from the 256-qubits-should-or-should-not-be-enough-for-anyone dept.
A team of physicists from the Harvard-MIT Center for Ultracold Atoms and other universities has developed a special type of quantum computer known as a programmable quantum simulator capable of operating with 256 quantum bits, or “qubits.”
The system marks a major step toward building large-scale quantum machines that could be used to shed light on a host of complex quantum processes and eventually help bring about real-world breakthroughs in material science, communication technologies, finance, and many other fields, overcoming research hurdles that are beyond the capabilities of even the fastest supercomputers today. Qubits are the fundamental building blocks on which quantum computers run and the source of their massive processing power.
[...] According to Sepehr Ebadi, a physics student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and the study’s lead author, it is the combination of system’s unprecedented size and programmability that puts it at the cutting edge of the race for a quantum computer, which harnesses the mysterious properties of matter at extremely small scales to greatly advance processing power. Under the right circumstances, the increase in qubits means the system can store and process exponentially more information than the classical bits on which standard computers run.
“The number of quantum states that are possible with only 256 qubits exceeds the number of atoms in the solar system,” Ebadi said, explaining the system’s vast size.
Already, the simulator has allowed researchers to observe several exotic quantum states of matter that had never before been realized experimentally, and to perform a quantum phase transition study so precise that it serves as the textbook example of how magnetism works at the quantum level.
Journal Reference:
Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T. Wang, Harry Levine, et al. Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03582-4)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @11:21AM (12 children)
But it can't simulate a molecule with 257 atoms. We need a trillion qubit quantum computer.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday July 13 2021, @12:43PM (9 children)
I once met a philosopher/mathematician [wikipedia.org] once who doubted whether numbers as large as 10^(10^100) existed. (I wish I had a link to the paper). He was an ultrafinitist [wikipedia.org]. After all, can anyone count that high?
Looks like we're going to need them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @09:02PM (1 child)
Did any university award a degree for this?
If so, I would not hire any graduates of that university with a ten foot pole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14 2021, @02:19AM
Very, very roughly, finitism of some sort is an expected outcome of having an intuitionist view of mathematics. If you accept some sort of intuitionistic mathematics and combine it with a constructionist viewpoint or the incompleteness of first order calculi, the idea that there are no total functions, only partials more or less naturally falls out. Combined with classical finitism, you then arrive at strong finitism, and from there ultrafinitism isn't too large of a jump (although some consider the last to categories the same).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14 2021, @02:32AM
Is it good or bad I knew who you were referring to before looking?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 14 2021, @04:01AM (5 children)
What does it even mean for a number to exist? You have to work to establish a way for simple numbers like 1 or 2 to exist. It becomes rather complicated mental gymnastics to include those numbers while excluding other numbers merely because they are big.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14 2021, @09:52AM (3 children)
Depends on your definition of "exist" when it comes to numbers. Some definitions lend themselves to rejecting the existence of extraordinarily large numbers quite easily while still allowing small numbers. If you really want to know, look into actual vs potential infinities and whether they exist or not. Then you can follow the arguments that extend the various definitions from there and how they relate to other quantities and numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 14 2021, @10:14AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15 2021, @02:59AM (1 child)
Then what are you going on about if you already know the answer to your question? Anyone remotely involved with ultrafinitism and philosophy of mathematics knows about the question of numerical existence and the issues around it. Even your distinction between "numbers don't exist" and "representations of numbers exist" doesn't help you as much as you think, especially against an ultrafinitist such as Esenin-Volpin or your first comment in the thread.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 15 2021, @12:02PM
Because this is an example of poor definition rather than a genuine philosophical issue. For example, it doesn't change our math one bit, if there's infinite quantity of numbers that don't exist, say in the sense that we have no means to express it in the physical constraints of our universe, even as an algorithm like 10^(10^100).
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday July 14 2021, @06:40PM
That is exactly the question he (indirectly) raised.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @11:01PM (1 child)
They seem to have overlooked the fact that the first computer to have 32 32-bit words of storage, which was pretty much the first programmable computer ever, had a capability of representing significantly - exponentially one might say - more states than this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14 2021, @07:11PM
Uh, I don't think 2^37 comes close to the number of atoms in the universe. Also, I don't think the first computer had 32 bit words.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday July 13 2021, @11:25AM
How many cubits was that?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @12:08PM (3 children)
How many blockchains can this machine crack at once.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 13 2021, @01:04PM (2 children)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @01:23PM (1 child)
OK, how about using it for simulating a physicist breaking blockchain... keep your eyes open for dweebs driving Lamborghinis.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @10:55PM
I always like it when their supercars get into superpositions with each other, or lampposts.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 13 2021, @01:44PM (6 children)
are there any REAL quantum computers, actually existing and built?
It seems that it is all 'simulations' and 'possibilities', but nothing built..... are there any 'for reals'?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @01:58PM
Basic quantum information theory tells us that there can be no real quantum computers, they can only exist in a superposition of real and imaginary.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 13 2021, @02:02PM
IIUC, they *do* exist, but only in labs, and under 50 qubits. There aren't any commercial ones. I don't count the D-Wave computer as it's not a general purpose computer, though it can do certain kinds of problems exceptionally fast.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday July 13 2021, @02:28PM
You'll know. It will be the day that all banking online shuts down and your bank wants to see you in person to withdraw cash.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 13 2021, @05:16PM
Yes they do exist. I saw one at IBM but I didn't get a chance to work with it. Well, sort of saw it since it's submersed in something seriously cold (liquid nitrogen?) when operating.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14 2021, @02:51AM
Yes there are. Beyond the D-Wave systems, there are also more general purpose ones available. IBM, Honeywell, IONQ, QCI, Rigetti and a handful of others also have machines available for use right now, if you have a big enough budget.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 14 2021, @03:47AM
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 13 2021, @06:28PM
I held up as much as I could. I hadn't ejaculated in a year. It was time to reward myself.
I went to my girlfriend's room and picked out a stuffed toy. It turned out to be Kermit The Frog. He was always staring at me lovingly whenever I entered her room, so he got the job.
As I peeled open my pants like a banana my erection was already throbbing. Not wanting any foreplay, I whipped stuffed Kermit around quickly and my cock penetrated his covering where his anus should be.
I railed against him three times before cumming a cup full of semen deep into his stuffed body. When I had finished, I discovered I had torn off his arms, his soft body stuck to my still pounding erection.
I laid Kermit out on my girlfriend's bed with his legs spread wide open, his mouth still forming a stupid smile.
My next conquest would be miss piggy, but i'll leave that for another post.