Google and IBM Believe First Workable Quantum Computer is in Sight (ft.com) 18
IBM and Google report they will build industrial-scale quantum computers containing one million or more qubits by 2030, following IBM's June publication of a quantum computer blueprint addressing previous design gaps and Google's late-2023 breakthrough in scaling error correction.
Current experimental systems contain fewer than 200 qubits. IBM encountered crosstalk interference when scaling its Condor chip to 433 qubits and subsequently adopted low-density parity-check code requiring 90% fewer qubits than Google's surface code method, though this requires longer connections between distant qubits.
Google plans to reduce component costs tenfold to achieve its $1 billion target price for a full-scale machine. Amazon Web Services quantum hardware executive Oskar Painter told FT he estimates useful quantum computers remain 15-30 years away, citing engineering challenges in scaling despite resolved fundamental physics problems.
Current experimental systems contain fewer than 200 qubits. IBM encountered crosstalk interference when scaling its Condor chip to 433 qubits and subsequently adopted low-density parity-check code requiring 90% fewer qubits than Google's surface code method, though this requires longer connections between distant qubits.
Google plans to reduce component costs tenfold to achieve its $1 billion target price for a full-scale machine. Amazon Web Services quantum hardware executive Oskar Painter told FT he estimates useful quantum computers remain 15-30 years away, citing engineering challenges in scaling despite resolved fundamental physics problems.
What else would they claim to believe? (Score:3)
Would anyone expect them to publish a statement like the above, even if it was their honest opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
"Dear Investors, we sank billions in research on quantum computers, but we do not believe them ever to become workable,
I'm not sure why they would believe that. The number of coherent qubits over time has gone steadily up. See here https://www.statista.com/statistics/993634/quantum-computers-by-number-of-qubits/ [statista.com] Right now, we're in what is sometimes called the noisy intermediate-scale quantum erahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_intermediate-scale_quantum_era [wikipedia.org] which looks radically different from where we were 20 years ago. We now have in labs all over the world quantum computers with enough qubits that they would have
They would say that, wouldn't they? (Score:3)
Say What, Willis? (Score:3)
Google aims to get the cost down to $1billion for a full scale machine?
So, if these things get built, they'll be massively more expensive than main frames and they'll be rarer than hen's teeth. But, they're being hyped almost as much as AI.
What a load of crap.
open science vs corporate R&D (Score:2)
We'd be so much further along if all of the big corporate players in this space (google, IBM, microsoft, amazon, honeywell) could cooperate rather than compete. They are still outpacing us poor shmucks working federal research grants because each one of them can throw bags of money at the problem. But all of their chip designs and fab processes are completely secret. I asked one of the lead google researchers if he could even tell me the dimensions of one of their devices, and he held his fingers a few cm a
10K logical qubits? (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
What is a Qubit worth?
What speed does it run at?
Last I checked (it's been a while since I looked up processor specs two days ago)... speed matters... faster processor (or more cores) makes worlds of difference.
So, is a five Qubit computer faster than my 24-core 3.8GHz processor?
If it's a special-usage case thing (a random number generator, or something), it's useless.
If it's used for encryption on your home computer, 'may the Gods have mercy' when the Q computer dies.
The idea of Q computing is fun, but the
Re: So... (Score:2)
However, quantum computing can, in theory, solve certain NP complete problem in polynomial time. The concept of "speed" doesn't translate directly, because some problems that are impossible to solve within the lifetime of the universe, become solvable within a lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... but, how fast can it crunch a SETI workunit?
If it's gonna take longer than a day... is it worth it? If it's gonna be so specialized for one particular thing, is it worth it?
While the idea of quantum computing sounds like an awesome thing (closer to Star Trek), if it can't be used for anything beyond random encryption, what's the real purpose?
It'd be cool to have a 20THz computer, but if I can't even play a movie on the thing... what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
"However, quantum computing can, in theory, solve certain NP complete problem in polynomial time."
If you can solve one NP complete problem in polynomial time, you can solve them all.
Quantum computers can't solve NP complete problems in polynomial time. That is incorrect.
But it can solve some other troublesome problems that can't be solved in polynomial time with a conventional computer.
Just like fusion... (Score:2)
... it's always 20 years away.
Re: Just like fusion... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Target price: $1Bn... per year (Score:2)
And fusion! (Score:2)
Market size (Score:2)