What makes quantum computing so hard to explain?

C C Offline

INTRO: Quantum computers, you might have heard, are magical uber-machines that will soon cure cancer and global warming by trying all possible answers in different parallel universes. For 15 years, on my blog and elsewhere, I’ve railed against this cartoonish vision, trying to explain what I see as the subtler but ironically even more fascinating truth. I approach this as a public service and almost my moral duty as a quantum computing researcher. Alas, the work feels Sisyphean: The cringeworthy hype about quantum computers has only increased over the years, as corporations and governments have invested billions, and as the technology has progressed to programmable 50-qubit devices that (on certain contrived benchmarks) really can give the world’s biggest supercomputers a run for their money. And just as in cryptocurrency, machine learning and other trendy fields, with money have come hucksters.

In reflective moments, though, I get it. The reality is that even if you removed all the bad incentives and the greed, quantum computing would still be hard to explain briefly and honestly without math. As the quantum computing pioneer Richard Feynman once said about the quantum electrodynamics work that won him the Nobel Prize, if it were possible to describe it in a few sentences, it wouldn’t have been worth a Nobel Prize.

Not that that’s stopped people from trying. Ever since Peter Shor discovered in 1994 that a quantum computer could break most of the encryption that protects transactions on the internet, excitement about the technology has been driven by more than just intellectual curiosity. Indeed, developments in the field typically get covered as business or technology stories rather than as science ones.

That would be fine if a business or technology reporter could truthfully tell readers, “Look, there’s all this deep quantum stuff under the hood, but all you need to understand is the bottom line: Physicists are on the verge of building faster computers that will revolutionize everything.”

The trouble is that quantum computers will not revolutionize everything.

Yes, they might someday solve a few specific problems in minutes that (we think) would take longer than the age of the universe on classical computers. But there are many other important problems for which most experts think quantum computers will help only modestly, if at all. Also, while Google and others recently made credible claims that they had achieved contrived quantum speedups, this was only for specific, esoteric benchmarks (ones that I helped develop). A quantum computer that’s big and reliable enough to outperform classical computers at practical applications like breaking cryptographic codes and simulating chemistry is likely still a long way off.

But how could a programmable computer be faster for only some problems? Do we know which ones? And what does a “big and reliable” quantum computer even mean in this context? To answer these questions we have to get into the deep stuff.

Let’s start with quantum mechanics... (MORE)

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Waiting for quantum computing? Try probabilistic computing C C 0 49 Apr 1, 2021 08:46 PM
Last Post: C C
  Army researchers see path to quantum computing at room temperature C C 0 347 May 4, 2020 05:22 AM
Last Post: C C
  Maxwell's demon spurs future of quantum computing + Don't adopt AI, get left behind C C 0 389 Sep 12, 2018 03:35 AM
Last Post: C C
  Could quantum computing make perfect human behavior prediction possible? C C 1 446 Jun 30, 2018 11:33 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Beyond classical computing without fault-tolerance? C C 0 328 Apr 28, 2017 02:58 AM
Last Post: C C
  Widespread multi-touch surface computing by 2020 Magical Realist 2 835 May 19, 2016 10:21 PM
Last Post: stryder
  Trudeau vs experts: Quantum computing in 35 seconds + Information & quantum systems C C 0 636 Apr 20, 2016 06:35 AM
Last Post: C C
  Quantum Computing: From fantasy to realization C C 0 622 Oct 20, 2015 08:18 PM
Last Post: C C

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)