'Rosetta Stone' of Code Shrinks Quantum Computer Hardware Needs

alternative_right shares a report from Phys.org: Now, for the first time, quantum scientists at the Quantum Control Laboratory at the University of Sydney Nano Institute have demonstrated a type of quantum logic gate that drastically reduces the number of physical qubits needed for its operation. To do this, they built an entangling logic gate on a single atom using an error-correcting code nicknamed the "Rosetta stone" of quantum computing. It earns that name because it translates smooth, continuous quantum oscillations into clean, digital-like discrete states, making errors easier to spot and fix, and importantly, allowing a highly compact way to encode logical qubits.

The curiously named Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code has for many years offered a theoretical possibility for significantly reducing the physical number of qubits needed to produce a functioning "logical qubit." Albeit by trading efficiency for complexity, making the codes very difficult to control. Research published in Nature Physics demonstrates this as a physical reality, tapping into the natural oscillations of a trapped ion (a charged atom of ytterbium) to store GKP codes and, for the first time, realizing quantum entangling gates between them.

Led by Sydney Horizon Fellow Dr. Tingrei Tan at the University of Sydney Nano Institute, scientists have used their exquisite control over the harmonic motion of a trapped ion to bridge the coding complexity of GKP qubits, allowing a demonstration of their entanglement. "Our experiments have shown the first realization of a universal logical gate set for GKP qubits," Dr. Tan said. "We did this by precisely controlling the natural vibrations, or harmonic oscillations, of a trapped ion in such a way that we can manipulate individual GKP qubits or entangle them as a pair." [...] Across three experiments described in the paper, Dr. Tan's team used a single ytterbium ion contained in what is known as a Paul trap. This uses a complex array of lasers at room temperature to hold the single atom in the trap, allowing its natural vibrations to be controlled and utilized to produce the complex GKP codes. This research represents an important demonstration that quantum logic gates can be developed with a reduced physical number of qubits, increasing their efficiency.

Sure....

[PubJeezy]

and my business is "highly profitable".

Still missing

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

1. The capability of "quantum computing" to do general computing
2. A compelling use case for that waste of money

But I'm hopeful that with some vibe coding and effective LLM power application to the problem we'll soon realize that "AGI" is unreachable without "quantum computing", so zuck will dumb another shitload of money on it, enabling us to copy our consciousness directly onto his space-time social network server.

Re:

[gtall]

And are these homosexuals in the room with you now?

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

"Quantum computing" is basically mapping a specific class of problems onto a suitable physics experiment. Which is exactly the opposite of general problem solving.

Re:

[narcc]

...just described the same rants applied to transistors...

Bullshit.

Re:

[narcc]

Ever see the first transistor?

Yes. Have you?

It's about the size of a gallon of milk.

Not even close [lindahall.org]

It really didn't do much.

It's a transistor.

If you had been around at that time, you would have derided it as useless.

The utility of the first transistor was apparent immediately and was heralded in the press as a major breakthrough. If anyone thought it was useless, it was only because they didn't know what it was or what it could do.

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

Not to mention that the theory of the junction transistor operation was developed in lockstep with the general theory of quantum mechanics 22 years earlier, in 1925, the field effect transistor a decade later, and its utility was well understood. In fact, that theory prompted the work to construct the actual device, which required technological development.

Re:

[HiThere]

Yeah, but calling this a single ion qubit, when it needs a bunch of lasers to hold it in place, id EXTREMELY misleading. It may well be developed into something more efficient then the current quantum computers, but it's not shrinking to even nearly the size of an atom.

Re:

[ISoldat53]

3. Break a crypto blockchain.

Re:

[gweihir]

1. The capability of "quantum computing" to do general computing

We will never get that, because QCs are not suitable for that at all.

2. A compelling use case for that waste of money

Well, they can currently factor 35 (or less). So if we keep throwing money at the problem, maybe they will be able to factor current RSA keys in a few centuries.

Re:

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

maybe they will be able to factor current RSA keys in a few centuries.

At which point a general algorithm may already have done that a century earlier.

Re:

[gweihir]

Exactly.

Re:

[HiThere]

There are many use cases where a quantum computer would be valuable. Simulating chemical interactions sounds like one of them. Actually, and IIUC, relaxation based quantum computers are already of some use. Ones that had a more general computational capacity would be more useful were they even nearly as efficient. Factoring numbers is not one of the desirable (to me) use cases, though, it's just one of the easy ones to test.

Re:

[gweihir]

There is actually a single use case where QCs would be useful: Breaking cryptography. The only other use is as a Physics experiment. You have listened to too many marketing claims. And QCs will _never_ have "general computational capacity". Any claims to that effect only shows the one making the claims does not know how a QC works.

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

I, for one, have a lot of two-digit numbers to factor, so I'm waiting impatiently for quantum supremacy.

Quantum computing

[backslashdot]

How many major breakthroughs are needed before we actually get a truly useful one?

Re:

[gweihir]

According to a recent paper by Gutman, the actual current factorization record with QCs is 35. i.e. 5 bit. And that is after something like 50 years of research. Hence I think it will still take a few centuries. If it is possible at all, that is.

Re:

[JoshuaZ]

According to a recent paper by Gutman, the actual current factorization record with QCs is 35. i.e. 5 bit. And that is after something like 50 years of research. Hence I think it will still take a few centuries. If it is possible at all, that is.

The current factorization record for Shor's algorithm is 35. Quantum annealing systems have factored numbers much larger numbers. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12372 [arxiv.org] But 35 is also not that bad at all. Shor's algorithm factors odd, non-perfect powers. It was first used to factor 15 in 2001, and the next number after that is 21 in 2012 https://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2012.259 [nature.com] . I'm actually not sure where you are getting 35 from, and would be curious for a citation about that. But this also ign

Re:

[gweihir]

Quantum annealers are useless for factorization outside of meaningless stunts.

Re:

[JoshuaZ]

It is true that some examples with quantum annealing systems have been stunts in the sense that they used knowledge of the factorization to choose an annealing system which would make the factorization easier to perform. But that's not true about such annealing in general. Is there a reason you consider all use of quantum annealing to factor to be just stunts?

Re:

[gweihir]

Quantum annealers cannot scale to useful sizes for this application. Hence "stunts". Actual QCs may or may not scale, but quantum annealers will never even catch up to conventional computers for this application.

Re:

[JoshuaZ]

Why do you think that quantum annealers will never scale up to do this?

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Because quantum annealers haven't shown anything to the effect? I mean they can impressive demonstrations, but a classical computer can do the same demonstration faster and likely more efficiently.

We can see the future with quantum computing that there will be certain operations that a QC can do that will beat a classical computer. The only question that remains in quantum computing is can we get there and how long it will take.

We can't say the same with quantum annealing - we can't even prove there is some

Re:

[gweihir]

Because I understand the technology. You should look at it yourself sometime.

Re:

[JoshuaZ]

Do you want to explain what you understand about the technology that you think is relevant or direct to sources that you think explain the relevant parts that explain why you are confident this is the case or do you want to just take a trust-me-bro approach?

Re: Quantum computing

[sectokia]

The analogy falls flat because in those cases they actually had individual transistors and tubes. In this case, like everything quantum, they donâ(TM)t have individual ions, instead itâ(TM)s a huge cloud of them that they then do math on to claim that most of the group of ions all had some entanglement.

Re:

[JoshuaZ]

This is not accurate. This is somewhat a caricature of how trapped ion systems work, and is not accurate at all for how systems using Josephson junctions function which have obviously distinct qubits.

Re:

[JoshuaZ]

Unlcear, but this shouldn't be dismissed as hype or dismiss quantum computing. Obviously some pretty standard research is being hailed major breakthroughs when it shouldn't. But a big issue is that a lot of discoveries here are for fundamentally different hardware architectures. So you sometimes read about something somoene figured out how to do with say auperconducting (using Josephson junctions), and another time something someone did with a trapped ion system, or another with optical tweezers, and you c

Don't understand the haters in the comments

[PoopMelon]

It's an awesome research field with good progress, this paper being another great milestone. Sometimes it seems to me that the only comments in here are edgelorda grumping about a random negative things about the stories only

Yes, sure

[gweihir]

Now down from "ludicrous" to "impossible". Or not even that.

Fucking. Stupid. Shit.

[drinkypoo]

To do this, they built an entangling logic gate on a single atom using an error-correcting code nicknamed the "Rosetta stone" of quantum computing. It earns that name because it translates smooth, continuous quantum oscillations into clean, digital-like discrete states

The Rosetta Stone didn't translate anything. It provided information which humans used to decipher languages so that things could be translated. What a fucking stupid justification for a bullshit name used for marketing purposes because it's recognizable. This is a great example of Murphy's Law, though. If a person can fuck something up, they will, and in this case they fucked up speaking English.

Re:

[BranMan]

What do you mean it didn't translate anything? The Rosetta Stone was a tablet with the identical passage carved into multiple languages. A direct translation of the same set of 'words'. Sure as heck fits my definition of a translation.

So tech that translates quantum oscillations (which digital computers can't do anything with) to "clean digital-like discrete states" (which digital computers are all over) sounds like a pretty close analogy to me.

That is good stuff

[RUs1729]

Another incremental step forward that moves us one more centimeter along in the long path ahead. Not the breakthrough that will make the manufacture of practical quantum computers a thing, as the popular press will no doubt breathlessly trumpet about,

still a problem of scale

[sdinfoserv]

A single logic gate... ok, a CPU today has millions to billions of logic gates. If each requires multiple lasers, this seems to be both a power and a scaling challenge.