
D-Wave system used to detect particle signature of the Higgs boson - zeristor
https://www.nature.com/news/quantum-machine-goes-in-search-of-the-higgs-boson-1.22860
======
mixedmath
I'm happy that the title doesn't call the D-Wave a quantum computer (as is
frequently done), as it's not a quantum computer in the sense that people mean
when they say quantum computer. Unfortunately D-Wave is referred to as a
quantum computer within the article several times. D-Wave have called
themselves a quantum computer for such a long time (prompting many others to
call them out, e.g. Scott Aaronson [1], VentureBeat [2], Physics World [3],
Ars Technica [4], Wired [5], and on and on) that I am now extremely skeptical
of any result that features D-Wave.

The last time I checked (which was a few years ago), it was much faster to
simulate magnetic annealing on classical machines than to use the D-Wave ---
and this is precisely what D-Wave is designed to do. I wonder whether this has
changed? It is hard to quickly check this now amidst the large amount of
articles decrying D-Wave for calling themselves a quantum computer.

Towards the end of this article it is noted that several "classical" machine
algorithms were also used and these produced essentially the same results.

I think the question of whether one could somehow perform better or faster
machine learning, or to write a 'quantum evolutionary algorithm' that perhaps
converges to something better faster, is an interesting question. I haven't
thought about this before.

[1]:
[https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400)
[2]: [https://venturebeat.com/2013/12/27/d-wave-a-multimillion-
dol...](https://venturebeat.com/2013/12/27/d-wave-a-multimillion-dollar-sham-
or-quantum-breakthrough-interview/) [3]:
[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jun/20/is-d-
wa...](http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jun/20/is-d-wave-quantum-
computer-actually-a-quantum-computer) [4]:
[https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/is-d-waves-
quantum-p...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/is-d-waves-quantum-
processor-really-10%E2%81%B8-times-faster-than-a-normal-computer/) [5]:
[https://www.wired.com/2014/05/quantum-
computing/](https://www.wired.com/2014/05/quantum-computing/) [6]:
[https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature...](https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24047.html)

~~~
codekilla
It's true that there is a distinction between a quantum computer build using a
universal set of gates(what you probably mean), and one that uses the
adiabatic model to carry out computations. The former, is difficult to
construct due to decoherence, while the latter carries out computations in the
ground state, neatly sidestepping the issue. Saying the D-wave computer is not
a quantum computer simply because it does not use a universal set of gates is
patently false, it uses a different, more restricted model true, but one that
still exploits the resources of the quantum realm to carry out computations.
It's also true that theoretically, the adiabatic model is less developed, and
thus supremacy arguments are more difficult to make, but as long as quantum
effects(i.e. superposition, entanglement, etc) are used to carry out
computations, it is a quantum computer.

> The last time I checked (which was a few years ago)

A lot has changed.

~~~
kamilner
The D-Wave machine is not a full adiabatic quantum computer, though (which
would be polynomially equivalent to a universal quantum computer). It does
quantum annealing over a pretty restricted set of Hamiltonians.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say it is not a quantum computer, in the
same way that not everything performing computation is called a computer.
Otherwise---taken to the absurd---why not call a chemist's beaker a quantum
computer?

~~~
mabbo
It's a computing machine taking advantage of certain quantum effects to do
computing. Theoretically, it may be able to do certain tasks faster than a
traditional computer

I'm not saying you're wrong- it's often mislabeled as a quantum computer- but
it isn't fair to say it's no better than a chemist's beaker.

~~~
Dylan16807
Normal transistors are using quantum effects too.

The whole point of a "quantum computer" is getting those nonlinear speedups.
If the entanglement doesn't speed anything up then it's pretty close to the
beaker in terms of relevance.

~~~
deepnotderp
> Normal transistors are using quantum effects too.

Well, I mean, I think it's more like "we're well aware of quantum effects and
they're parasitic". I've yet to see a production TFET or something like that
which actually uses a quantum phenomenon as the operating principle of the
switch.

~~~
johntb86
Isn't the band gap a fundamentally quantum phenomenon?

~~~
raverbashing
I'd say yes

In the same way you're being supported by electromagnetic forces when you're
standing or sitting on something

~~~
posterboy
but you don't need to understand much to just physically exist. Whereas
electrodynamics and certainly also quantum effects in semiconducting cristals
informed the development of transistors in the last what, 50-60 years.

