“D-Wave Systems has presented us with the perfect quantum conundrum. On Tuesday and Thursday, they presented their 16-qubit adiabatic quantum computer to the world. However, details were scarce, leaving us in the superposition of both believing and disbelieving their claims. In this article, we’ll give you a play-by-play from D-Wave’s Thursday demonstration in Vancover followed by an analysis of their claims with help from superconducting quantum interference devices expert Hans Hilgenkamp from the University of Twente in the Netherlands.”
They’re fishing for investment. Pure wizard of oz. If they’ve really built what they say they’ve built, why is it taking so long for them to prove their claims beyond all reasonable doubt?
Because if they publish scholarly papers for peer review, then anyone with $30M in venture capital can make a quantum computer.
Also, their design isn’t a true quantum computer, since each qubit is not interconnected with every other qubit (only with physically adjacent ones), and it’s unclear whether interconnected qubits on the D-Wave device exhibit quantum entanglement. Peer reviewers will probably discredit their design even if it provides compelling advantages over traditional digital computers or Ising lattices.
However, it is reasonably clear that each qubit exhibits superposition and that the device relies of superconductivity at near absolute zero. What is also clear is that the CTO and CEO of this company are NOT entirely on the same page with regard to the comments they make to the media.
Peer reviewers will probably discredit their design even if it provides compelling advantages over traditional digital computers or Ising lattices.
From the article:
“Each qubit is coupled directly to its immediate neighbors (North, South, East, and West) and those on the diagonal…”
Sounds like an Ising lattice to me.
It could very well be an Ising lattice. That would be a very bold attempt at a hoax, though, as they are not even the slightest bit obscure to any quantum physicist. It would be like hauling a bench grinder out to the pitcher’s mound and expecting to get away with doctoring the baseball.
That would be a very bold attempt at a hoax
I don’t think it’s a hoax exactly. I think that whatever it is the technical guys have built, the CEO is selling it in the absolute best possible light, with regards getting investment.
If everything he says is true, in a year’s time it should be able to do things that couldn’t be done with existing technology. In which case, he should be courting individual investors on an NDA basis, not making big, unsubstantial presentations. I’ve virtually no knowledge of quantum computing – it’s the CEO’s behavior that makes me suspicious (especially coupled with the CTO’s back-peddling).
When I saw this on /. I noticed none of the comments indicated that anyone had read DWave’s website on the Q technology they have pursued.
They describe 4 Q technologies, the first 3 are those that have usually been associated with Q computing, crypto and are of the almost impossible to build and hard to believe type. The 4th is quite plausible to me since its based on superconducting research that dates back to work done by IBM in Josephson Junctions decades ago which can be described by Quantum effects. It does require low K temps though but it is an effect that works on large scale devices that can be made with superconducting metals.
Do I believe what they are saying, not yet, will wait for the peer review.
As far as I read they demonstrated nothing that could not be achieved by a classical or an analog computer (like Shor’s algorithm). In the tests or announcements I see no academic professionalism, only buzz.
I even remember reading some comments on their site about attempting NP *complete* problems whose efficient solution would be the most amazing thing in the history of computer science and would mean creative computers. Yes all computational problems could be solved by a classical computer, the only question is how long it will take. I see nothing in these demonstrations that could indicate polynomial relationship. The company and its news announcements don’t even seem to be aware of such issues. It is clear to me all this will end in disappointment.