IBM has unveiled the first quantum computer with more than 1,000 qubits — the equivalent of the digital bits in an ordinary computer. But the company says it will now shift gears and focus on making its machines more error-resistant rather than larger.Okay, one logical qubit, as soon as IBM gets that error correction figured out. And something useful by the year 2029.For years, IBM has been following a quantum-computing road map that roughly doubled the number of qubits every year. The chip unveiled on 4 December, called Condor, has 1,121 superconducting qubits arranged in a honeycomb pattern. ...
Researchers have generally said that state-of-the-art error-correction techniques will require more than 1,000 physical qubits for each logical qubit. A machine that can do useful computations would then need to have millions of physical qubits. ...
A new IBM road map on the its quantum research unveiled today sees it reaching useful computations — such as simulating the workings of catalyst molecules — by decade’s end.
Thursday, December 7, 2023
IBM may soon have one Logical Qubit
SciAm reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Explanation of Newtonian Time
Matt Farr posted a new paper on Time in Classical Physics : Wigner (1995, 334) describes how Newton’s “most important” achievement was the ...
-
Dr. Bee's latest video is on Schroedinger's Cat, and she concludes: What this means is that one of the following three assumptions ...
-
A commenter disputes my contention that Bell's Theorem depends on an assumption of local hidden variables. This may seem like an obsc...
-
I mentioned 'tHooft's new paper on superdeterminism , and now Woit links to an email debate between 'tHooft and philosopher of...
One logical qubit, so basically the progress in "quantum computing" has not advanced one iota since 1997 when I first read about "quantum computers" in High School, where I was "too dumb to understand what was going on" simply because I pointed out the obvious fallacy of such an endeavor. Someone made a lot of money though!
ReplyDelete