I just ran into this article, it seems like Intel's response to yesterdays press release of IBM's quantum computer. Competition is certainly alive. Well, oligopoly dominance, but at least it's not a monopoly dominance.
https://futurism.com/17-qubit-chips-begins-quantum-revolution/?src=featured It also seems like the first one to reach quantum computers that can do resonably more than a super server, or even desktops, appears very lucrative. There is probably a race going on here, which seems evident too by Intel's quick reponse to IBM only a day after too. I gotta say though, looking in the article, that youtube video released by Intel developers seems interesting. The chip pretty much looks like a standard cliassic CPU unit, with some differences. Presumeably, the only problem with throwing such a baby into a phone/laptop/stationary would be the cooling issue. But on the servers it should be less of an issue, exept for the cooling cost. Now a 17 Qubit small sized commercial product from Intel, and a 50 Qubit experimental early test Quantum computer from IBM. If we imagine it doubles every year, say 40 in commercial next year, and 100 or maybe even more in experiments, then it won't be long till we see some pretty scaleable quantum computing. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there here two exponential effects, one ontop of the other? Which may be overlooked by us too. I mean, imagine the scale-ability of doubling the Qubits every day, it's not linier, it's exponential. But the Qubits themselves are exponential too. So if these chips are double the size next year, and double again the year after, we'd start to see some pretty decent quantum computing already? So what it all boils down to, is to find ways to try better predict how many Qubits these chips will grow every year (similar to how Moor's law tries to predit classic computing growth), and also to predict how many Qubits are needed, to surpass a standard classic computing chip on varies factors, for example hoew many Qubits to surpgass similar computing by power useage, or by solving issues, and so on. And it may become more than just doubling every year, especially if there is a race going on between competitors to establish market share dominance, which may prompt companies to throw in bigger development expenses if they believe they can win over the other, and thereby take risk by speeding up development. After all, winning, or just getting a sizeable market-share, would be quite lucrative, a risk these companies very well may go and take, it already starts to look like they have, but its too early to say for sure. So, how many quantum Qubits will these chips have in one year time? Also if these become cheaper, both buying and operation (cooling costs) like similar pricing to that of CPU's, then there is also the worry that normal everyday hackers can get their hands on these quantum chips, never-mind businesses or governments easily making super quantum computers, substantially stronger than today's super computers. This may not happen today or tomorrow, but it really does seem scary close now. Perhaps a more realistic prediction would be to figure out how many Qubits we need to surpass the current CPU's? and how much until they can crack various standard encryption schemes? At the very least then we can compare the new Qubit release statements by Intel/IBM/etc. and know how far they've gotten. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/9958d827-d535-4637-ae94-95c654c0d745%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
