Skip to content
The methodOpen data
Back to the collection

Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier

John Preskill

2012 · arXiv

PhysicsStatistics & probabilityAlgorithms
Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Quantum information science explores the frontier of highly complex quantum states, the "entanglement frontier." This study is motivated by the observation (widely believed but unproven) that classical systems cannot simulate highly entangled quantum systems efficiently, and we hope to hasten the day when well controlled quantum systems can perform tasks surpassing what can be done in the classical world. One way to achieve such "quantum supremacy" would be to run an algorithm on a quantum computer which solves a problem with a super-polynomial speedup relative to classical computers, but there may be other ways that can be achieved sooner, such as simulating exotic quantum states of strongly correlated matter. To operate a large scale quantum computer reliably we will need to overcome the debilitating effects of decoherence, which might be done using "standard" quantum hardware protected by quantum error-correcting codes, or by exploiting the nonabelian quantum statistics of anyons realized in solid state systems, or by combining both methods. Only by challenging the entanglement frontier will we learn whether Nature provides extravagant resources far beyond what the classical world would allow.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

K0SM0S
Neutral mention · rule
Oh, my. IBM is way lower than I thought. Thank you for setting my perception straight; I amended GP accordingly. I would almost qualify that as intellectual self-subjection (and perhaps ethical, in the way of science). Aiming so low that it's trolling, for lack of a better word. Wikipedia's "Quantum supremacy"[1] article: > The term was originally popularized by John Preskill[2] but the concept of a quantum computational advantage, specifically for simulating quantum systems, dates back to Yuri Manin's (1980) and Richard Feynman's (1981) proposals of quantum computing. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813 (2012, in the…
Read the full comment
abstract: “[...] we hope to hasten the day when well controlled quantum systems can perform tasks surpassing what can be done in the classical world. One way to achieve such "quantum supremacy" would be to run an algorithm on a quantum computer which solves a problem with a super-polynomial speedup relative to classical computers [...]”)
Original comment IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
reikonomusha
Neutral mention · rule
> however, despite other interesting finds in the paper (such as being able to collapse state and read output from multiple qubits at once), claiming quantum supremacy feels to me to be somewhat aggrandising and disingenuous, given what the quantum circuit was actually computing As the person says, they have been out of the field. For better or for worse, this is the term the field settled on years ago to mean showing that a quantum computer can sample from the Porter-Thomas distribution more quickly than a classical computer, “beyond reasonable doubt.” (What I mean by the last bit is that it must be an empirical demonstration that matches the very well established…
Read the full comment
theory.) It’s maybe worth repeating: “Quantum supremacy” isn’t some gimmick made up by the authors of this paper. It was used as early as 2012 [0] by John Preskill, a well known scientist in the field. It has well-defined meaning in the research community: a specific experimental verification of a mathematical result which shows plausible rejection of the extended Church-Turing thesis. This result may not seem like much to the average reader, but—provided it passes the muster of peer review—it’s a huge step of progress in the development of quantum computers. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813
Original comment On the Leaked Google/NASA Quantum Supremacy Paper
Strilanc
Neutral mention · rule
Referring to the point where quantum computers are better at one esoteric thing that's not even useful as a "singularity" is laughably atrociously ridiculous. The actual relevant technical term is "quantum supremacy" [1], which is already misleading (implies complete dominance but actually refers to not being completely dominated). There's no need to make it worse! Also, the theorists didn't "pinpoint" anything. They showed that quantum supremacy via boson sampling was harder than previously thought. They improved the classical simulation algorithm, raising the bar quantum computers will have to jump over. I guess popsci has standards for terribleness that just weren't being met? They couldn't pick a merely semi-terrible title, like "Scientists raise the quantum supremacy bar"? 1: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813
Original comment Scientists pinpoint the singularity for quantum computers

Keep following the thread.

More in Physics

More from the same topics.