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.
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.
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.
Aren't you supposed to pick the right hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
PS: I know you know that, I just wrote it for kicks.
Wright Brother's flight? (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wright Brother's flight? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
In which case
This is IBM after all.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Clément Ader? Didn't he made a plane before Wright brothers anyway?
Slashvertisement of FUD campaign? (Score:2)
460 degrees below zero? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Global cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
-273 coulomb? (Score:2)
What does electric charge have to do with this?
Or do you mean -273ÂC?
Oh goddammit, Slashdot! (Score:2)
Listen up, Slashdot: The degree symbol was part of every ANSI code page, the last time people used that, TWENTY YEARS AGO!
And how do you manage to do a  anyway, if all you accept seems to be ASCII?
Re: (Score:2)
hahaha lol at /. !
Signed: Fr%69d%69ric.
damn /. does not support accentuated character that works for 50 years in computer!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Negative energy left over from their wormhole project
Re: (Score:2)
YETI cooler
Re: (Score:2)
The atoms are vibrating in the reverse direction, so it feels like it is 187 degrees above absolute 0 (or -86c) which is cold but not extremely.
Re: (Score:2)
When unobtanium condenses it gets that cold.
ibm debinked this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"didn't anyone read the prior slashdot article debunking this"
No.
We didn't read this one either.
In fact, this is a DUPE! (Score:2)
The IBM article was only posted here, because this was previously posted here. /. 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.
I've never seen a more defective site than
Is there anyone running this show, at all?
Re: (Score:1)
Not so fast says IBM (Score:5, Informative)
Not so fast says IBM. Yesterday.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But still plenty fast.
How do they know the answer they got was right? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The just said it was done, not that it was right.
Re:How do they know the answer they got was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: How do they know the answer they got was right (Score:2)
The answer was 42.
It validates.
Re: (Score:1)
The quantum system designed a bigger, more capable system to provide the verification.
Re: (Score:1)
If our military did that, I would see them as majorly failing their responsibility to protect us.
I'm not sure who you think you're pointing your finger at, anyway. Google has a lot of women and minorities. Two thirds of the people I have worked with there have been ethnically a minority and a third have been women.
Maybe their quantum computer (Score:4, Funny)
can ferret out duplicate posts for /.
Inconceivable? (Score:2)
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.
The Date is incorrect (Score:1)
What about IBM (Score:2)
Not just the U.S. and China (Score:2)
Didn't they just do measurements? (Score:2)
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
Anything missing? (Score:2)
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.