantum computer and then use it do things you could do with conventional computers? It's not like google is lacking in traditional computing power.

      • Is this the first quantum computer to successfully process calculation with qubits? I don't think so. DWave, IBM and others seem to have acheved this first. We remember the Wright Brothers because they were the first to build a plane and make it fly long enough to demonstrate the lift cause by the air pressure could maintain their device in the air, and after this demonstration, a whole new industry was born.

        Google could say they were the first to make it fast and usable to some extent, but they're certainl

        • I think the analogy in this argument would be that before the Wright Brothers, people flew in dirigibles / zeppelins for years. Before that, people had used hot air balloons to fly and gliders to glide for well over a century. Even before that, people had jumped off of tall areas and lived and pole vaulted.

          Nobody remembers the names of the inventers without consulting wikipedia (okay, to be fair a bunch of people remember Zeppelin too since a type of dirigible is named after him).

          I'm not saying this is th

    • They probably wanted to show it was really quantum.

      In which case ... they picked a good task.

      This is IBM after all.
    • What about Clément Ader? Didn't he made a plane before Wright brothers anyway?

  • ./ is a part of the whole world, and is affected by his politics, you know...
  • That's 187 degrees below absolute zero. How they managed that?
  • ibm debinked this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by clubalien ( 5537360 )
    didn't anyone read the prior slashdot article debunking this
    • didn't anyone read the prior slashdot article debunking this

      I'm sorry, you must be new around these parts. No one here reads the articles.

    • With quantum computing it is now possible to get the refutation prior to the release of the original article. This may actually be the proof we have been waiting for!
    • "didn't anyone read the prior slashdot article debunking this"

      No.
      We didn't read this one either.

    • The IBM article was only posted here, because this was previously posted here.
      I've never seen a more defective site than /. being in active use. No Unicode, no preview on mobile, tons of outdated settings even with options mixed up, broken sigs, links that just go nowhere on mobile, and dupes and crap posts with seemingly no sense or point at all.
      Is there anyone running this show, at all?

      • Tech news is no place for 'pretty' or 'mobile friendly'. Go hit up Facebook if you want that.
  • Not so fast says IBM (Score:5, Informative)

    by radaos ( 540979 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @09:22AM (#59338848) Homepage

    Not so fast says IBM. Yesterday.
    https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

  • If a known working system takes 10,000 years to check that result. At least tell me they were able to repeat the results.
    • The just said it was done, not that it was right.

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @09:36AM (#59338902) Journal
      A lot of problems are very hard to solve but easy to check. For instance, factoring the product of 2 very large primes is hard, but once you have the primes you can just multiply them to check the result. Much of our cryptography is based on such problems.
      • ...and can anyone confirm that this is one of those problems that can be easily checked? (I don't mean to be that guy who demands everything be explicitly stated, but validating a breakthough is not the time to be making guesses and assumptions.)
    • Estimating calculation time is something that most people with a real degree on computer science can do.
      We first analysis the Big O performance of the calculation. then we factor in the number of elements needed. Then we just do the math.

      The neat thing with standard computers is that we know how they work, and all aspects of an algorithm. So with a given set of data inputs we can figure out how it will work, and how long.

    • The answer was 42.

      It validates.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The quantum system designed a bigger, more capable system to provide the verification.

  • by fredrated ( 639554 ) on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @09:37AM (#59338906) Journal

    can ferret out duplicate posts for /.

  • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Can we get an editor h oh this is dashslot, nvm.

  • It is not April Fools
  • I can't help but wonder what IBM would have to say about this...
  • If this is true, it's not just the governments of the U.S. and China considering this a national security priority.
  • In the whole paper they do not speak of calculations instead they speak of measurements. It seems to me they measured the output of some quantum circuit several million times during the test.

    They collected 30 million samples and obtained the Fxeb value. It seems to me the Fxeb was calculated by a classical computer using the 30 million samples.

    So, what they built seems to me a measurement device. And for the record I believe in superdeterminism.

    From Gerard 't Hooft:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.028... [arxiv.org]

    From Sab

  • I know next to nothing about quantum computing. The concept makes my head hurt. But I do know something about press releases. Could some one who does understand quantum computing (assuming any such people exist) take a look and see if there is anything they'd expect to see in this Press Release that is missing? That'll likely be where the problems -- if any -- are.

news: gotcha

Working...