Europe Plans To Build 100-Qubit Quantum Computer By 2026 (physicsworld.com) 27
An anonymous reader quotes a report published last week by Physics World: Researchers at the Dutch quantum institute QuTech in Delft have announced plans to build Europe's first 100-quantum bit (qubit) quantum computer. When complete in 2026, the device will be made publicly available, providing scientists with a tool for quantum calculations and simulations. The project is funded by the Dutch umbrella organization Quantum Delta NL via the European OpenSuperQPlus initiative, which has 28 partners from 10 countries. Part of the 10-year, 1 billion-euro European Quantum Flagship program, OpenSuperQPlus aims to build a 100-qubit superconducting quantum processor as a stepping stone to an eventual 1000-qubit European quantum computer.
Quantum Delta NL says the 100-qubit quantum computer will be made publicly available via a cloud platform as an extension of the existing platform Quantum Inspire that first came online in 2020. It currently includes a two-qubit processor of spin qubits in silicon, as well as a five-qubit processor based on superconducting qubits. Quantum Inspire is currently focused on training and education but the upgrade to 100 qubits is expected to allow research into quantum computing. Lead researcher from QuTech Leonardo DiCarlo believes the R&D cycle has "come full circle," where academic research first enabled spin-off companies to grow and now their products are being used to accelerate academic research.
Quantum Delta NL says the 100-qubit quantum computer will be made publicly available via a cloud platform as an extension of the existing platform Quantum Inspire that first came online in 2020. It currently includes a two-qubit processor of spin qubits in silicon, as well as a five-qubit processor based on superconducting qubits. Quantum Inspire is currently focused on training and education but the upgrade to 100 qubits is expected to allow research into quantum computing. Lead researcher from QuTech Leonardo DiCarlo believes the R&D cycle has "come full circle," where academic research first enabled spin-off companies to grow and now their products are being used to accelerate academic research.
Will it at least play castle wolfenstein? (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps in superposition with leisure suit larry 2.0?
No?
del *.* /a/s/d
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, definitely, many-times Oscar nominee Dr. Leonardo Di Carlo will superpose as B.J. Blazkowicz and Mr. Laffer, staff researchers with Dr. Schabbs's outfit.
Re: Will it at least play castle wolfenstein? (Score:2)
Eat your vegetables.
/ *Burp*
Which approach? (Score:2)
I keep reading about the many different approaches to QC, lately a shift away from single atoms. I question the wisdom of building such a device when industry is still trying to figure out which approach is the right one.
In fact, couldn't this infusion of government cash push a lot of the limited pool of QM researchers in one direction that turns out to be a dead end?
Re:Which approach? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
This Europe and USA.
Researchers get a salary. Regardless what they are researching.
The have no need to hunt for money. Or fake resurch results, to keep the project going.
Researchers usually happily switch to more promising project than riding a dead horse. That is where the merit is. The merit is certainly not in: "Ah, you must be that guy who ran that hopeless project, which was clear from the beginning that it has no chance of success?"
And a few days later a letter stating, " We regret to inform you that
Re: Which approach? (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s a tad behind the times with IBM having one with over 1200 qubits now
Re: Which approach? (Score:2)
This is what's known as "European innovation". It's like Chinese innovation, but with a focus on high value added industry, and uses government subsidies more than corporate espionage.
Quantum fusion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quantum fusion? (Score:5, Informative)
Practical fusion is still half a century or more removed. The actual scientists working on it make no other claims. It is just the deranged press that does.
Re: Quantum fusion? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Practical fusion will be coming online in 2025 /6 with the SPARC reactor from CFS.
Nope. Not practical fusion. Still research phase. Obviously, they are lying about that.
Re:Quantum fusion? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the case of both quantum computing and commercial fusion reactors we're making progress pretty rapidly. A major reason that fusion has been so slow compared to some predictions is that simply put, the amount of funding for it has been well below projections. See https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/5budos/fusion_is_always_50_years_away_for_a_reason/?onetap_auto=true&one_tap=true#lightbox [reddit.com] this graph. But the fusion situation is getting better, and rapidly. The triple product, a useful way of measuring how close a fusion reactor is to being self-sustaining has shown major improvement the last few years and it continues to get better https://www.fusionenergybase.com/article/measuring-progress-in-fusion-energy-the-triple-products [fusionenergybase.com] Better computer modeling of what is happening in reactors, as well as better superconductors have helped a lot. And there's another large-scale change with fusion reactors which that we're starting to see a lot more private investment. Now, some of that is clearly due to hype, but a lot of it looks promising, and also helps show that the tech is getting to the point where it has some decent chance. If fusion fails to be commercially viable the most likely way that will happen is that by the time it would be otherwise viable, it will be competing with just really efficient solar and wind which are showing drastic improvements in cost the last few years.
For quantum computers the situation is not as good. But there's still clear improvements the last few years in at least three major respects. First, there's been major improvements on quantum error corrections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction [wikipedia.org] Due to the inherent noisiness of quantum computers due to stray particles and the like, quantum error correction is really important. But the early error correction algorithms were just not that good. One of the first discovered was Shor's code which required 9 extra qubits for each logical qubit. But that was replaced with the CSS code which was much more efficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_code [wikipedia.org], and subsequent codes are even more efficient or allow one to play with tradeoffs. Second, we're much better at keeping qubits entangled with many others or for long periods of time. See for example, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2382022-record-breaking-number-of-qubits-entangled-in-a-quantum-computer/ [newscientist.com] Third, and closely connected to 1 and 2, there are now real demonstrations of CSS and similar approaches on physical qubits. See e.g. discussion here https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7651 [scottaaronson.blog].
It does not seem like either of these techs is going to be practical for a few years yet. But there's clear progress in both and at a rapid rate.
Re: Quantum fusion? (Score:1)
Re: Quantum fusion? (Score:2)
Nah, AI is going to perfect fusion using the blockchain.
Real or effective qbits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Naa, does not matter. With 100 qbits you can do less than a 40 year old pocket calculator with a slow 4bit CPU.
Re: (Score:3)
I know, right? And here we were expecting 20 GHz 4-bit CPUs by now. /where's my flying Edsel?
Re: Real or effective qbits? (Score:2)
That sounds like you're applying a classical problem to a quantum computer, which is meaningless. It's like suggesting film cameras were more advanced than micro-computers in the 60s because it was better at producing moving images. It's comparing apples to oranges and then checking which pile has more apples.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just sounds like you are clueless.
Re: Real or effective qbits? (Score:2)
Then clue me in. Why is it that you would expect a 100 quit computer to outperform a tiny calculator on problems the calculator was purpose built for?
OH noes! All my bitcoins worthless (Score:2)
because with 96 qubits one can hack the Satoshi wallet within 78 bmovl instructions.
I think I'll have to reconsider investing in ugly monkey pictures although Stable diffusion can generate those by the thousands every minute.
More productive (Score:1)
To send all that money to the Ukraine. If Putin wins, the Russians will simply take Western Europe and get the computer for dessert. And just a sidenote...I have to wonder how many Chinese researchers will be employed on this project...
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense, Russia is no tbreat to NATO countries, won't attack them, doesn't have the means to fight or take them.
so then that will be as powerful as a.... (Score:1)
commodore amiga?