Quantum Computing's Also-Rans and Their Fatal Flaws
upstart writes for SoyCow1337:
Quantum computing's also-rans and their fatal flaws
Last month, Google claimed to have achieved quantum supremacy-the overblown name given to the step of proving quantum computers can deliver something that a classical computer can't. That claim is still a bit controversial, so it may yet turn out that we need a better demonstration.
Independent of the claim, it's notable that both Google and its critics at IBM have chosen the same type of hardware as the basis of their quantum computing efforts. So has a smaller competitor called Rigetti. All of which indicates that the quantum-computing landscape has sort of stabilized over the last decade. We are now in the position where we can pick some likely winners and some definite losers.
But why did the winners win and the losers lose?
In the end, the story comes down to engineering. A practical quantum computer requires that we can create many quantum bits (qubits). Those qubits have to stay in a quantum state for multiple gate operations. Gate operations require that we are able to manipulate qubits on both an individual basis and in groups (or at least pairs). And, of course, you have to be able to read out the result of a computation.
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.