D-Wave is a bit of an oddity in the quantum computing space, having been founded back in the last century. And its initial offering wasn't a quantum computer like those being developed by IBM or Google. Instead, the company built what's now called a quantum annealer, a machine that isn't general-purpose but can solve a large class of optimization problems. While the hardware shares some similarities with the qubits used in gate-based quantum computers, it operates in a fundamentally different way.

But a few years back, D-Wave started working on gate-based hardware, apparently choosing a somewhat unusual qubit technology called fluxonium. And this year, the company acquired a startup called Quantum Circuits that spun out of Yale University and has been developing what's called a dual-rail qubit (the same technology used by Amazon), which promises to make most errors very easy to detect, simplifying error correction.

On Wednesday, the company is publishing a paper in Nature that describes a key step in validating this dual-rail technology, showing that two of the qubits can be entangled without altering their best feature: Most are a single type that is easy to detect.

Read full article

Comments

There are many algorithms for which it has been mathematically proven that a quantum computer can generate results that would take a classical computer an unreasonable amount of time to generate. Unfortunately, today's quantum computers either can't run those algorithms or can only run simplified versions that classical computers can also handle. This has left the field facing a challenging question: Can we demonstrate the promise of quantum computers on today's noisy, limited hardware?

That's a more difficult question than it may first appear. If you generate a result that's out of reach of today's regular computers, it may not be possible to verify that you got the right result. And given that today's quantum computers are somewhat error-prone, getting the wrong result is a distinct possibility. Further, in the absence of a mathematical proof of the capabilities of quantum hardware, it's possible that a better classical algorithm could outperform the quantum hardware.

These issues inspired IBM to launch a quantum advantage tracker. On Thursday, the company announced three new entries that it says clearly show a quantum advantage, each using a different approach to overcoming errors and validating quantum results. "Trusted computing when you can do classical simulations is irrelevant," IBM's Jay Gambetta told Ars. "Trusted computing when you can't do classical simulations is a big deal."

Read full article

Comments

If you follow quantum computing news for long enough, it can start to seem like any quantum system that can alternate between two well-separated energy states can be used as a qubit. Atoms, ions, photons, electrons, and manufactured devices all have their backers. One of the key things that attracts backers is the tech's ability to scale. We'll need a lot of high-quality qubits to start doing any complex computations, and the ability of any technology to get us there is the subject of debate.

So even as some technologies can now support thousands of qubits, some competitors are still working on a small handful of qubits—the companies behind them are convinced that they have the potential to scale more effectively.

One of those technologies involves quantum dots that hold a single electron. Their advantage is that we can manufacture them using the same tech we use to build traditional processors, an approach that has proven to be scalable. This week saw two new papers describing different ways of using quantum dots, one of which was appealing enough that IBM bought the company that developed it. Separately, another company has released a processor showing 100 individual electrons being held in diamond defects, technology that wasn't obvious could scale.

Read full article

Comments

There are some obvious big picture issues that stand between us and useful quantum computing. Issues like whether we can make enough high-quality hardware qubits to connect into the error-corrected logical qubits we need, and how we generate the states needed to perform universal computation on those logical qubits. But there are also many less prominent challenges that will need to be solved before we can perform calculations.

One of those challenges, which only affects some types of hardware, is calibration. For devices we manufacture, like superconducting qubits, there are always subtle variations among individual qubits. (This is not true when we use something like an atom to hold the qubit, but the lasers that control them can drift.) As a result, this hardware is put through a process called calibration, where we test different frequencies and amplitudes of the microwave pulses that control them to find the combination that produces the lowest error rates, and then save those settings for use in calculations.

However, you can't perform the typical calibration process while you're doing calculations, which means drift becomes an issue for long and complicated algorithms. Google, though, has figured out that it's possible to do calibration using the same data that's used for error correction.

Read full article

Comments

A short time back, we covered an announcement by Amazon that it would be hosting a useful quantum computer from its partner QuEra as soon as sometime in 2028. The system promised some eye-popping numbers compared to anything on the market today: over 10,000 individual qubits, each with an error rate low enough that the system could support hundreds of error-corrected logical qubits. But QuEra has to get there from its current hardware, which sits at 260 qubits that are relatively error-prone.

Those details about how it was going to get there were left for last Wednesday, when QuEra announced its roadmap. But the announcement only accentuated the gap: There will be no new hardware releases between now and the useful machine, and QuEra is promising to deliver an even more powerful machine just one year later.

"The company made a strategic decision not to sell NISQ [noisy intermediate scale quantum] systems anymore," QuEra's Yuval Borger told Ars. The two systems it had previously made available have similar capabilities, with about 250 hardware qubits and an appreciable error rate—enough to test some error correction codes, but not sufficient for using logical qubits in applications.

Read full article

Comments