For a measured perspective on the actual advancement of quantum computing as a field, IEEE spectrum talked with John Martinis, professor of physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara and former chief architect of Google’s Sycamore. According to a report: IEEE spectrum: So it’s been about two years since you unveiled the results of Sycamore. Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen announcements of a 127-qubit chip from IBM and a 256-qubit neutral atom quantum computer from QuEra. In your opinion, what progress has really been made?
Jean Martinis: Well, clearly everyone is working hard to build a quantum computer. And it’s great that there are all these systems that people are working on. There is real progress. But if you go back to one of the points of the quantum supremacy experience – and something I’ve been talking about for a few years now – one of the key requirements is the gate error. I think the gate errors are much larger than the number of qubits right now. It’s good to show that you can do a lot of qubits, but if you don’t do them well enough, the lead is less clear. In the long run, if you want to perform a complex quantum computation, for example with error correction, you need gate errors well below 1%. So it’s good for people to build bigger systems, but it would be even more important to see data on how qubits work. In this regard, I am impressed with the group in China that replicated the results of quantum supremacy, where they show that they can run their system well with low errors.
How far has quantum computing really progressed?
Source link How far has quantum computing really progressed?