Intel is one step closer to mass production of quantum processors

[Greg S]

Quantum computing is far from fiction but it is also out of reach for consumers and businesses with limited budgets. Intel has announced that it has successfully produced a 17-qubit superconducting chip for QuTech. Intel fabricates quantum chips, QuTech runs tests on the chips and sends feedback to Intel where its employees work to build improved renditions.

The new test chip is not a large step forward in terms of raw compute power but it is a step in the right direction towards more stable production. Producing qubits in a reliable fashion is still a difficult task even for Intel's skilled engineers. Merely observing qubits can cause data loss to occur let alone exposure to external noise.

Intel's latest quantum chip operates at 20 millikelvin, just barely above absolute zero. Operating at such low temperatures ensures that there is almost no movement at the atomic level which can induce noise. A new architecture has been developed to reduce radio frequency interference between each of the qubits on the chip.

In addition to a new architecture, a grid of connectors can be found on one side of the chip instead of a conventional ball or line grid array typically seen on traditional processors. Sending and receiving data from the chip without causing data loss has been made easier.

Ultimately, the goal of this quantum project is to develop an error-correction algorithm and a logical qubit. "This work will allow us to uncover new insights in quantum computing that will shape the next stage of development," said professor Leo DiCarlo of QuTech. Having error correction is essential in bringing quantum devices to market as a regular product so that they can be operated without an entire team of scientists and engineers on staff to figure out why workloads fail.

Quantum computing is not a technology meant to outright replace traditional computing methods. Intel affirms that quantum computing will have a place alongside conventional computing and may even be complemented by other technologies such as neuromorphic computing.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/71344-intel-one-step-closer-mass-production-quantum-processors.html

 

[VitalyT]

It will take another 20 years to create a compact thermal package for quantum processors to make them suitable for home use.

Everything that's out there today is too expensive, too bulky and dangerously cold.

 

[Uncle Al]

What I found most refreshing was the two guys appearing to talk off the cuff instead of one of those $20M commercials featuring galactic cruisers, ray guns, and large chested aliens that look as tempting as they are dangerous ........

 

[Puiu]

It will take another 20 years to create a compact thermal package for quantum processors to make them suitable for home use.

Everything that's out there today is too expensive, too bulky and dangerously cold.

To make it usable for the regular plebs (aka us) it needs to operate at much higher temps than "close to absolute zero". That's where their research in noise reduction/shielding and error correction will come into play a lot.
But yeah, we are still a few decades away from this technology to become viable on a large scale.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

There's nothing quantum about these garbage processors. They're still using electrons, for crying out loud - billions of times larger than the actual fundamental charge quanta: the photon.

 

[Silvernine]

There's nothing quantum about these garbage processors. They're still using electrons, for crying out loud - billions of times larger than the actual fundamental charge quanta: the photon.

Don't know about you but it seems there are nothing wrong with using electrons. Also, I'm curious as to your statement that electrons are billions of times larger than photon. Key term, "billions". In addition, photons are both massless and chargeless. So are you sure it's a "fundamental charge quanta"?

Anyways, here are some types quantum computers that uses electrons for quantum computing:
"Quantum dot computer, spin-based (e.g. the Loss-DiVincenzo quantum computer) (qubit given by the spin states of trapped electrons)"
"Electrons-on-helium quantum computers (qubit is the electron spin)"
"Fullerene-based ESR quantum computer (qubit based on the electronic spin of atoms or molecules encased in fullerenes)"

"In April 2012 a multinational team of researchers from the University of Southern California, Delft University of Technology, the Iowa State University of Science and Technology, and the University of California, Santa Barbara, constructed a two-qubit quantum computer on a doped diamond crystal that can easily be scaled up and is functional at room temperature. Two logical qubit directions of electron spin and nitrogen kernels spin were used, with microwave impulses. This computer ran Grover's algorithm generating the right answer from the first try in 95% of cases."

"In October 2016 Basel University described a variant of the electron hole based quantum computer, which instead of manipulating electron spins uses electron holes in a semiconductor at low (mK) temperatures which are a lot less vulnerable to decoherence. This has been dubbed the "positronic" quantum computer as the quasi-particle behaves like it has a positive electrical charge."

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Don't know about you but it seems there are nothing wrong with using electrons. Also, I'm curious as to your statement that electrons are billions of times larger than photon. Key term, "billions". In addition, photons are both massless and chargeless. So are you sure it's a "fundamental charge quanta"?

It seems you're adhering to outdated, falsified theory left over from Copenhagen in 1925. Photons aren't massless, just consider the energy equation itself or any number of obvious effects such as photovoltaics, photosynthesis, or your own eyes. E=mc². If a photon were massless, it couldn't have ANY energy, as 0*c² would still be zero.

Photons are not chargless, they are charge. Photons are the fundamental quanta that give the proton and electron charge. It's not just +s and -s and math, it's a real field of real particles. Photons drive both electricity and magnetism, electricity being the pole-to-pole throughput of charge (photons) and magnetism being the equatorial spin throughput.

Electrons are just along for the ride, in electricity. They don't have negative charge as charge is always a field of repulsion, of collision. The electron has 1/1821 the charge of the proton, but that's not negative. Both take in, recycle, and emit photons. So does the neutron, which is only neutral relative to the proton.

What's wrong with using electrons? Nothing, except they're inefficient and much larger than the actual charge particle we could be using. Ever wonder why photovoltaics top out at less than 40% efficiency? That's why.

Here's an example I made showing charge channels in Helium (the "alpha", the building block of all larger matter):

 

[Nightsworn]

Don't know about you but it seems there are nothing wrong with using electrons. Also, I'm curious as to your statement that electrons are billions of times larger than photon. Key term, "billions". In addition, photons are both massless and chargeless. So are you sure it's a "fundamental charge quanta"?

It seems you're adhering to outdated, falsified theory left over from Copenhagen in 1925. Photons aren't massless, just consider the energy equation itself or any number of obvious effects such as photovoltaics, photosynthesis, or your own eyes. E=mc². If a photon were massless, it couldn't have ANY energy, as 0*c² would still be zero.

Photons are not chargless, they are charge. Photons are the fundamental quanta that give the proton and electron charge. It's not just +s and -s and math, it's a real field of real particles. Photons drive both electricity and magnetism, electricity being the pole-to-pole throughput of charge (photons) and magnetism being the equatorial spin throughput.

Electrons are just along for the ride, in electricity. They don't have negative charge as charge is always a field of repulsion, of collision. The electron has 1/1821 the charge of the proton, but that's not negative. Both take in, recycle, and emit photons. So does the neutron, which is only neutral relative to the proton.

What's wrong with using electrons? Nothing, except they're inefficient and much larger than the actual charge particle we could be using. Ever wonder why photovoltaics top out at less than 40% efficiency? That's why.

Here's an example I made showing charge channels in Helium (the "alpha", the building block of all larger matter):

E=mc^2 isn't the full equation. The full equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, where p is the momentum. Light is massless, but has momentum and therefore has energy and can interact in the methods you described. The energy of light is given by E=hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the frequency, which is entirely momentum.

Photons aren't charge. Yes, they're quanta of the electromagnetic field, but as Silvernine says, they have no mass nor charge. And fields aren't made of particles. Particles are quantum excitations in the fields. Charge of a particle is due to how the field interacts with it. Protons and neutrons are the same particle but oriented differently in their isospin space (related to the strong nuclear force) with causes them to have slightly different energies and interact with the electromagnetic field differently.

Electrons and protons have opposite charges.You're thinking of electron mass that is 1/1837 of the proton. I don't know where you're getting "charge is always repulsive" from, but that's just completely false.

Also, your media tag doesn't appear to be working.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

E=mc^2 isn't the full equation. The full equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, where p is the momentum. Light is massless, but has momentum and therefore has energy and can interact in the methods you described. The energy of light is given by E=hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the frequency, which is entirely momentum.

Photons aren't charge. Yes, they're quanta of the electromagnetic field, but as Silvernine says, they have no mass nor charge. And fields aren't made of particles. Particles are quantum excitations in the fields. Charge of a particle is due to how the field interacts with it. Protons and neutrons are the same particle but oriented differently in their isospin space (related to the strong nuclear force) with causes them to have slightly different energies and interact with the electromagnetic field differently.

Electrons and protons have opposite charges.You're thinking of electron mass that is 1/1837 of the proton. I don't know where you're getting "charge is always repulsive" from, but that's just completely false.

Also, your media tag doesn't appear to be working.

And now you're just piling on ad-hoc math and wishy-washy variables to bolster the falsified, old physics. The full equation already contained momentum, as c is already a velocity. You're attempting to add another velocity to separate out light having actual, tangible mass - something physically impossible and merely a forced trick of math. That's something from nothing, and non-physical.

What, do you also believe it's electrons colliding with your eyes that allow you to see? Only real particles can experience real collisions, not virtual "messenger" particles.

Particles aren't "excitations", they're physical objects with mass, spin, and chirality. You say they're excitations in the field - the field of what? "Charge of a particle is how the field interacts with it." The field of what, again? You're not making sense, even to yourself. You don't know what the electromagnetic field is, even though I just told you. You don't even know what causes charge, even though it's literally right in front of your eyes. And no, I wasn't thinking of the mass differential between the electron and proton, I was thinking of the charge differential which is why I said that's what it was. You can't straw man me or tell me what I think.

Photons are charge. They're the mediating particle of charge, as shown in hundreds of papers in the last decade. My video demonstrates how photons bind atoms together through strict repulsion only, using simple billiard ball mechanics and no magic forces, action at a distance, or mathematical tricks. It works fine on my computer and phone, so upgrade your hardware along with your theory and you'll get a lot closer to modern physics.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Maybe I should like everyone's comment. That is since I don't and never will understand Quantum anything.

 

[Nightsworn]

E=mc^2 isn't the full equation. The full equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, where p is the momentum. Light is massless, but has momentum and therefore has energy and can interact in the methods you described. The energy of light is given by E=hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the frequency, which is entirely momentum.

Photons aren't charge. Yes, they're quanta of the electromagnetic field, but as Silvernine says, they have no mass nor charge. And fields aren't made of particles. Particles are quantum excitations in the fields. Charge of a particle is due to how the field interacts with it. Protons and neutrons are the same particle but oriented differently in their isospin space (related to the strong nuclear force) with causes them to have slightly different energies and interact with the electromagnetic field differently.

Electrons and protons have opposite charges.You're thinking of electron mass that is 1/1837 of the proton. I don't know where you're getting "charge is always repulsive" from, but that's just completely false.

Also, your media tag doesn't appear to be working.

And now you're just piling on ad-hoc math and wishy-washy variables to bolster the falsified, old physics. The full equation already contained momentum, as c is already a velocity. You're attempting to add another velocity to separate out light having actual, tangible mass - something physically impossible and merely a forced trick of math. That's something from nothing, and non-physical.

What, do you also believe it's electrons colliding with your eyes that allow you to see? Only real particles can experience real collisions, not virtual "messenger" particles.

Particles aren't "excitations", they're physical objects with mass, spin, and chirality. You say they're excitations in the field - the field of what? "Charge of a particle is how the field interacts with it." The field of what, again? You're not making sense, even to yourself. You don't know what the electromagnetic field is, even though I just told you. You don't even know what causes charge, even though it's literally right in front of your eyes. And no, I wasn't thinking of the mass differential between the electron and proton, I was thinking of the charge differential which is why I said that's what it was. You can't straw man me or tell me what I think.

Photons are charge. They're the mediating particle of charge, as shown in hundreds of papers in the last decade. My video demonstrates how photons bind atoms together through strict repulsion only, using simple billiard ball mechanics and no magic forces, action at a distance, or mathematical tricks. It works fine on my computer and phone, so upgrade your hardware along with your theory and you'll get a lot closer to modern physics.

No, you're wrong. E=mc^2 only holds for something that isn't moving, the special case where momentum is zero. c^2 doesn't come from the velocity of the object in question, so it doesnt' hold any information about momentum at all. Why would c be the velocity of the object, when objects that travel at any finite speed (not necessarily c) have momentum?

Nowhere did I state that exchange photons were the only photons. Just that all photons are excitations in the electromagnetic field.

Particles are excitations in their underlying fields. For example, the Higgs boson is an excitation in the Higgs field. And neutrons/protons are composed of quarks, which are also excitations in quantum fields.

The reason I brought up the mass is because I hoped that's what you were referring to - a miscommunication rather than you saying something that is plain wrong.

Being charge and mediating it are two different things. You wouldn't say gluons are the strong nuclear force, nor gravitons gravity (if gravity is indeed quantum).

I watched your video. It demonstrates nothing. Something you made in some 3D software is not a substitute for experimental evidence or mathematical derivation, and only works as supporting visual aid. If you want your new theory to be recognised, please provide evidence that supports it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the well tested quantum field theory.

 

[Nightsworn]

E=mc^2 isn't the full equation. The full equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, where p is the momentum. Light is massless, but has momentum and therefore has energy and can interact in the methods you described. The energy of light is given by E=hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the frequency, which is entirely momentum.

Photons aren't charge. Yes, they're quanta of the electromagnetic field, but as Silvernine says, they have no mass nor charge. And fields aren't made of particles. Particles are quantum excitations in the fields. Charge of a particle is due to how the field interacts with it. Protons and neutrons are the same particle but oriented differently in their isospin space (related to the strong nuclear force) with causes them to have slightly different energies and interact with the electromagnetic field differently.

Electrons and protons have opposite charges.You're thinking of electron mass that is 1/1837 of the proton. I don't know where you're getting "charge is always repulsive" from, but that's just completely false.

Also, your media tag doesn't appear to be working.

And now you're just piling on ad-hoc math and wishy-washy variables to bolster the falsified, old physics. The full equation already contained momentum, as c is already a velocity. You're attempting to add another velocity to separate out light having actual, tangible mass - something physically impossible and merely a forced trick of math. That's something from nothing, and non-physical.

What, do you also believe it's electrons colliding with your eyes that allow you to see? Only real particles can experience real collisions, not virtual "messenger" particles.

Particles aren't "excitations", they're physical objects with mass, spin, and chirality. You say they're excitations in the field - the field of what? "Charge of a particle is how the field interacts with it." The field of what, again? You're not making sense, even to yourself. You don't know what the electromagnetic field is, even though I just told you. You don't even know what causes charge, even though it's literally right in front of your eyes. And no, I wasn't thinking of the mass differential between the electron and proton, I was thinking of the charge differential which is why I said that's what it was. You can't straw man me or tell me what I think.

Photons are charge. They're the mediating particle of charge, as shown in hundreds of papers in the last decade. My video demonstrates how photons bind atoms together through strict repulsion only, using simple billiard ball mechanics and no magic forces, action at a distance, or mathematical tricks. It works fine on my computer and phone, so upgrade your hardware along with your theory and you'll get a lot closer to modern physics.

No, you're wrong. E=mc^2 only holds for something that isn't moving, the special case where momentum is zero. c^2 doesn't come from the velocity of the object in question, so it doesnt' hold any information about momentum at all. Why would c be the velocity of the object, when objects that travel at any finite speed (not necessarily c) have momentum?

Nowhere did I state that exchange photons were the only photons. Just that all photons are excitations in the electromagnetic field.

Particles are excitations in their underlying fields. For example, the Higgs boson is an excitation in the Higgs field. And neutrons/protons are composed of quarks, which are also excitations in quantum fields.

The reason I brought up the mass is because I hoped that's what you were referring to - a miscommunication rather than you saying something that is plain wrong.

Being charge and mediating it are two different things. You wouldn't say gluons are the strong nuclear force, nor gravitons gravity (if gravity is indeed quantum).

I watched your video. It demonstrates nothing. Something you made in some 3D software is not a substitute for experimental evidence or mathematical derivation, and only works as supporting visual aid. If you want your new theory to be recognised, please provide evidence that supports it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the well tested quantum field theory.

Sorry, my bad. In the third paragraph, replace strong nuclear force with color and gravitational mass instead of gravitons, since those are the analogues of charge for the given forces.

 

[Khanonate]

Error! Error! System Overload! Reset button...

 

[senketsu]

 

[Peter Farkas]

Photons have both particle and wave attributes.

 

[p51d007]

Can't wait for some reporter or consumer to say...."when will this show up in my (insert name of smartphone)?" LOL

 

[Reachable]

How can something not be moving? It might not look like it's moving to you, but to (almost) everyone else it looks like it's moving. So if you're going to describe an object in terms of its energy, its motion (relative to just you) can't be a part of the description. You know what I'm saying? My computer monitor looks to me like it's standing still right now, but if someone went to the surface of the sun, they'd see it and me and you and the Rock of Gibraltar and the whole rest of the earth moving fast. So an object has to be its momentum relative to everything else, and nothing but that. That's what its mass essentially is.

 

[skipmichael]

Both are right. Protons do have weight and mass. Once they stop "moving" they become "dark matter."