D-Wave’s 5,000-qubit quantum computing platform handles 1 million variables

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
7,743
"5,000+ qubits, 15-way qubit connectivity
If you’re confused by the “over 5,000 qubits” part, you’re not alone. More qubits typically means more potential for building commercial quantum applications. But D-Wave isn’t giving a specific qubit count for Advantage because the exact number varies between systems.

“Essentially, D-Wave is guaranteeing the availability of 5,000 qubits to Leap users using Advantage,” a D-Wave spokesperson told VentureBeat. “The actual specific number of qubits varies from chip to chip in each Advantage system. Some of the chips have significantly more than 5,000 qubits, and others are a bit closer to 5,000. But bottom line — anyone using Leap will have full access to at least 5,000 qubits.”"


1601397112331.png


https://venturebeat.com/2020/09/29/...um-computing-5000-qubits-1-million-variables/
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,893
That's actually a pretty big deal..... Damned

While I don't think we will ever see quantum computers used in the home this is basically the IBM 1400 of the Quantum world..... I didn't think they would get this far I had sorta assumed they would fizzle out and fold before they hit this point.
 
Last edited:

atp1916

[H]ard|DCoTM x1
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
4,809
No quantum machine is noise-less.

The more bits you have, the noisier the setup is. The more noise the setup has, the greater your error rate is. The higher the error rate, the more CRC bits you need. The more bits your setup has from an aggregate perspective, the greater the chance of incoherence.

In other words, we're nowhere close. Not even a bit. Cool? Sure. Useful? not really.

Read this article. It's nice.
So, what is the biggest number that has been factored by a quantum computer available today?

The biggest number to be factored is 35 [1], achieved on IBM’s Quantum Computer (https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00768). 35 is a 6-bit number, so we are far away from 2048 bit RSA keys (which has 617 decimal digits – compared to these 2 digits.)
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,465
D-WAVE is not the same as IBM, please remember they are completely different designs for different uses, IBM is trying to make a computer that we can use to solve discrete problems, D-WAVE is trying to make a really good guessing machine that gives a good enough answer.

"Pakin says his team are believers in D-Wave’s potential, even though they admit its systems might not yet offer performance improvements except in very narrow cases. He also explains that D-Wave's computers don't necessarily provide the most efficient answers to an optimization problem—or even a correct one. Instead, the idea is to provide solutions that are probably good, if not perfect solutions, and to do it very quickly. That narrows the D-Wave machines' usefulness to optimization problems that need to be solved fast but don't need to be perfect. That could include many artificial intelligence applications."

D-WAVE is not meant to even give a correct answer, so it'd be really hard to crack RSA in this manner ;).
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/d-wave-turns-open-source-democratize-quantum-computing/
 

lostinseganet

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
1,185
"That could include many artificial intelligence applications " Ohh could that be used for gamming? PvE in gaming? (^_^)
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,830
D-WAVE is not the same as IBM, please remember they are completely different designs for different uses, IBM is trying to make a computer that we can use to solve discrete problems, D-WAVE is trying to make a really good guessing machine that gives a good enough answer.

"Pakin says his team are believers in D-Wave’s potential, even though they admit its systems might not yet offer performance improvements except in very narrow cases. He also explains that D-Wave's computers don't necessarily provide the most efficient answers to an optimization problem—or even a correct one. Instead, the idea is to provide solutions that are probably good, if not perfect solutions, and to do it very quickly. That narrows the D-Wave machines' usefulness to optimization problems that need to be solved fast but don't need to be perfect. That could include many artificial intelligence applications."

D-WAVE is not meant to even give a correct answer, so it'd be really hard to crack RSA in this manner ;).
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/d-wave-turns-open-source-democratize-quantum-computing/
Maybe you could get it to give you a list of highly probable keys / factors which you could then feed to a regular computer to verify which one is correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
3,178
Maybe you could get it to give you a list of highly probable keys / factors which you could then feed to a regular computer to verify which one is correct?

Breaking cryptography is often a far different task then what any quantum annealer can do. The proposed soulution is shors algorithmic on a quantum computer many magnitudes more powerful then anything created today. When they say the quantum annealer can optimize they are often talking about very specific problems not anything that could use some optimization.

I am also not to terribly familiar with dwave but I dont belive their last annealer was able to do anything useful
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,465
Breaking cryptography is often a far different task then what any quantum annealer can do. The proposed soulution is shors algorithmic on a quantum computer many magnitudes more powerful then anything created today. When they say the quantum annealer can optimize they are often talking about very specific problems not anything that could use some optimization.

I am also not to terribly familiar with dwave but I dont belive their last annealer was able to do anything useful

All the reading I've done (which isn't tremendous, but more than nothing) points to the same outcome that d-wave's stuff just isn't really useful except in very niche cases with limited usability overall (even it those niche cases). I haven't read up lately on it, so maybe it's progressed (not just hardware size, usefulness as well) some in the last year or two.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,286
Great now anyone can crack your 256bit AES key in about 0.2 seconds.

Quantum computing doesnt scare me, its the people using it that do.
 
Last edited:

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,830
Great now anyone can crack your 256bit AES key in about 0.2 seconds.

Quantum computing doesnt scare me, its the people using it that do.

Symmetric key quantum resistance[edit]
Provided one uses sufficiently large key sizes, the symmetric key cryptographic systems like AES and SNOW 3G are already resistant to attack by a quantum computer.
I think your aes stuffs is okay (y)
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,830
Breaking cryptography is often a far different task then what any quantum annealer can do. The proposed soulution is shors algorithmic on a quantum computer many magnitudes more powerful then anything created today. When they say the quantum annealer can optimize they are often talking about very specific problems not anything that could use some optimization.

I am also not to terribly familiar with dwave but I dont belive their last annealer was able to do anything useful

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02733

It seems they can already factor larger numbers using DWAVE then they've been able to on general quantum computers. Maybe RSA will die sooner on DWAVE. Obviously still not impressive compared to classical computers. shrug.
 

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,473
I don't mind - I bought in at 200-400 so 10k+ is still nothing to sneeze at. But if the quantum code buster buster buster becomes a thing, well blockchain go bye bye! :-D
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,932
NEVER. This is pure snake oil,9000% grade A,BS.

Correct. D-Wave is heavy on the hype, light on the substance. It isn't even clear if their devices do the quantum annealing they claim. Everyone should keep in mind that "quantum computing" is a bit like "blockchain" in that people get REALLY EXCITED about it, don't understand it well, and hop on the bandwagon without consideration for if it actually helps them with anything.

Right now the answer to any question of "Will quantum computers be faster than X?" or "Can the break Y?" is we have no idea. It is in its infancy to the point we have no idea if there will ever be a "final product" much less what that'll look like. It may turn out that the theoretical applications of quantum computers just can't ever be made real, that they are forever a research curiosity, never doing anything useful. It may turn out that they become the next kind of computing, ubiquitous in their deployment and used for everything. Or anything in between. Right now, we really don't know what is going to be possible.

Remember that just because their are theoretical things they can do, that doesn't necessarily translate in to what we will actually be able to implement. As something of an analogy take the theory of General Relativity: It allows for the existence of a Wormhole, where two distant points in space are linked together and can be traveled between. However that doesn't mean that wormholes actually exist, or more importantly that if they do that we could use and/or create them. They are consistent with our theoretical understanding of spacetime, that doesn't mean we'll ever see them.

Quantum computers aren't precisely the same, but same general idea: There's a lot of talk about what they can do in theory, and it is real theory in the scientific sense, meaning a testable hypothesis founded on real observations, not wild ass speculation. However that doesn't mean that theory pans out in reality.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
7,743
Correct. D-Wave is heavy on the hype, light on the substance. It isn't even clear if their devices do the quantum annealing they claim. Everyone should keep in mind that "quantum computing" is a bit like "blockchain" in that people get REALLY EXCITED about it, don't understand it well, and hop on the bandwagon without consideration for if it actually helps them with anything.

Right now the answer to any question of "Will quantum computers be faster than X?" or "Can the break Y?" is we have no idea. It is in its infancy to the point we have no idea if there will ever be a "final product" much less what that'll look like. It may turn out that the theoretical applications of quantum computers just can't ever be made real, that they are forever a research curiosity, never doing anything useful. It may turn out that they become the next kind of computing, ubiquitous in their deployment and used for everything. Or anything in between. Right now, we really don't know what is going to be possible.

Remember that just because their are theoretical things they can do, that doesn't necessarily translate in to what we will actually be able to implement. As something of an analogy take the theory of General Relativity: It allows for the existence of a Wormhole, where two distant points in space are linked together and can be traveled between. However that doesn't mean that wormholes actually exist, or more importantly that if they do that we could use and/or create them. They are consistent with our theoretical understanding of spacetime, that doesn't mean we'll ever see them.

Quantum computers aren't precisely the same, but same general idea: There's a lot of talk about what they can do in theory, and it is real theory in the scientific sense, meaning a testable hypothesis founded on real observations, not wild ass speculation. However that doesn't mean that theory pans out in reality.


"Bolometer operating at the threshold for circuit quantum electrodynamics

Radiation sensors based on the heating effect of absorbed radiation are typically simple to operate and flexible in terms of input frequency, so they are widely used in gas detection1, security2, terahertz imaging3, astrophysical observations4 and medical applications5. Several important applications are currently emerging from quantum technology and especially from electrical circuits that behave quantum mechanically, that is, circuit quantum electrodynamics6. This field has given rise to single-photon microwave detectors7,8,9 and a quantum computer that is superior to classical supercomputers for certain tasks10. Thermal sensors hold potential for enhancing such devices because they do not add quantum noise and they are smaller, simpler and consume about six orders of magnitude less power than the frequently used travelling-wave parametric amplifiers11. However, despite great progress in the speed12 and noise levels13 of thermal sensors, no bolometer has previously met the threshold for circuit quantum electrodynamics, which lies at a time constant of a few hundred nanoseconds and a simultaneous energy resolution of the order of 10h gigahertz (where h is the Planck constant). Here we experimentally demonstrate a bolometer that operates at this threshold, with a noise-equivalent power of 30 zeptowatts per square-root hertz, comparable to the lowest value reported so far13, at a thermal time constant two orders of magnitude shorter, at 500 nanoseconds. Both of these values are measured directly on the same device, giving an accurate estimation of 30h gigahertz for the calorimetric energy resolution. These improvements stem from the use of a graphene monolayer with extremely low specific heat14 as the active material. The minimum observed time constant of 200 nanoseconds is well below the dephasing times of roughly 100 microseconds reported for superconducting qubits15 and matches the timescales of currently used readout schemes16,17, thus enabling circuit quantum electrodynamics applications for bolometers."

"Finnish researchers claim quantum computing breakthrough" https://techxplore.com/news/2020-09-finnish-quantum-breakthrough.html
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
7,743
i thought we were waiting for it to hit $1milUSD/btc to sell like McAfee predicted
https://dickline.info/

" Quantum error correction protects fragile quantum information by encoding it in a larger quantum system whose extra degrees of freedom enable the detection and correction of errors. An encoded logical qubit thus carries increased complexity compared to a bare physical qubit. Fault-tolerant protocols contain the spread of errors and are essential for realizing error suppression with an error-corrected logical qubit. Here we experimentally demonstrate fault-tolerant preparation, rotation, error syndrome extraction, and measurement on a logical qubit encoded in the 9-qubit Bacon-Shor code. For the logical qubit, we measure an average fault-tolerant preparation and measurement error of 0.6% and a transversal Clifford gate with an error of 0.3% after error correction. The result is an encoded logical qubit whose logical fidelity exceeds the fidelity of the entangling operations used to create it. We compare these operations with non-fault-tolerant protocols capable of generating arbitrary logical states, and observe the expected increase in error. We directly measure the four Bacon-Shor stabilizer generators and are able to detect single qubit Pauli errors. These results show that fault-tolerant quantum systems are currently capable of logical primitives with error rates lower than their constituent parts. With the future addition of intermediate measurements, the full power of scalable quantum error-correction can be achieved. "

Trapped-ion quantum computer sets new mark for quantum volume
 

TMCM

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
1,431
Sweet! That much closer to developing the Infinite Improbability Drive 🤣
 
Top