China claims to have a more powerful 1M X quantum computer than Google
Researchers from China University of Science and Technology recently published a paper revealing that they have created a quantum computer that is a million times faster than Google's Sycamore device.
According to a report from the Global Times, the Chinese system is “10 million times faster than the current fastest supercomputer and its computational complexity is more than a million times higher than Google's Sycamore processor. ”
File under:Great, if true.
Let's be at the forefront here, I'm not quantum physics. So take the salt grains I am going to feed you with a bigger grain of salt.
The claims coming out of China are credible and the research paper seems entirely valid. But I still don't believe it.
What we know: the researchers built a 66-qubit quantum computer. Using two different technological patterns, photonic and superconducting, they were able to run specific algorithms at a scale that would seem too complex for a classical computer to perform.
For comparison, Google's Sycamore system is a 53 - qubit system and, according to a Chinese research team, can only use the superconducting paradigm.
Background: uh, when did we start calling this material "quantum primacy?" I have been covering quantum computing for years now and this is a new one for me.
Don't get me wrong, I have seen a strange scholarly article recommending the term over the "quantum supremacy." But I thought we had all decided that "quantum gain" is the right term because most experts agree that quantum computers will never replace the classic ones. , but extending them in their place.
In any case, quantum "priority" is essentially the ability of a quantum system to perform an action that a classic could not or would not have such an unusual time such as 30 trillion years to complete.
And, famously, Google and NASA have "gone out" (big air reports on that one) that the Search giant's "Bristlecone" system has achieved great size sovereignty over classic computers back in 2022.
But IBM, the owner of the classic supercomputer that Google and NASA said had their systems in issue, denied these claims in a blog post:
The paper argues that their device reached "quantum supremacy" and "a modern supercomputer would need about 10,000 years to perform the same function."
We argue that a separate simulation of the same action can be performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with greater fidelity. Of course this is a maintenance estimate, in the worst case scenario, and we expect with further improvements that the classic cost of simulation can be further reduced.
To this day there are plenty of tech "experts" who can only tell the Google / NASA side of that program.
And that brings us to October 25, 2022, with the news out of China.
What's the business? Is it true? Quantum physicist Barry Sanders, director of the Institute for Quantum Science and Technology at the University of Calgary, seems to be over the moon on this news.
Writing for APS Physics, they said:
Both key outcomes with the group… The results will take us further towards reliable claims that we have indeed reached the age of numerical quantum primacy.
Sanders goes on to acknowledge the debate over quantum gain, even mentioning IBM and Google beef. But they seem to be pretty sure that this is the real deal and, obviously, they based their views on the idea that two patterns are better than one.
But are they real? The types of algorithms being run are not particularly useful in the everyday world outside of a search lab. They are in fact very big mathematical problems that can be made more difficult.
According to a paper by Chinese researchers, their systems achieved a priority based on their estimates that they could run algorithms in minutes that would take 10,000 years for the world's fastest supercomputers.
That's the same thing Google said about IBM's supercomputer.
Quick take: "Quantum priority" is a strong term without any merit. We have not reached a point where the world has declared a dead end to classical computing and we have not realized our common ability to tweak, tweak, and optimize algorithms.
This means that anyone who claims to be able to run an algorithm that would take 10,000 years of a classic system to run in seconds usually gets stuck in what I like to do. naming "hyperbole by forget."
Yes, the computer may be able to run a quantum algorithm that could bring a classic 10,000 year system to run. But the chances are pretty good that one of the many supercomputer organizations is going to hit back within the next week or two with an idea for optimization just like IBM did.
And one thinks that Google has every incentive to dispel the notion that China ended its alleged feats. Let's wait and see what happens?
It is worth noting that, in terms of quantum priming, this is a remarkable research. This paper certainly represents a major advancement in quantum computing. And, once the dust has settled, it will be interesting to see where the team goes.