D-Wave Claims 'Quantum Supremacy,' Beating Traditional Computers 19
D-Wave researchers have published findings in Science demonstrating what they call "quantum supremacy" by showing their quantum annealers can solve problems beyond the reach of classical computers. The team, led by Andrew D. King, demonstrated area-law scaling of entanglement in model quench dynamics of two-, three- and infinite-dimensional spin glasses.
The research shows quantum annealers rapidly generating samples that closely match solutions to the Schrodinger equation, supporting observed stretched-exponential scaling in matrix-product-state approaches. According to the paper, D-Wave's processors completed these magnetic materials simulations in under 20 minutes, while the same calculations would require nearly a million years on Oak Ridge National Laboratory's supercomputers.
The claim hasn't gone unchallenged. Miles Stoudenmire from the Flatiron Institute's Center for Computational Quantum Physics argues that classical computers can achieve comparable results using methods developed since D-Wave's initial findings. "We're just saying, 'Look, this one problem at this one time didn't beat classical computers. Try again,'" Stoudenmire noted. The quantum computing community has increasingly shifted terminology from "supremacy" to "advantage" or "utility," focusing on solving practical business or scientific problems faster, more accurately, or more economically than classical alternatives.
The research shows quantum annealers rapidly generating samples that closely match solutions to the Schrodinger equation, supporting observed stretched-exponential scaling in matrix-product-state approaches. According to the paper, D-Wave's processors completed these magnetic materials simulations in under 20 minutes, while the same calculations would require nearly a million years on Oak Ridge National Laboratory's supercomputers.
The claim hasn't gone unchallenged. Miles Stoudenmire from the Flatiron Institute's Center for Computational Quantum Physics argues that classical computers can achieve comparable results using methods developed since D-Wave's initial findings. "We're just saying, 'Look, this one problem at this one time didn't beat classical computers. Try again,'" Stoudenmire noted. The quantum computing community has increasingly shifted terminology from "supremacy" to "advantage" or "utility," focusing on solving practical business or scientific problems faster, more accurately, or more economically than classical alternatives.
The quantum computing wall (Score:2)
So, the bottom line is that there are serious limitations to quantum computing being useful. Probably the most difficult is coherence - a qubit decays very quickly (microseconds to milliseconds), and can be disrupted by the smallest cosmic rays, EM interference, or stray photons.
Disruption is generally handled by massive error correction overhead (think, hundreds or thousands of physical qubits to represent one "logical" qubit).
Coherence puts an upper bound on what kinds of computations you can do - you ha
Aren't DWave macines not general purpose? (Score:3)
I had understood that DWave had achieve quantum supremacy on a tightly restricted domain of problems years ago. And the restricted domain was relaxation annealing algorithms. So, e.g., they couldn't run Shor's algorithm to break encryption.
Given that, I believe that they have achieved quantum supremacy IN THEIR DOMAIN.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that, I believe that they have achieved quantum supremacy IN THEIR DOMAIN.
It might be possible that they are "masters of their domain".
However, with these stories it's usually only a few weeks before some random researcher demonstrates that the same problem could be solved in a couple of hours on a Commodore 64 or something. So I'll wait a while and see.
Re: (Score:3)
The domain that DWave are masters of is misrepresenting their products in order to acquire more funding.
Also you're correct in your observation, "quantum supremacy" has been announced so many times now that they're thinking of rewriting the appropriate Aesop's Fable to "The Boy Who Cried Quantum Supremacy".
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. These stories have become a running joke. Some company claims, "Our quantum computer did a calculation that would take a billion years on a classical computer!" And then someone promptly proves them wrong by doing it on a classical computer. It's happened so many times, you should treat all such claims as little more than marketing.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They are "quantum annealers" and as such classical approximation algorithms are about as good with regards to result and wipe the floor with the D-Wave crap regarding performance and cost.
Quantum = random modeling (Score:2)
My prediction -- conventional computers will continue to be used for problems with precise answers, but quantum computers will be used for probabilistic answers.
For example, quantum computers might help in weather forecasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Stretched exponential scaling .. (Score:2)
... in matrix product state approaches"
Err, what? English translation anyone?
"Yes, vapor is an important part of our ware." (Score:2)
A new kind of Turing completeness! (Score:2)
Over and over and over (Score:2)
VC speedrun (Score:2)
Those liars again (Score:2)
Why are they still around? Are they a CIA front or something?
Re: Those liars again (Score:2)
All Ponzi schemes have one fatal flaw. Money run out, sooner or later.
Quantum use for BitCoin (Score:1)