Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday April 08 2020, @02:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-has-the-power? dept.

Stealth Quantum Computing Company raises $215M to Build 1M Qbit Computer

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/04/06/palo-alto-quantum-computing-startup-scores-215m-to.html

PsiQuantum Corp. on Monday said it raised $215 million to help it develop a commercial quantum computer more powerful than machines being developed by Google, IBM, Honeywell, and a host of startups and university labs.

Jeremy O'Brien, co-founder and CEO of the 5-year-old Palo Alto startup, told Bloomberg that the company expects to build a computer with 1 million qubits, or quantum bits, within "a handful of years."

[...] "If they are really able to pull this off, it immediately distinguishes them and puts them in a completely different field so far ahead of the competition," Peter Rohde, a Future Fellow at the Centre for Quantum Software and Information at the University of Technology Sydney, told Bloomberg.

CEO O'Brien and co-founders [...] formed PsiQuantum in Silicon Valley to develop a computer that essentially runs on light.

They have assembled a team of more than 100 to build what is known as a silicon photonic quantum computer.

Samir Kumar, general manager of Microsoft Corp.'s venture capital unit who has invested in PsiQuantum, put in perspective what the company says its machine will be able to do: "By the time you get to 80 qubits, you are in a place where the qubits are storing more information than the total number of atoms in the entire universe."

Quantum Computing Startup Raises $215 Million for Faster Device

PsiQuantum's photon-based model is still years away, but the company says it'll be more powerful than Google's or IBM's.

PsiQuantum, a 5-year-old startup based in Palo Alto, Calif., says it's well on its way to creating a commercial quantum machine, the boldest claim to date among a legion of hopefuls in the field. It has raised $215 million to build a computer with 1 million qubits, or quantum bits, within "a handful of years," co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Jeremy O'Brien tells Bloomberg Businessweek. While the qubit figure will mean little to people outside the industry, it's considered the breakthrough point for making a true, general-purpose quantum computer that would be broadly useful to businesses. As such, PsiQuantum's machine would mark a major leap forward and deal a devastating blow to rival projects by the likes of Google, Honeywell, IBM, and a sea of startups and university labs. "If they are really able to pull this off, it immediately distinguishes them and puts them in a completely different field so far ahead of the competition," says Peter Rohde, a Future Fellow at the Centre for Quantum Software & Information at the University of Technology Sydney. "This strikes me as incredibly exciting."

The "if" from Rohde reflects the challenges of quantum computing and, partly, the secrecy that has surrounded PsiQuantum's work. O'Brien's interview with Bloomberg Businessweek is his first detailed discussion of the company's technology since its founding in 2015. The CEO and his co-founders (Terry Rudolph, Mark Thompson, and Pete Shadbolt) are Australian and British academics turned industrialists. Over the past five years, they've hired more than 100 people to help them try to develop what's known as a silicon photonic quantum computer—essentially, a computer that runs on light.

[...] These properties, in theory, allow quantum computers to achieve a quantum speedup, which grows exponentially as more qubits are added to the system. The ramifications are mind-blowing. "By the time you get to 80 qubits, you are in a place where the qubits are storing more information than the total number of atoms in the entire universe," says Samir Kumar, general manager of Microsoft Corp.'s venture capital arm, which has invested in PsiQuantum. Practically speaking, this means large calculations that would take decades or centuries to complete using even modern supercomputers can be performed in minutes on a quantum machine. The belief is this will lead to stunning breakthroughs in chemistry, biology, and other scientific fields.

[...] The techniques PsiQuantum is pursuing were considered virtually impossible to pull off for a time. Among other obstacles, scientists thought a machine based on photonics would have to be incredibly large. "As we began working on this architecture, it appeared that our machine would have to be the size of the Sierra Nevada mountain range," O'Brien says. After a series of research advances, however, his team has set to work building its first computer, which it expects will be the size of an office conference room. GlobalFoundries, one of the world's top chipmakers, has already started producing early versions of PsiQuantum's chips using its standard manufacturing facilities. (This marks a significant contrast with other quantum experiments, which rely on exotic materials and custom manufacturing.) Now it's up to O'Brien's engineers to create quantum variants of the networking, software, and the other components needed to make a functioning computer. "We're going to be building them as fast as you can," O'Brien says.

[...] PsiQuantum's big claim is that its technology will be able to string together 1 million qubits and distill out 100 to 300 error-corrected or "useful" qubits from that total. O'Brien and PsiQuantum's backers question whether Google can ever reach similar qubit totals with its technology. "It is like climbing a tree to get to the moon," says Peter Barrett, a general partner at Playground Global, which invested in PsiQuantum. A Google spokesperson says the company typically does not comment on rivals' work.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:01PM (4 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @07:01PM (#980337)

    By the time you get to 80 qubits, you are in a place where the qubits are storing more information than the total number of atoms in the entire universe.

    But... how many qubits of information are stored in each atom?

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by captain normal on Wednesday April 08 2020, @08:13PM (2 children)

    by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @08:13PM (#980361)

    Not only that, but how did they arrived at a definite number of the atoms in the Universe, which the last time I looked was infinite?

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 08 2020, @10:54PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 08 2020, @10:54PM (#980413)

      It is my understanding that the whole question of the infinitely expanding vs collapsing universe is one of total mass contained therein - with the infinitely expanding universe having somewhat less total mass in comparison to the energy with which it is expanding.

      However... this does leave the question of matter->energy conversion very much open - if there is even a slight error in the assumptions about how much matter will convert to energy and vice-versa, that would seem to dramatically influence this infinitely expanding vs collapsing universe question. For instance: when a black hole swallows a star, how much more matter is converted to energy in that situation as compared to a star simply burning out?

      Whatever answer they think they have for total number of atoms in the universe, I'd throw a fudge factor of +/- 10% of the number of orders of magnitude they think it is... in other words: Google says " it is estimated that the there are between 10E78 to 10E82 atoms in the known, observable universe", I'd be far less than shocked if the total true number weren't somewhere in the 10E70 to 10E90 range.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:18AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2020, @01:18AM (#980464) Journal

      but how did they arrived at a definite number of the atoms in the Universe

      They're speaking of what we can see. Most of those atoms have already slid outside of our universe. For example, according to present estimates of "negative energy" expansion, if it were possible through some sci fi scenario to change everything which we can access at the speed of light (say a sci fi end of universe scenario where some lab experiment gone wrong converts the universe to a lower vacuum state energy), we'd still only affect what presently is a sphere crudely a billion light years on a side.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2020, @10:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2020, @10:57PM (#980414)

    It's qubits all the way down, baby.