NASA Backs Quantum Computing Claim

narramissic writes "Canadian startup D-Wave's demonstration via Web link of a prototype quantum computer in mid-February was met with skepticism in the academic community, but NASA has confirmed that it did, in fact, build a special chip used in the disputed demonstration. According to an article on ITworld, D-Wave designed the quantum chip and then contracted with NASA to build it."

Does that NASA built a chip mean anything?

[stratjakt]

Does it mean the chip works, and it actually performs quantum calculations? I see nothing in the TFA where NASA confirms or denys the actual function of the chip, just that they made it based on D-Wave's design.

I still don't see any proof that anyone computed anything quantumly. How hard is this to prove, anyways, to all the quantum physicists in the house?

Re:contracted NASA??

[bugnuts]

Several government agencies, especially national labs, do lots of civilian work. Often the labs do the basic research, and companies turn it into products at affordable prices.

If you read TFA, it stated that only certain agencies had the equipment to make and run the chips in the first place.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything?

[sco08y]

How hard is this to prove, anyways, to all the quantum physicists in the house?

IANAQP, but I think it's pretty hard to prove given that you can simulate a quantum computer with a classical computer. (Source. [caltech.edu])

But, if you have lots of qbits then you can simply argue that it's running too fast to be a simulation:

"Take for example a system of only a few hundred qubits, this exists in a Hilbert space of dimension ~1090 that in simulation would require a classical computer to work with exponentially large matrices (to perform calculations on each individual state, which is also represented as a matrix), meaning it would take an exponentially longer time than even a primitive quantum computer." (ibid)

So I'm thinking that when they get to their 64 or 128 qbit device that we know for certain that it's genuine.

I wonder how long it'll be before Intel and Motorola are selling quantum computers and arguing about the qbit myth?

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything?

[tftp]

If they can routinely discover RSA secret keys then you probably don't need a quantum computer to verify that. An Intel 386 box would be enough.

Re:Privateered NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, your comments clearly indicate you have a serious ax to grind, but more importantly, you don't understand how government science works.

For the record: I work at JPL.

First, JPL (or really Caltech) owns any intellectual property (IP) that they develop on this project. That doesn't mean they have rights on the D-Wave IP, but it does mean that Canadian dollars have enriched Caltech's IP.

Second, no one is leveraging your tax dollars. Superconducting electronics in this country is pretty close to dead. Without D-Wave it's likely the superconducting group at JPL would be smaller than it is. So Canadian dollars are actually keeping a lab and capability together that otherwise would disappear.

If you bothered to learn the facts, you will find out that (a) there are no other companies (in the US or otherwise) trying to build a commercial quantum computer and (b) there have been several major US Venture Capital firms investing in D-wave. (This is information easily gleaned from D-wave's website.)

Bottom line: you are getting a lot for paying nothing. Frankly, given your naive world views, you should be happy that a civilization exists to support you as you would probably not survive too long in the wild on your own.

Unless, of course, you wish your taxes go up and so you can keep funding superconducting efforts in this country.

PS Given your issues on funding, you should be making Griffin your personal hero: he brought a lot of fiscal responsibility back to NASA which is why he was put there in the first place.