IBM is launching a 53-qubit quantum computer next month

[Shawn Knight]

Forward-looking: Quantum computing is still a highly experimental field but IBM believes continued advances could eventually lead to things like improved financial models to make wiser investments, the discovery of new medicines and improvements in the optimization of supply chains.

IBM on Wednesday said it will soon make a 53-qubit quantum computer available for broad use. When it goes online next month, it’ll be the single largest universal quantum system available outside of experimental lab environments.

The 53-qubit machine will be one of 14 at IBM’s new Quantum Computation Center in New York State. The facility, IBM said, will support the growing needs of a community of over 150,000 individuals and close to 80 academic institutes, research labs and commercial clients including J.P. Morgan Chase, Mitsubishi Chemical and the Mizuho Financial Group.

More than 14 million experiments have been run on IBM’s cloud-based quantum computers since they were first made available in 2016. Furthermore, some 200+ scientific papers have been published based on research conducted on the machines.

IBM said the 53-qubit machine offers a larger lattice, giving users the ability to run even more complex entanglement and connectivity experiments. It’s powered by the next family of processors on IBM’s roadmap, we’re told.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/81961-ibm-launching-53-qubit-quantum-computer-next-month.html

 

[VitalyT]

it’ll be the single largest universal quantum system

I'm not a specialist in quantum computing, but from what I know, there is no such thing in quantum computing as a universal system, its biggest Achilles Heel, I.e. quantum computing is a very poor choice for general-purpose calculations, and so it will never become universal, it will remain a niche scientific product.

 

[DelJo63]

I'm not a specialist in quantum computing, but what what I know, there is no such thing in quantum computing as a universal system, its biggest Achilles Heel, I.e. quantum computing is a very poor choice for general-purpose calculations.

That's the issue -- it's NOT general purpose calculations like we perform with Windows or Server systems. The name Quantum Computing comes directly from quantum physics:

Quantum computing takes advantage of the strange ability of subatomic particles to exist in more than one state at any time. Due to the way the tiniest of particles behave, operations can be done much more quickly and use less energy than classical computers. ... Quantum computing uses quantum bits, or 'qubits' instead.​

 

[neeyik]

The lack of suitability comes from the fact that quantum computing algorithms do not generate finite results; instead, each run of the computation produces a value that has a certain probability of being correct. Because the operational speed is so quick, the computations can be run again and again, rapidly generating a cumulative distribution of the values, such that the actual 'correct' value will lie within a appropriate margin of statistical variance of the central tendency of the distribution. The big downside to this is that issues with noise (be it quantum in nature or otherwise) will interfere with the distribution, and it's this, more than anything else, that currently limits the commercial usefulness of quantum computing. Solve this and there's a Nobel Prize and a place in history for you.

 

[DelJo63]

...Because the operational speed is so quick, the computations can be run again and again, rapidly generating a cumulative distribution of the values, such that the actual 'correct' value will lie within a appropriate margin of statistical variance of the central tendency of the distribution. ...

OMG, real statistics!

 

[Uncle Al]

I much prefer their advancements on the "Watson" project. With all the discoveries it has made in medicine and in engineering, it's hard to envision better applications but from of the stuff I saw done in "Sherwood Forrest" at Langley but I'm sure there are serious applications it will fulfill. The real question seems to be .... how will we know?

 

[PEnnn]

OK, I will ask........................................but can it it run Crysis???

 

[wiyosaya]

OK, I will ask........................................but can it it run Crysis???

Damn. Beat me to it!

The lack of suitability comes from the fact that quantum computing algorithms do not generate finite results; instead, each run of the computation produces a value that has a certain probability of being correct. Because the operational speed is so quick, the computations can be run again and again, rapidly generating a cumulative distribution of the values, such that the actual 'correct' value will lie within a appropriate margin of statistical variance of the central tendency of the distribution. The big downside to this is that issues with noise (be it quantum in nature or otherwise) will interfere with the distribution, and it's this, more than anything else, that currently limits the commercial usefulness of quantum computing. Solve this and there's a Nobel Prize and a place in history for you.

And on that subject - https://phys.org/news/2019-09-advance-noise-cancelling-quantum.html

Given what I know about QM, it would seem that the best possible choice of problems would be those that have degenerate solutions - I.e, a problem that has multiple or infinite answers - since the mythos has developed about particles that exist in multiple states at the same time. This is the mathematical definition of degeneracy.

Another way of looking at it is from how atoms emit their particular spectral signature. No single atom will ever emit exactly the same wavelength every time - perhaps even at extremely low temperatures - except, in that case, emission around the same spectral line might deviate by such a small value that it would be very difficult to detect, but it would still likely be there.

I'm not an expert in the subject - and I am sure it shows.

OMG, real statistics!

Absolutely. That is what quantum mechanics is all about.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

I'm not a specialist in quantum computing, but what what I know, there is no such thing in quantum computing as a universal system, its biggest Achilles Heel, I.e. quantum computing is a very poor choice for general-purpose calculations.

That's the issue -- it's NOT general purpose calculations like we perform with Windows or Server systems. The name Quantum Computing comes directly from quantum physics:

Quantum computing takes advantage of the strange ability of subatomic particles to exist in more than one state at any time. Due to the way the tiniest of particles behave, operations can be done much more quickly and use less energy than classical computers. ... Quantum computing uses quantum bits, or 'qubits' instead.​

Yes, that's what they TELL us. But since superposition and entanglement are falsified, debunked "theories" from the 1920s, that's not what these fake computers are actually doing at all. And why they fail so hard.

 

[DCOCA]

I'm not a specialist in quantum computing, but what what I know, there is no such thing in quantum computing as a universal system, its biggest Achilles Heel, I.e. quantum computing is a very poor choice for general-purpose calculations.

That's the issue -- it's NOT general purpose calculations like we perform with Windows or Server systems. The name Quantum Computing comes directly from quantum physics:

Quantum computing takes advantage of the strange ability of subatomic particles to exist in more than one state at any time. Due to the way the tiniest of particles behave, operations can be done much more quickly and use less energy than classical computers. ... Quantum computing uses quantum bits, or 'qubits' instead.​

Yes, that's what they TELL us. But since superposition and entanglement are falsified, debunked "theories" from the 1920s, that's not what these fake computers are actually doing at all. And why they fail so hard.

LINKS please..as thats alot of stuff ur saying that needs backing, regarding superposition and intangiblement being debunked...

Thank you

 

[Markoni35]

My computer is better. It's 64-bit. In your face, IBM!!