
Intel Delivers 17-Qubit Superconducting Chip - jonbaer
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-delivers-17-qubit-superconducting-chip-advanced-packaging-qutech/
======
devindotcom
I talked with Intel's director of quantum hardware about this.

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/10/intel-moves-towards-
produc...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/10/intel-moves-towards-production-
quantum-computing-with-new-17-qubit-chip/)

What they're really proud of is essentially bringing Intel's manufacturing
advantage to bear on an extremely new and different form of computing. Being
able to iterate with new materials and architectures every few months is
critical for testing, and it's there (as opposed to sheer numbers of qubits or
whatever) that Intel hopes to outstrip the competition.

I was also surprised to learn that the cryo systems that get things down to a
fraction of a kelvin are only the size of 50-gallon drums. I was picturing
something much larger for anything that low. Now I know!

~~~
ethbro
Would be fascinated to hear anything you (or anyone in a related field) has to
say on the challenges for cooling to such low temperatures.

Is it essentially just heat-removal + lots of layers of isolated, effective
insulation, or are there fundamental differences when you're going that low?

~~~
IgorPartola
I worked with NMR about 8 years ago in the uni. We used regular liquid helium
to get to about 4.2 degrees K. The next step is He 3 isotope which is an order
of magnitude more expensive but gets you an order of magnitude cooler (in
degrees K). That usually runs in a closed system (heated He is not vented into
the atmosphere) because of its cost.

The way cooking it was explained to me is that you try to slow down atoms with
lasers, but I don’t know any of the details.

~~~
beagle3
From memory: you fire a laser at a frequency that is only absorbed if
relatvistically shifted the way an electron that goes towards the laser would
observe. This, the laser delivers momentum only to atoms coming towards it,
and is invisible to those at rest or going away. Do from multiple directions
and you’ve reduced absolute momentum in every direction.

Claude Cohen danucci received a nobel and a wolf for this (and other things)

~~~
Zaak
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_cooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_cooling)

------
zitterbewegung
After reading the press release it seems to me its a Topological Quantum
Computer[0].

They mention surface codes which are related to toric codes and toric codes
are a part of topological quantum computation [1]. A explanation of toric
codes can be found at [3]

Their website says that they specialize in Topological Quantum Computers and
Quantum Error correction (which are a feature of Topological Quantum
Computers. Also the link to the researchers website mentions similar projects
. [2]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_quantum_computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_quantum_computer)

[1]
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4165v2.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4165v2.pdf)

[2] [https://qutech.nl/roadmaps/](https://qutech.nl/roadmaps/)
[http://dicarlolab.tudelft.nl](http://dicarlolab.tudelft.nl)

[3] [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29310/what-is-
co...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29310/what-is-code-in-
toric-code)

------
devy
Given the quantum computing chip space is getting increasing heated in
competitions[1], can someone with industry experience and knowledge to compare
Intel's chip with D-Wave's, Alphabet's and IBM's?

[1]: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/ibm-
makes...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/ibm-makes-
breakthrough-in-race-to-commercialize-quantum-computers)

~~~
glifchits
Hopefully someone can expand on these comments since I'm not an expert, but I
know a little.

D-Wave [1] is shipping quantum computers with thousands of qubits. The
difference seems to be that D-Wave qubits are not generalized qubits, but
rather they are simply designed to solve problems using quantum annealing [1].
Annealing is just one algorithm which efficiently (but probabilistically)
looks for the global minimum of a function, but it is prone to getting stuck
in local minima. Quantum annealing exploits quantum phenomena to do this
better and probably more efficiently [2].

On the other hand, we have "general" qubits: these can implement and carry out
any arbitrary quantum computing algorithm (for example, Grover's search
algorithm or Shor's factorization algorithm). It seems to me that researchers
at Alphabet, Rigetti, Intel, IBM, etc. are trying to build these general
qubits, since that's where we can finally unlock the full power of quantum
computing. It's also much harder to build these general qubits, and that's why
we only see 17 qubits announced here, or Google claiming to be working on 49
qubits [3].

[1]
[https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/D-Wave%202000Q%...](https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/D-Wave%202000Q%20Tech%20Collateral_0117F2.pdf)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing)

[3]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/google-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/google-
s-quantum-computing-push-opens-new-front-in-cloud-battle)

~~~
skykooler
Why the odd numbers? It seems like it would be simpler to run algorithms on
something with 16 or 48 qubits.

~~~
diamonddogs
The numbers come from quantum error correction and the goal to build a logical
qubit (error protected qubit made of many actual qubits). In the surface code
(planar version of a toric code), a single logical qubit protected with a code
distance d = 3 corresponds to 17 physical qubits, and a distance d = 5
corresponds to 49 physical qubits.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toric_code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toric_code)

[2]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-016-0004-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-016-0004-0)

~~~
amatus
The number of physical qubits is 2d^2-1 in case anyone was wondering.

------
gervase
It isn't clear to me from the press release whether these are similar to
D-Wave's quantum annealing qubits, or if these are another type (e.g. more
like a "true" qubit). Is there another source with more information?

~~~
gaze
These are transmon qubits... they're designed for long coherence times, in
other words, to store quantum information for long periods of time. D-Wave
qubits do not have long coherence times-- by D-Wave's own admission. They
argue that long coherence times are not necessary for quantum annealing. Many
don't buy this argument.

------
mozumder
After 20 years in VLSI, I have no clue about quantum computers, and haven't
found a good source explaining them. Anyone have any idea how they work?

Like, how does one produce logic gates out of them? How do you create an IEEE
754 Floating point multiplier? I get that they're supposed to represent
overlaid states on the same device due to Pauli exclusion, but how do you
separate out states and use them in logic? Or save states? What happens if
logic produces the same state for one device? Is standard metal used to send
signals, or is it something fancy-dancy like neutrinos?

It's honestly the most exotic thing I know of in tech, just trying to even
begin to get a handle on it, never-mind trying to perform useful work out of
them.

~~~
heavenlyblue
You are not supposed to reproduce classical systems on a quantum computer just
the same way you're not supposed to reproduce electric circuits on a classical
computer, even though it's made out of them.

For me myself one of the easiest concepts to understand was quantum annealing
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing)).
It does not mean that's the strongest point of quantum computers, but it's a
nice way to start.

~~~
alanbernstein
I get where you're coming from with that analogy, but there is probably a
better way to put it. Circuit simulation is a long-time application of
computers
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPICE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPICE)).

~~~
heavenlyblue
You're down the Turing machine rabbit hole - I implied you could do that. Just
the same way you could simulate a processor using an another processor - it's
just not as efficient.

By the way - you could as well simulate a quantum computer on a classical
computer; it'd just be incredibly slow.

------
mtgx
Another interesting piece of news this week is that it seems that even
56-qubits can now be simulated, so the 49-quabit quantum computer Google
planned to release this year likely won't achieve "quantum supremacy" anymore.
To be _really_ sure, we may have to wait for the 100-qubit one first, before
declaring quantum supremacy.

[https://phys.org/news/2017-10-quantum-computingbreaking-
qubi...](https://phys.org/news/2017-10-quantum-computingbreaking-qubit-
simulation-barrier.html)

------
gok
Ok well it's _definitely_ time to start planning a replacement for your 64 bit
RSA keys.

------
api
I'm really getting the sense that we're going to need to upgrade all our
asymmetric crypto soon -- as in 10-15 years time frame.

Best contenders I see so far are supersingular isogeny ECC and NTRU or other
lattice based algorithms.

------
6d6b73
Slightly unrelated question but does anyone knows how quantum computing will
change if Copenhagen interpretation is invalid and instead De Broglie–Bohm
theory proves to be correct?

~~~
deepnotderp
Not at all. Interpretations are interpretations, not changes to the
mathematical mechanisms.

~~~
6d6b73
I have to disagree. EM drive is theoretically impossible with Copenhagen
interpretation but with Pilot Wave not only it's possible but we can improve
its efficiency. It would make sense that similar situation is possible with
quantum computing.

~~~
smaddox
How does pilot wave theory make violating conservation of momentum possible?

~~~
6d6b73
[https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-
ide...](https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-
how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust)

~~~
kelvich
Quickly looked at what is written in other articles by these authors, and it's
total BS. Sadly that these 'research' made it way to sciencealert.com.

------
stephengillie
Article confused superconducting with superposition.

Edit: I was incorrect. Today I learned that Copper Pairs are being used as the
qubits.

~~~
TallGuyShort
In any practical chip design, isn't one required for the other? i.e. it _is_ a
superconducting chip, and that _is_ a major engineering problem and a key
difference between this and a semiconducting chip. Superposition just happens
to also be how a qubit works.

~~~
thethirdone
> In any practical chip design, isn't one required for the other?

No. Superposition (in a qubit sense) is not necessary for superconductivity.
Most quantum computer designs require superconductivity, but it is not a
strict requirement. Photon based quantum computers don't need any
superconductivity iirc.

> it is a superconducting chip, and that is a major engineering problem

Superconductivity is not a super high bar. The bigger issue from quantum
computing is coherence time; and it just happens that low temperatures are
critical for lengthening it.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Well the point is whether or not this is a superconducting chip. It is. Since
it is a superconducting chip, I'd like to know what OP meant when they said
they mixed it up, because I don't see where they said superconducting where it
isn't true and relatively relevant.

edit: also, I meant superconducting was (practically) required for
superposition, but not vice-versa. I guess I misused the phrase one-required-
for-the-other.

~~~
thethirdone
> Since it is a superconducting chip, I'd like to know what OP meant when they
> said they mixed it up, because I don't see where they said superconducting
> where it isn't true and relatively relevant.

I believe that everywhere superconducting was used it was correct and using
superposition instead would be wrong. So I agree with you there.

------
sp332
How much money have Intel, Microsoft, and Google sunk into quantum computing
so far?

~~~
ethbro
I think there are analogies to the article the other day on fear-driven
investments in automation industries. As well as post-WWI naval construction.

To wit, can they afford _not_ to sink money into it, if their competitors are,
even if success if less than certain?

The rewards that seem like they would be realized are generational enough so
as to render much of the existing market obsolete. So to be caught without any
expertise, on a risk-basis is more costly than seemingly dumping money down
the drain.

------
doitLP
What did I just read? "Any noise or unintended observation of them can cause
data loss." Unintended observation?

~~~
naasking
Measurement requires interaction with the system, and interaction with the
system breaks entanglement.

~~~
smaddox
Or, more precisely, alters entanglement in an unkown way. Since the alteration
is unkown, it interferes with execution and interpretation of the quantum
algorithm.

------
foota
It's weird to me that (afaik) we can't use a small number of qbits to make
attacks against large crypto easier.

~~~
Dylan16807
Let's say you have an utterly amazing chip, that can solve any n-bit problem
in a single second.

If n is 20, you're not really beating a 6502.

Being quantum lets a chip _scale_ its speed better. But that's about it. At
this size, it's worse in every single way than a normal processor.

------
Tomminn
Wow. A small step but this shit is starting to get real.

------
bitL
So, is it 1 (qu)bit faster than i8086? ;-)

Congrats Intel!

------
AlleyTrotter
So when can I have one for my desktop?

