Google Has Enlisted NASA To Help it Prove Quantum Supremacy Within Months (technologyreview.com) 87
Google wants NASA to help it prove quantum supremacy within a matter of months, MIT Technology Review reported Monday, citing the Space Act Agreement. From the report: Quantum supremacy is the idea, so far undemonstrated, that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer will be able to complete certain mathematical calculations that classical supercomputers cannot. Proving it would be a big deal because it could kick-start a market for devices that might one day crack previously unbreakable codes, boost AI, improve weather forecasts, or model molecular interactions and financial systems in exquisite detail. The agreement, signed in July, calls on NASA to "analyze results from quantum circuits run on Google quantum processors, and ... provide comparisons with classical simulation to both support Google in validating its hardware and establish a baseline for quantum supremacy." Google confirmed to MIT Technology Review that the agreement covered its latest 72-qubit quantum chip, called Bristlecone. Where classical computers store information in binary bits that definitely represent either 1 or 0, quantum computers use qubits that exist in an undefined state between 1 and 0. For some problems, using qubits should quickly provide solutions that could take classical computers much longer to compute.
Break the internet (Score:2)
So, if they get this computer that can break encryption, people will suddenly know that the encryption used on the Internet is completely broken, and suddenly not trust it. They are building the shovel that will dig their own grave.
Re: (Score:2)
This will not break anything in actual use.
Re: (Score:2)
My 30 year old pocket calculator can factor numbers up to 70 bit. Color me unimpressed even if this thing works...
Re: (Score:1)
So you're against quantum supremacists?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if this thing can quickly factor a very large number, then RSA is essentially broken (if you can get your hands on one).
The real problem is that ALL asymmetric crypto uses a "trapdoor" function. This means that going from input to output is easy. Going from output back to input is very hard. If quantum computers can efficiently work backwards on the trapdoor functions, then public-key crypto is dead.
The problem is that I have not heard of any sort of repla
Re: (Score:3)
The encryption breaking applications are wildly overstated. I've talked to scientists from both Rigetti, DWave who don't think Shor's algorithm will ever be practically useful. If it is, it's a long way away. An implementation to break 256-bit keys would require thousands of qubits. Google has 72, and it gets harder and harder to add more.
If you're worried about it, SSH will be happy to create a public keypair for you based on elliptic curves that is even more resistant to quantum computers than is RSA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think quantum computing will be incredibly useful for many things. It's a fundamentally new method of computing. Those things are going to be more interesting than reading people's mail. Quantum simulation for materials and drug design, solid state physics discovery, maybe new superconductors. Things like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's very strong theoretical evidence for quantum supremacy, and I believe it's been practically demonstrated for quantum simulation. Analog computing is also very useful in the same way. It's not used much for reading people's mail, but it is used extensively in some areas, particularly simulation.
Re: Break the internet (Score:3)
There are public-key encryption methods thought to be resistant to quantum computing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice-based_cryptography
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing - this machine will not factor very large numbers. We already know that a theoretical quantum computer can crack RSA quickly using Shor's algorithm but a practical quantum computer would require a lot more qubits, thousands of them, with each being close to a theoretical perfect qubit which means each logical qubit is comprised of several physical qubits for error correction.
So when we start having true quantum computers with over 10k qubits some people should change to something more secur
Re: (Score:3)
Much encryption is based on old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers. So obviously, plenty of people don't really care much about security.
For those that do care, there is post-quantum cryptography [wikipedia.org] based on algorithms believed to be resistant to quantum cryptanalysis.
Re: (Score:2)
There are only two commonly-used trapdoor functions: factoring very large prime number, or calculating elliptic curves. Obviously, the strength of the crypto depends on the key sizes. Factoring an 8-bit number can be done with pencil and paper. Factoring a 4,096 bit number takes quite a bit longer. It is wrong to say that that "old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers." If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies
Re: (Score:2)
If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies that even if you had 10,000 computers, it would still take a year.
Alternatively, if you had a 100,000 node bot network, it would take on the order of a month. In other words, it's good casual security, but terrible security if you're a dedicated target.
Re: (Score:3)
Quantum computing isn’t a magical silver bullet that solves any and all problems instantly through some kind of quantum voodoo. There are plenty of problems where you
Re: (Score:3)
"Next it also requires that no one implements a form of encryption that quantum computers are just as useless against as classical computers, and researchers are already working on those."
Yes and No? Yes, future communications and encrypted archives using quantum computing invulnerable codes may be safe in the presence of quantum computers that are more than toys.
But No, archived existing encrypted data and communications might well become readable. That could be ... ahem ... embarrassing for some folks.
O
Re: (Score:2)
The worry is that governments are collecting vast amounts of information and storing it. If they get a quantum computer one day and we all switch to quantum resistant crypto (a big ask, considering how long it's taken to deprecate broken stuff in the past, and given than updates for a lot of old systems will never come) they still have a lot of historical data to work with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not the real problem. The real problem is all the companies and governments that have slurped up every bit to ever cross the Internet. The data is there, forever, and can be broken whenever it's easy. Think of all the private secret corporate, government, and personal information that is sitting waiting to be cracked open. Bank accounts, etc... Yikes.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not the real problem. The real problem is all the companies and governments that have slurped up every bit to ever cross the Internet. The data is there, forever, and can be broken whenever it's easy. Think of all the private secret corporate, government, and personal information that is sitting waiting to be cracked open. Bank accounts, etc... Yikes.
A quantum computer offering code breaking level of capability would quickly become as transformative to the world as pocket sized fusion reactors or room temperature superconductors. It would provide the means for rapid transformation across an array of domains biology, chemistry, material science, design automation... the very least dangerous and least interesting thing QC could possibly be used for assuming the technology is hoarded and not generally available or known to exist is extraction of secrets f
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at 72 qubits, they're not going to be cracking much that isn't already cracked already using classical computers.
It's estimated for the likes of RSA and ECC to fall, you're going to need a machine with at least as many qubits as the key size, and right now, each added qubit
Re: (Score:3)
Every time something gets encrypted, there's a new key for the next one, like what your chip credit card does.
Don't talk to systems you don't trust and don't assume trust for the ones you talk to.
There are numerous methods of encrypting data that are considered quantum safe.
There are definitely concerns about something magical that can break cryptography, but most risks can easily or already are mitigated.
Re: (Score:2)
Not relevant. If you have somebody's public key, a large enough quantum computer can allow you to calculate the private key. This is bad. Yes, this machine won't be large enough, but they might get there in a few years.
How many of them are in common usage? Most everything uses AES for actual data, but the AES key exchange depends on RSA or ECC. The only method of making those quantum-
Re: (Score:2)
Explain how a quantum computer would be used to break into my Gmail account
Re: Break the internet (Score:1)
Factoring the public key of a CA to make a private key, make certificate for gmail.com with it, use for mitm.
How things change (Score:5, Insightful)
If you told me this 10 years ago, I'd only want Google to be the ones to do this.
Now, one of the companies I trust the least on the planet is doing it, not a good sign.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is there suddenly so much hatred for Google?
Nothing sudden about it. It's something that has been building over many years in response to specific articulable behavior.
I think they're still delivering great products for the price of not very intrusive ads.
Ads are irrelevant. People don't want others following them around and keeping track of everything they do. It's creepy and gross and all these fuckers think of they hide it so people don't see what's happening they can get away with it.
I use their search and browser all the time,
Chrome calls home and there is no way to stop it. Every website on the Internet has tracking bugs installed which enable Google to follow you aroun
Loss of trust in Google happened in stages (Score:1)
It didn't happen suddenly. It evolved gradually, starting with the first glimmers of doubt when they began to hide the Do No Evil sign, gaining momentum when the real purpose of Chrome, Android and Google services became clear, raising worldwide concern when Eric Schmidt repudiated privacy of users (while protecting his own), exploding when mass surveillance by social networking giants hit the headlines, and finally going stratospheric when privacy abuse tri
NASA? (Score:1)
Why NASA? What do they have to do with Quantum Mechanics?
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is desperate for relevancy....
Re: (Score:3)
Why NASA?
Because NASA is seen by many as an unbiased 3rd party, with the technical expertise to do the analysis.
If NASA says Google's Q-computer works, that is more credible than if Google says it works.
There is a scramble for talent in quantum computing, and if Google is seen as the leader, it makes it easier for them to recruit promising scientists who can extend their lead. Like many other tech fields, QC could be a winner-takes-most market.
Re: (Score:2)
NIST would be more appropriate, methinks.
Re: (Score:1)
Because NASA is seen by many as an unbiased 3rd party, with the technical expertise to do the analysis.
At least since NASA promoted scientifically unfounded claims on "EM-drives" I would rather trust actual scientists who favor evidence and accuracy over media hype.
Re: (Score:1)
They're exploring some claims that were made instead of assuming they know and understand everything - I'd call that real science. It only got press because it isn't accepted science, and if it works, because we don't have an understanding of the mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are unscientific. You take the dogma and rituals as true instead of examining possible flaws in our understanding of the universe, you dismiss even the slightest possibility of the holy laws not being perfect and dismiss everyone else as heretics.
And then there's the dismissal of a group because you dislike one of its members...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
NASA and Google already bought a D-Wave together five years ago. They're just continuing the partnership.
NASA has a lot of interest in solving constrained optimisation problems. They used to be one of the world leaders. If a quantum computer will help, then it's in their interest to find out.
Re: (Score:1)
D-Wave is not a universal quantum computer. But it is a quantum computer nonetheless.
No more supremacists! (Score:2)
First it was white supremacists, spouting bullshit about difference between races.
Now if that was not bad enough, you have these damned Quantum supremacists exclaiming that only quarks should be allowed to vote or exist in cafeterias or what have you!!
No more I say, shame on Google for dividing our nation at a time like this into a super-imposed half that agrees with Quantum theory, and another half that more or may not also agree with Quantum theory. but they can't really tell until they cut us all open wi
DO NOT WANT (Score:2)
It will also cure acne (Score:2)
Well, at least half of the time.
The other time, the acne becomes a cat.
Black Holes and Revelation (Score:2)
"Quantum Supremacy" sounds like the name of a song off a Muse album.
Re: (Score:3)
"Quantum Supremacy" sounds like the name of a song off a Muse album.
Or a film, where James Bond fights Jason Bourne.
Re: (Score:2)
That works too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good name.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not bad. Pretty good, in fact. I just saw "Bohemian Rhapsody", the Freddie Mercury biopic, and was lamenting the fact that so precious few new groups are trying to step up to the Queen mantle. I give Muse a lot of credit for trying and this band you just turned me on to is also making a play for that territory.
There's something about that symphonic heavy rock filled with hysterical operatic vocals that gets my blood going. It's not my favorite type of
EMDrive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation-Re:How quantum computers... (Score:3)
------------
Most people, including 99% of those here (Including me), haven't a clue how current 'quantum' computers work.
I've read some stuff about it and its obviously (reference previous parenthetical statement) a hoax.
<lots of words>
I dont like Google and Americans are stupid.
-Anon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Googlers are adherents to the quantum brain hypothesis?
Most likely they like including an extra buzzword whenever possible.
Wake me when they get to 2048 qubits (Score:2)
The original Xbox and I have some unfinished business from 17 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Because D-Wave isn't a universal quantum computer. It only solves annealing problems, and not even all of those.
You can't, for example, run Shor's algorithm on it.