undefined | Better HN

0 pointskrastanov6y ago0 comments

We definitely are getting closer. Look at any graph of "qubit lifetime" and you will see how we have orders of magnitude improvements. (a quick google search gives me page 9 of https://hpcuserforum.com/presentations/tuscon2018/QCOverview...). We still need a couple more orders of magnitude before the qubits are useful, but the signs of exponential progress are unmistakable.

I would not take any experiment performing Shor's algorithm today or in the past particularly seriously, since they would probably be showing something fine tuned for the particular instance of the problem (e.g. 21). We do not have anything that can be called an "error-corrected logical qubit", and we need this before we can make serious claims about running algorithms like Shor's.

0 comments

mlyle6y ago

So if we extrapolate out the current curve 2 more orders of magnitude, it looks good. Therefore we can conclude it's looking possible? ;)

beambot6y ago

For historical precedence, see "Moore's Law"

Talking to experts in the field, we're doubling the number of functional qbits (ie accounting for error correcting requirements) about every 12 months right now. Looks like current number is 16-qbits, where many algos get "really interesting" around 1000 qbits (and functional even before that). So 5-6 years until a potential total transformation in computing paradigms. Quantum is in a similar place as deep learning in 2012.

mlyle6y ago

Exponents don't continue forever in the real world.

It's anyone's guess to how far we go, but generally extrapolating a curve far off the current reading is a case of innumeracy.

2 more replies

krastanovOP6y ago

Yes, two or more orders of magnitude of improvement are very much expected by most researchers in this field, simply because the current state of the hardware is infantile compared to what we know is possible (it just takes a lot of work to put all the different improvements in a single experiment).

mlyle6y ago

That's a completely different argument. "Researchers think we'll get two more orders of magnitude in a reasonable time" is quite different from saying "if we extrapolate this curve, we'll get there in 5 years". After all, exponents describe growth until they don't-- eventually we reach physical or economic limits (Moore's law has tapered off; bacteria in a dish of agar show exponential growth until they don't anymore, etc.)

I highly doubt we'll get there in 5 years, myself.

Avamander6y ago

We can conclude that if we're optimists.

solveit6y ago

We conclude it's looking possible because fundamental physics says it should be possible.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskrastanov6y ago0 comments

0 comments

mlyle6y ago

So if we extrapolate out the current curve 2 more orders of magnitude, it looks good. Therefore we can conclude it's looking possible? ;)

beambot6y ago

For historical precedence, see "Moore's Law"

mlyle6y ago

Exponents don't continue forever in the real world.

It's anyone's guess to how far we go, but generally extrapolating a curve far off the current reading is a case of innumeracy.

2 more replies

krastanovOP6y ago

mlyle6y ago

I highly doubt we'll get there in 5 years, myself.

Avamander6y ago

We can conclude that if we're optimists.

solveit6y ago

We conclude it's looking possible because fundamental physics says it should be possible.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse