Google Says Commercial Quantum Computing Applications Arriving Within 5 Years

Google aims to release commercial quantum computing applications within five years, challenging Nvidia's prediction of a 20-year timeline. "We're optimistic that within five years we'll see real-world applications that are possible only on quantum computers," founder and lead of Google Quantum AI Hartmut Neven said in a statement. Reuters reports: Real-world applications Google has discussed are related to materials science - applications such as building superior batteries for electric cars - creating new drugs and potentially new energy alternatives. [...] Google has been working on its quantum computing program since 2012 and has designed and built several quantum chips. By using quantum processors, Google said it had managed to solve a computing problem in minutes that would take a classical computer more time than the history of the universe.

Google's quantum computing scientists announced another step on the path to real world applications within five years on Wednesday. In a paper published in the scientific journal Nature, the scientists said they had discovered a new approach to quantum simulation, which is a step on the path to achieving Google's objective.

List

[RitchCraft]

I'll pen that in my list of things to get right under a flying car. Can't wait.

Re:

[gweihir]

Indeed. While flying cars do exist, they are a meaningless engineering stunt only.

Google will cancel physics before that happens

[ebunga]

They never can make a product stick around.

Re:

[Tablizer]

Too late, Don's Executive Order just cancelled gravity, calling it "a profit-draining force of wokeness, hurting the flying car and Don-King-wig business".

Just make it all up as you go along

[silvergig]

Is it just me, or do tech companies just say whatever the Hell that they feel like saying that positions them to scam people, without even trying to hide it? In the past, the scam was hidden at least a little bit.

Re:

[ISoldat53]

Taking their cue form the Microsoft Playbook.

Re:

[jenningsthecat]

Is it just me, or do tech companies just say whatever the Hell that they feel like saying that positions them to scam people, without even trying to hide it? In the past, the scam was hidden at least a little bit.

The only part that might be 'just you' is the thinking that they used to hide the scamming "at least a little bit". I don't remember a time when it was anything other than obvious. Then again, I'm an old fart, so maybe my memory is failing...

Re:

[gweihir]

No, I am seeing the same thing.

Re:

[ISoldat53]

Breaking blockchains.

Re:

[thesjaakspoiler]

Are my ugly monkey picture NFT investments at risk?

Google cancels quantum computing applications

[awwshit]

In 5.5 years.

Re:

[leonbev]

I'll bet that their entire Quantum Computing project ends up in the Google Graveyard before then.

If they can't use it to sell ads or subscriptions, there is no long term interest at Google.

If it would take forever...

[commodore73]

If it would take forever for a classical computer to calculate the result (and I have trouble imagining such a math problem), how do they know that the quantum processor got it right?

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

It shouldn't be hard for you to imagine such a math problem. They're all around you. There was one protecting your post while you sent it to Slashdot. That was a form of (m^e)^d = m, mod n; e and n are given, solve for d. When you get d it's very easy to verify. It's hard to find though, essentially impossible when e, n and d are big enough.

The problem Google used is sampling from a high dimensional non-seperable probability distribution. Sampling in general is highly computationally intensive. Some distrib

Re:

[gweihir]

The claim is actually nonsense. They usually have the "QC" just run and claim that it is "simulating itself". That is obvious nonsense. Incidentally, while the conventional computer would take a long time to simulate the QC, the QC cannot simulate the conventional computer at all.

Five years-ish

[larryjoe]

I get this the Google guy is an expert, but what is his basis and reasoning for predicting 5 years? The 5 years number is just a content-less marketing number, and it doesn't mean anything without an explanation for its derivation. It would be insightful to have a progression of intermediate progress steps and a predicted timeline for those steps, and absent information about the intermediate steps, the marketing number is just bluster.

Or at the very least, the expert could enumerate the breakthroughs tha

Re: Five years-ish

[Big Hairy Gorilla]

I think the compelling commercial applications are what is missing .. I suspect the military is quietly trying to find an angle before the bad guys get there first . Costs are quite high and applications are few. Bold statements are made a bit too often lately to take seriously. Have you seen the 11 o'clock news today ?

pffft, news for n....naps.

[Tablizer]

Predictions are like assholes: everyone has one, but they all stink.

fishing for funding

[bloodhawk]

They are just trying to keep the funding cycles going a bit longer with some pie in the sky predictions

"quantum system is swept through a critical point"

[ZipNada]

The linked paper is an interesting read. It is hard to understand the terminology as a layman but it sounds like they are doing things that are fruitful.

"A particularly interesting setting is that in which a quantum system is swept through a critical point, as varying the sweep rate can allow for accessing markedly different paths through phase space and correspondingly distinct coarsening behaviour."

So you can 'sweep' the system, there is a sweep rate, there are one or more 'critical points', there is a ph

Haha, NO!

[Uldis Segliņš]

That is just a desperate sales pitch. I'll just watch from a distance while the research and development happens. Maybe some use case will one day appear. As of now or in 5 years, nothing useful yet.